ComicBlogs

So I was encouraged to post a blog on this topic. After initially declining, I’ve reconsidered. For those of you who actually take the plunge (and the 4 hours needed) and read my thoughts below, realize that’s exactly what this is: My Thoughts. That’s what a blog is supposed to be. My opinions, my stances, my take on things. No one is in any way being singled out and/or challenged here. It’s just me talking about something that is pretty dear to my heart – Equality in the Greatest Nation of the World. So here we go. When you feel yourself getting upset or offended, please tell yourself this was not directed at you before you respond. Thanks.

With the passage of marriage equality in New York, and witnessing how happy thousands upon thousands of people were during the gay pride festivities yesterday, I stopped and asked myself - "Why are people so threatened by homosexuality?"

It's a fascinating concept for me. What do people think is the world-ending conspiracy that homosexuals are a part of? What really is the devious "Homosexual Agenda?" I don't think it's a physical security concern that fuels the fear. I mean, as a prominent member of the law-enforcement community, I can tell you for a fact that "Homosexual" is not a grouping under current profiling concerns. When someone comes out as gay, the first thought isn't "Lock up your valuables" or "Don't let him on that plane!" as is the case with the stereotypical african american young male with his pants down to his thighs and askew baseball cap or the dark skinned arab in a robe and turban, as unfair as both of those unfounded assessments are. The popular thought of homosexuality is not crime-based. So security can't be the cause.

The taking away of personal freedoms doesn't make much sense either. Homosexuals want to get married. How does that affect any of the married heterosexuals in any way? There isn't a finite plate of freedoms and benefits that some person of authority has to dish out like a limited resource. It's not like if we give the gays benefits provided by the right to marry that those benefits have to be taken away from those already able to marry. It's not "Well in order to give this to group B, it must be taken from group A." All it actually is, is the enlarging of Group A to include more members. If that's the case, and everyone is Group A, then a homosexual marriage cannot affect those already married any more that another heterosexual marriage can.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that it's different. It's not what people are used to and therefore it must be bad. Well, it used to be that women were not supposed to work, vote or hold public office. That seems to have ended up ok. People seem to have gotten used to that.

I know there is a HUGE religious factor to this. Although in this country, especially with the separation of church and state, the legal state of marriage should not be a religious topic, religion still does play a part in it for a lot of people. Believe me, having been raised as a very strict Nebraskan Southern Baptist, I know all about the religious view of things. My brother is so strict in his religious beliefs that he does not go 1 mile above the posted speed limit, for that would be sinning. His children do not say "Jesus" but rather "Yeshua." They do not buy clothes from a retailer but make them at home. They do not subject their children to public schooling and therefore secular influence, so they home school. So yes, I know all about the religious hesitations. Of course there are several problems with using religion on this topic. I'm about to be very unpopular as I continue, but having spent most of my life researching what the Bible actually says so that I could come to grips with who I was, I assert that many church going people who use religion in their arguments on what is right and what is wrong, haven't studied what they're actually saying. I'll keep this to homosexuality. The Bible is a wonderful instrument. It provides a great method of meditation, and through that a communication with God. I think everyone will agree that God can use the passages in the Bible to speak on a great many different topics. I think everyone who goes to church would also agree that specific verses can be used for a variety of teachings. It's in the interpretation of the verse that makes it applicable to a variety of situations. And that's fantastic. If your meaning gives you needed insight or guidance and helps to further God's will, then it doesn't matter if your pew-mate uses the passage to help them through their own, different hardship. But, if you ever use the argument "Because that's what the Bible says," you owe it to yourself and the person you're debating with to make sure that was the original passage. The Bible says a great many things, like if your brother dies and you are unmarried, you need to take his widow as your wife. It promotes stonings. It allows for slavery and multiple wives. What it doesn't say is Homosexuals are bad. I've done the research. In the few verses that it refers to homosexuality, the original Hebrew does not. The original texts do not single out a group (ie Homosexuals). The original texts talk about sexual deviation. That makes so much more sense to me. Why would God specifically call out Homosexuals but not Child Molesters or Rapists? It just doesn't make sense that the verses would be that specific without having verses addressing the others. So then, if we're talking about sexual deviation, we still have a problem using those verses to oppose Gay Marriage. Sexual Deviation is often translated to mean any sort of sexual act that does not lead to reproduction (ie a baby). Well, that's not limited to the gays. Any sex that does not involve a male sex organ impregnating a female sex organ would fall under that category. There are a lot of heterosexual activities that (actually EVERY sexual activity save the ONE mentioned above) qualify. So if sexual deviance is the reason to keep the gays out of marriage, then most heterosexuals should not be allowed either. To further the point....marriage has NOTHING to do with sex. It's a legal concept. And if sex is the reason gays shouldn't be married, then that should mean that two celibate males should receive no opposition to marrying each other. Right? Not likely. As a side note, my research has shown that these 'anit-gay' bible verses didn't come to specify homosexuality until around seventh century, well beyond biblical times, meaning the Roman Catholic Church had an agenda it was trying to get across. It is similar to how the Church started requiring its priests to be celibate (ie unmarried), which was not a practice observed previously.

Maybe it's not all religious reasoning that folks use to oppose gay marriage. I've also heard people using the law to counter it. The argument being, of course, that the law of several states specifically state (or at least the intention of the law is interpreted ((there’s that word again)) to mean) that marriage was between one man and one woman. That's the deal with laws, they are meant to be amended. Long before any law stated anything about one man and one woman, there was a thing created called the Constitution. The authors of that document also wrote the Declaration of Independence, often cited to be the intent through which the Constitution should be interpreted. Within that document, which arguably is the basis for all of this country’s laws, there is an equally important statement. That one being, "All men are created equal." If we are saying that law is law and should not be interpreted or amended, then this statement alone is the biggest proponent of Gay Marriage. If a situation exists where one man can get healthcare benefits, tax breaks and other bonuses, but his neighbor who is economically, socially and educationally equivalent cannot, then there is a problem. That problem is called discrimination. If all men are created equal, then all men deserve the opportunity to receive the same treatment, ie be granted the same benefits. That term, "all men are created equal" has been called into question several times before. People said that when that was written, it didn't include blacks or other races. Others said that surely the founders didn't intend for that to include women. But discrimination was beaten in those cases (at least legally). What possible argument is there to promote discrimination in this case?

Here's my point. No one, NO ONE, has to accept homosexuality into their homelife. Just like this country allows Ku Klux Klan members the right not to invite any person of a different race into their homes (No, I’m not calling religious people Klan members; it’s merely an example that easily shows the point I’m making). No one is forcing homosexuality onto your family or into your home. Yet people are forcing their beliefs onto the homosexual community. If God only wanted those who worship him the way you worship Him to marry, then there are a LOT of unsaved heterosexuals that should be actively denied as well. There are the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, the Buddhists, the Atheists and on and on. Yet they can marry. Surely you can rattle off the Bible verses that say they are living in sin as fast as you can towards the Gays. And yet, they can marry. Legally, we have to go back to all men are created equal. If you are allowed to marry but someone else is not, an inequality exists. Discrimination is slippery slippery slope. Exclude one group of society and you better have darn good reasoning for including others.

By being allowed to marry, the gays are not going to suddenly storm your town. You're not going to see them behind every corner and at the end of every grocery store aisle. They are not going to emerge from the woodwork and take over the country. They'll be exactly how they are now, except one noticeable difference. There will be a gold band on their finger. That's all that will affect you. The sight of a gold band. There can be no definition that makes homosexuals even BIGGER sinners than those who already can marry. Why can people in prison be married? Why can people of other cultures marry? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

In closing, I'd like to share a chart that I feel really proves the point of this diatribe home. All I ask, is before you condemn anyone, before you deny simple rights that you enjoy from others that you may not agree with, just ask yourself why? Why cant they have those rights? How does it really affect you and your life? What is the reason you're using for your denial? And does/should that reason only apply to the gay community? If it can be applied to other groups that already have those rights, then why are the gays excluded? What is the true Homosexual Threat?

Thanks for letting me blather.
J