Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2006

In the Future …

Gay people will be legally married. To any one of you who are against gay marriage, I offer you this bet: in 30 years, I will give you $1,000 if Gay Marriage is still illegal. If it isn’t,  you have to give me $1,000. I’ll even bet you $500 that it’s legal in 12 years. I’ll bet you $100 that it’s legal in 4 years.  Of all the things that are screwed up about this country, I can say that we have a long history where freedom always wins, and oppression always loses.

But aside from that, I am continually perplexed by gay people who pretend they are not gay, and come out against gayness. Today’s story about Ted Haggard is just another knot in the noose.

If Homosexuality was a choice, it should be legal as we should all be allowed to have sex with and marry whoever we want. But since (in my opinion) homosexuality isn’t a choice, it should be even more legal. Homosexuality is a natural predisposition that can be attributed to physical phenomenon. While it’s not entirely genetic, it is not a choice a person makes about themselves.

Attitudes against homosexuality are (in my opinion) often spawned from internal fears that people might have that they themselves might be homosexual. And so, people shoot themselves in the foot, like Ted Haggard. If Ted had just embraced his homosexual feelings when he first had them, he would be happily gay right now. Instead, he has a wife, 5 kids, and an entire congregation of people who are extremely shocked, betrayed, and hurt–all because of his denial about himself. And the thing is, this damage will only spawn more anti-gay sentiment.  That sentiment will spawn more fear, repress more desires, and create more monsters.

Get over it, people! Homosexuality is not an abomination to god! It’s all okay! Your fear and hatred of people different from you is damaging in ways so simple that a child can understand it. Go read Dr. Suess’s book about Star-Bellied Sneetches, let gay people be gay, and move along.


  1. I respectfully disagree, but this is only because I was raised differently, not because I think you are wrong. While the word didn’t even exist until the 19th century, this does not mean that the meaning of the word did not exist prior to that. As with most modern ‘sins,’ Leviticaus is the book of the Old Testament that people quote. I’m not here to thump my Bible, because I myself am in the so-called middle on this one. I’m not sure what to decide. Colorado has a measue on the ballot this Tuesday that will allow civil unions, but not the benefits that go along with a standard marriage.

    My only issue with homosexuality is that it isn’t natural, scientifically. I’m not saying it is an abomination, but nature perpetuates itself in a way which homosexuality does not provide for. Perhaps it is in the grand plan that there are enough heterosexuals out there to perpetuate the species (whichever species you choose – I hear there are other gay animals?), and homosexuality is just another form of the species, like skin color or eye shape. I really don’t care. My fiancee’s father is gay, and I don’t have the least bit of a problem with it, but I don’t think I’m in a position to condemn anyone for their sexual orientation.

    As for the legalities of it all, maybe someday I’ll figure out where I stand. Right now, I’m rather confused about how gay marriage can possibly hurt a community from a financial and/or social point of view.

  2. And WELL DONE on the Sneetch pic! Very aprapos!

  3. You’re preaching to the choir, bro (pun intended). People who demonize/fear/hate gays or any other ‘other’ are not going to be swayed by anything any of us has to say. There are tolerant religious types who just want to live and let live like the rest of us, and then there are the religiofascists. Among these, the ones who believe in the literal, inerrant Bible (or at least the literal, inerrant interpretations handed to them like holy jell-o shots at a Praise Jesus Frat Party) are always going to be divided into 2 categories:

    1) Those who express selective outrage over the ‘abominations to God’ that don’t apply to THEMSELVES. The parts about not working on the Sabbath, not coveting thy neighbor’s wife or Hummer, not eating certain foods, not stealing office supplies from your dotcom startup, or any number of other archaic and strange — yet punishable by death in the literal scriptures — those parts get downplayed in favor of a few passages here and there that justify and validate their own prejudices.

    2) Those who find themselves tormented by desires that don’t jive with what they believe the Book says is right, and so they turn their self-loathing and fear outward toward their own kind in an attempt to purge themselves of their own ‘wickedness’ — and probably not without a little envy that nonbelievers get to live openly as they wish they themselves could. Pathetic? Pitiful? Indeed; I almost feel sorry for them. But given that they’ve usually spread their self-inspired hatred far and wide before they get ‘outed’ and disgraced, my sense of pity for them is far outweighed by the sheer joy of watching them reap what they have so righteously sown.

    A word (in futility, of course) to both categories:
    Yeah, unfortunately, your Bible DOES list homosexuality as an ‘abomination’, one of many — so many that you are ALL guilty of one or ten of them. But nowhere does it say it is YOUR job to punish these people for their supposed crimes. If you believe they are doomed to eternal fires or some silly shit like that, then so be it. But leave them the hell alone while they are here on Earth, OK?

    * * *

  4. Bri, I could not agree more with your last paragraph. Unfortunately, we are being asked to vote on a related issue in civil unions/gay marriage, which is a bit like judgement in that “are they worthy of these benefits?”

  5. I like the scientific aspects of this discussion. Todd says homosexuality is not “natural.” I know why you’re saying that, but I think what you really mean is that “evolution does not favor homosexuality.” I think the latter statement is true, but homosexuality is–by every definition–natural. It’s natural because it occurs in nature over and over and over. Not only in humans, but in other animals as well.

    So the question is, when we interpret the phrase “all men were created equal, and granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” did that apply to ALL men? Or only those men whose behaviors will enable them to propogate their DNA?

  6. I don’t understand why whether or not homosexuality is “natural” is even at issue. I agree that it devolves down to evolution, which I don’t believe the right wing has discovered a way to legislate … yet. The issue is whether people can choose to have consensual relationships freely, which frankly is none of the government’s — or our — business. Where the gov’t gets involved is in attaching benefits to these relationships, so allowing one group to have benefits while denying another is nothing less than discrimination.

  7. You hear that Haggards boy-toy failed a lie detector test?
    Interesting on what part because Haggard admitted the IM’s, drugs and Massage… It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

  8. Yeah, but Haggard didn’t swallow. Er… I mean smoke. Er… I mean come. Er…

  9. “I think the latter statement is true, but homosexuality is–by every definition–natural. It’s natural because it occurs in nature over and over and over. Not only in humans, but in other animals as well.” – Jim

    By the same token, Jim, murder is natural. As is the use of drugs. I don’t think the debate is really about science or a conception that the law should align itself with “what is natural.” More, it is a question of whether everybody should enjoy equal treatment. There are those who say No, the reason being that they can not equate a relationship between same-sex partners as having the same validity as that between a man and a woman. (And the science, the Bible, etc, offer rationalisations for this POV. The religious argument, to me, is rather specious, as secular marriage is a reality. I was married, but with no religious dimension, why? Because I wanted to be legally recognised as having made a commitment to my spouse, but I do not believe in God.)

    To me, what matters is not what is legal, but what is just. Same-sex couples should enjoy the same entitlements, tax breaks, pension rights, whatever, as their fellow heterosexual couples. If churches want to not allow same-sex couples to marry there, fine, but to reiterate my point, marriage is not always necessarily a religious event, but it is certainly a legal one. It ends up being in the realm of politics. If support is sufficient to mobilise lawmakers to recognise same-sex marriage and legislate, to me, that is the end of the argument. America is a nation of laws, and within this, the religious opposition is valid but it possesses no moral or legal authority, it is simply another viewpoint. Not unless you subscribe to the fallacious notion that America is a Christian nation where the Bible should dictate legislation.

    I agree with Jim, progress is unstoppable. And each defeat for conservatism is a step towards a better future, a more just future, where the life-choices people make can be respected. What bothers me the most in this debate are people who set up a scenario where Gay people are a menace, a marginalised group intent on destroying basic American values. This is plainly a lie. Gay people are just our co-workers, our friends, and our relations, etc. Too much of the resistance to gay marriage is really simple dislike of gay people and a refusal to accept their behaviour, period. It’s great get-out-the-hate/religious vote material, but maybe it’s not so great for America.

  10. 30 years, I said. All we needed was nine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: