If you've read my poem "Words" or one of my several posts on the subject, you know that I care a great deal about what words that people use and how those words are used. I really want to focus right now on how often we, as a culture, use words relating to females as put downs, particularly where men are concerned.
Think about it. How often have you heard one of these phrases: "sounds like a girl.", "screamed like a girl.", "ran like a girl.", "looks like a girl.", or something similar? I'm sure you hear them so often that they don't even really make an impact on you anymore. I was surprised the other day when I realized how often even I use phrases like these. While I am not trying to be insulting to women, I am. After all, each of these phrases indicates someone doing something in a way that is "unmanly" or wrong, therefore meaning that there is something about being a female that makes you worth less than a male.
The major problem is that our society is severely patriarchal and values things that men do over things that women do. Doubt me? Ask yourself why we, as a society, value people who work outside of the home in a "real job" more than we do stay-at-home parents. If a dad is a stay-at-home dad, people look at him as being weak or deficient somehow. Even the phrase, "Who wears the pants in the house?" assumes that the real power in a household is the person who wears the pants. Since pants are "men's" clothing, the implication is obvious. If you are a sensitive male, you will hear that you need to "toughen up", "stop being a wuss", or something similar to that. If there is a male singer who has a higher voice, they are put down because they "sound like a girl." If a male looks at all effeminate, they are the target of harassment because they "look like a girl." I could keep going in this vein, but I'll stop there.
You can look all around to find issues where we hold things that are "masculine" to be valued more highly than things that are "feminine". Whether it is someone's job, appearance, voice, or anything else, our society has chosen to place a higher premium on things that are related to men than things that are related to women. Unless, of course, you are talking about objectification in which case, the objectification of women is much more highly prized because that is what our heteronormative, patriarchal society wants.
What can you do? Well, first off, pay attention to what you say. If you catch yourself comparing someone to a particular group as a put down, stop yourself. The act of saying that denigrates a whole group of people and merely perpetuates a cycle where certain people are valued more highly than others. Second, if you catch someone else doing it; and it is safe to do so; gently ask them not to do it. If they make fun of you for standing up for other people, know that they are the lesser person because they need to put others down to build themselves up. The only way this will change is if we can demonstrate to people that what they are doing is truly hurtful and wrong. There will, of course, be resistance. After all, there are many people who do things because "everyone else does it", because "that's the way its always been done", or some equally asinine reason. Changing attitudes and ways of thinking requires a lot of effort and time. But ultimately, it will always be worth it.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
On Billy Gilman's coming out video
In case you missed it yesterday, Billy Gilman came out yesterday in a YouTube video. If you haven't seen it yet, I encourage you to go view it and hear what he has to say. In its own way, the video is absolutely heartbreaking because of some of what he has to say about why he took a while to come out. And given some of the comments I have seen on websites which have run this news, I cannot say I am surprised at his fear.
In his video, he says that part of the reason he didn't come out was because he felt that country music was a hard genre to be an openly gay artist in and because country music would be ashamed of him. Apparently there were some rumours about his sexuality and when he had some new music to release, no major labels would come to him, despite the fact that he had 2 albums certified gold by the time he was 13 and sold over 5 million albums. While this may not have all been because of the rumours, it is hard not to think that they played a major part in what happened. He also said that he had a showcase and no major albums showed up. As I said just above, this may be due to other reasons, but given how people are about rumours in general, it is hard to imagine that they had nothing to do with the labels not showing up.
While society has come a long way in the past few years where it comes to accepting people who are LGBT, there is still a lot of work to be done. Why should anyone have to hide who they are from the world because they are afraid of how people will react? People who say that people should not have to come out are right, only thing is most of them are right for the wrong reasons. A lot of them say that people shouldn't be sharing who they are sleeping with or something like that. As I said in an earlier post, that is not what coming out is about. Coming out is about telling the world who you are and being honest. I look forward to the day when people don't need to come out, but will be accepted as who they are. Sadly, we are not there yet, so it is important to hear the stories of people like Billy Gilman or anyone else who comes out in order to become more aware of the issues surrounding people who come out.
How do I know we're not there yet? Just look at some of the comments on pages with news about Billy's coming out. One commenter called him a "snaggle toothed mongoloid" and another set up a dueling set of dialogues about Billy Gilman's team and Ty Herndon's team both rushing to come out first. It may not sound bad, but when you read it, you will see it is written in a highly derogatory tone. And those were the nicest of the bad comments. It's just sad and pathetic that people still have this sort of reaction to someone coming out and telling the world who they actually are.
It takes a lot of courage for anyone to come out, but it takes a lot more to come out as a celebrity- particularly one in country music which tends to have a particularly reactionary fan base. I do want to emphasize that I am not saying all country music fans are homophobic twats, but as a whole, the fanbase and genre are not the most progressive. Doubt it, read this article with some of country singer Kenny Chesney's thoughts on how country music views women. And yes, I am well aware to other musical genres objectify women as well, but that is a topic for another post.
Mr. Gilman, congratulations on coming out and I hope that you and your partner have a long and happy life together. I have been a fan since your first album and will continue to remain one.
In his video, he says that part of the reason he didn't come out was because he felt that country music was a hard genre to be an openly gay artist in and because country music would be ashamed of him. Apparently there were some rumours about his sexuality and when he had some new music to release, no major labels would come to him, despite the fact that he had 2 albums certified gold by the time he was 13 and sold over 5 million albums. While this may not have all been because of the rumours, it is hard not to think that they played a major part in what happened. He also said that he had a showcase and no major albums showed up. As I said just above, this may be due to other reasons, but given how people are about rumours in general, it is hard to imagine that they had nothing to do with the labels not showing up.
While society has come a long way in the past few years where it comes to accepting people who are LGBT, there is still a lot of work to be done. Why should anyone have to hide who they are from the world because they are afraid of how people will react? People who say that people should not have to come out are right, only thing is most of them are right for the wrong reasons. A lot of them say that people shouldn't be sharing who they are sleeping with or something like that. As I said in an earlier post, that is not what coming out is about. Coming out is about telling the world who you are and being honest. I look forward to the day when people don't need to come out, but will be accepted as who they are. Sadly, we are not there yet, so it is important to hear the stories of people like Billy Gilman or anyone else who comes out in order to become more aware of the issues surrounding people who come out.
How do I know we're not there yet? Just look at some of the comments on pages with news about Billy's coming out. One commenter called him a "snaggle toothed mongoloid" and another set up a dueling set of dialogues about Billy Gilman's team and Ty Herndon's team both rushing to come out first. It may not sound bad, but when you read it, you will see it is written in a highly derogatory tone. And those were the nicest of the bad comments. It's just sad and pathetic that people still have this sort of reaction to someone coming out and telling the world who they actually are.
It takes a lot of courage for anyone to come out, but it takes a lot more to come out as a celebrity- particularly one in country music which tends to have a particularly reactionary fan base. I do want to emphasize that I am not saying all country music fans are homophobic twats, but as a whole, the fanbase and genre are not the most progressive. Doubt it, read this article with some of country singer Kenny Chesney's thoughts on how country music views women. And yes, I am well aware to other musical genres objectify women as well, but that is a topic for another post.
Mr. Gilman, congratulations on coming out and I hope that you and your partner have a long and happy life together. I have been a fan since your first album and will continue to remain one.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Sermon from Ash Wednesday 2006
On Ash Wednesday 2006, when I was teaching at my first school, my class was assigned to run the Prayer Service, and I decided to give the sermon myself. I wanted to share what I said then because it is a good summary of a lot of what I believe.
I do want to say that my knowledge of these Greek comes from some books by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston University and The King's College. Any misspellings are my fault, but the meanings came from him.
---------------------------
Today we are gathered here in church to celebrate Ash Wednesday. For those of you who do not know, Ash Wednesday is the first day of the season of Lent. Lent is the time that we use to prepare ourselves to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Lent is a very special time of year. It is a time which contains things that seem to make no sense together, but really do belong together. In Lent, we should feel sorrow that Jesus had to die on the cross for us, but we should be happy that he did so, because now we can enter heaven. The saddest day of the year; the day on which we remember Jesus dying; we call Good Friday. But, what is “good” about it? What is good is that when Jesus died, he opened the gates of heaven, allowing us to live with God.
During Lent, we are asked to give up something that we value, whether it is drinking sodas, eating dessert, or playing video games in order to show that we want to; in some small way; imitate Jesus, who gave up His life for us.
Lent also shows us in a very special way the love that God has for everyone. After all, didn’t God send down His Son, the person He loved most in the entire world, to die for us? And not just to die any death, but to die that most painful and humiliating death that existed. In John Chapter 15: 9-13 it says, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Love is what God is all about. Love is what Lent is all about. In Greek, there are three words that mean love: eros, philia, and agape. Eros is the love that might be expressed between a husband and wife, or people who are dating. Philia is a love that would exist between family members. Agape, however, is what is known as transcendent love. Agape is a love that gives to others until it has nothing left, and then gives just a little more. Agape is a love that would give of itself and might be demonstrated by someone who would save the life of another without regard for their own. Agape is the type of love that God has for all of us. A perfect love, a love that is not at all dependent on what we do, but simply exists because God chooses to let it exist.
Agape is the love that we must try to attain. During Lent, we need to look at our actions and our thoughts and ask ourselves if what we think, say, or do is loving. If it is not, then we need to ask for God’s forgiveness. For every act that we commit which is sinful, we are told that it is like Jesus is nailed to the cross again.
Today, as we come forward to receive ashes on our foreheads, we will be singing a song. The words are in Latin. They are: “Ubi Caritas et Amor, Ubi Caritas Deus Ibi Est.” They mean: “Where there is charity and love, where there is charity, there is God.” Caritas means “charity” and can also mean “love”. It has the same meaning as agape. Like agape, it is a love that gives of itself endlessly. This song reminds us of Matthew 18:20 in which Jesus says, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Love is for everyone at all times. The one most consistent theme of the Bible is that of love. When Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment in Matthew 22, he says that there are two: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul tells us that:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not
love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If
I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and
all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the
poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love,
I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not
delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,
always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we
prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect
disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put
childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in
a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
of these is love.
As you go through Lent, keep a few things in mind.
[1] Ask God to forgive you for the times that you have been mean and not loving to those around you. Ask Him for help and grace to become more like Him and to become more perfect in your love.
[2] Thank God for sending Jesus into the world to die for us. He did not have to, and His doing so demonstrates for us very clearly just how much God loves us.
[3] Keep these days between now and Easter holy. Pray unceasingly. Ask for God’s help for yourself and for others, especially those who you may not get along with.
Ash Wednesday is the day in which we prepare for Lent, which in turn prepares us for Jesus’ death and resurrection. When you come up to receive ashes today, let them be not just a sign on the outside of the coming of Lent, but allow them to enter into you and change you from the inside to become a more holy and loving person.
I do want to say that my knowledge of these Greek comes from some books by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston University and The King's College. Any misspellings are my fault, but the meanings came from him.
---------------------------
Today we are gathered here in church to celebrate Ash Wednesday. For those of you who do not know, Ash Wednesday is the first day of the season of Lent. Lent is the time that we use to prepare ourselves to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Lent is a very special time of year. It is a time which contains things that seem to make no sense together, but really do belong together. In Lent, we should feel sorrow that Jesus had to die on the cross for us, but we should be happy that he did so, because now we can enter heaven. The saddest day of the year; the day on which we remember Jesus dying; we call Good Friday. But, what is “good” about it? What is good is that when Jesus died, he opened the gates of heaven, allowing us to live with God.
During Lent, we are asked to give up something that we value, whether it is drinking sodas, eating dessert, or playing video games in order to show that we want to; in some small way; imitate Jesus, who gave up His life for us.
Lent also shows us in a very special way the love that God has for everyone. After all, didn’t God send down His Son, the person He loved most in the entire world, to die for us? And not just to die any death, but to die that most painful and humiliating death that existed. In John Chapter 15: 9-13 it says, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Love is what God is all about. Love is what Lent is all about. In Greek, there are three words that mean love: eros, philia, and agape. Eros is the love that might be expressed between a husband and wife, or people who are dating. Philia is a love that would exist between family members. Agape, however, is what is known as transcendent love. Agape is a love that gives to others until it has nothing left, and then gives just a little more. Agape is a love that would give of itself and might be demonstrated by someone who would save the life of another without regard for their own. Agape is the type of love that God has for all of us. A perfect love, a love that is not at all dependent on what we do, but simply exists because God chooses to let it exist.
Agape is the love that we must try to attain. During Lent, we need to look at our actions and our thoughts and ask ourselves if what we think, say, or do is loving. If it is not, then we need to ask for God’s forgiveness. For every act that we commit which is sinful, we are told that it is like Jesus is nailed to the cross again.
Today, as we come forward to receive ashes on our foreheads, we will be singing a song. The words are in Latin. They are: “Ubi Caritas et Amor, Ubi Caritas Deus Ibi Est.” They mean: “Where there is charity and love, where there is charity, there is God.” Caritas means “charity” and can also mean “love”. It has the same meaning as agape. Like agape, it is a love that gives of itself endlessly. This song reminds us of Matthew 18:20 in which Jesus says, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Love is for everyone at all times. The one most consistent theme of the Bible is that of love. When Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment in Matthew 22, he says that there are two: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul tells us that:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not
love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If
I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and
all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the
poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love,
I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not
delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,
always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we
prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect
disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put
childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in
a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
of these is love.
As you go through Lent, keep a few things in mind.
[1] Ask God to forgive you for the times that you have been mean and not loving to those around you. Ask Him for help and grace to become more like Him and to become more perfect in your love.
[2] Thank God for sending Jesus into the world to die for us. He did not have to, and His doing so demonstrates for us very clearly just how much God loves us.
[3] Keep these days between now and Easter holy. Pray unceasingly. Ask for God’s help for yourself and for others, especially those who you may not get along with.
Ash Wednesday is the day in which we prepare for Lent, which in turn prepares us for Jesus’ death and resurrection. When you come up to receive ashes today, let them be not just a sign on the outside of the coming of Lent, but allow them to enter into you and change you from the inside to become a more holy and loving person.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Why I haven't been to church in years
Recently, I had a conversation with a friend who was very surprised by (among other things) the fact that I haven't been to church (with a few rare exceptions) since 2010. To be honest, I also barely went to church in the last two years of college and my attendance between 2008 and 2010 was (with the exception of the 2009-2010 school year) mainly when I was going to school sponsored masses. What I want to do here is explain why I've haven't been back.
As you can probably guess, most of my lack of going to mass has to do with the fact that I am (honestly) not welcome by the church. Not the true me. If I want to go to church, I need to be a truncated, almost castrated, version of myself. I am deemed to be "intrinsically disordered" because of the fact that I am gay. Several times, when I went to Confession about my feelings for other guys, I was told to focus on women and how women and men were complementary, as if that would help me become straight. I was constantly wracked by guilt because of feelings I had little to no control over and had to hide and deny who I was for years. If I ever fall in love, I cannot marry him in the church, which has been a lifelong dream for me. Instead, I will have to go to through a civil ceremony which, while not bad, is not what I have hoped and dreamed of for as long as I can remember.
In a religion about love, it is remarkable to discover that not all love is valued. Yes, I know all of the religious arguments about homosexuality (remember, I have taught both Religion and CCD classes for several years), but none of that changes the fact that I am looked upon by many people (and by the Church herself) as secondary and less than other people, merely because of the fact that I love other men and not women.
When I was teaching Religion and CCD, I always felt as if I almost had a split identity because I had to pretend to be one thing while actually being another. I cannot tell you how many times I had to talk about "love the sinner, but hate the sin" in regards to homosexuality while talking with students about sexuality. It happened so often that I actually ended up internalizing the arguments and coming perilously close to hating myself and everything that I was.
I am sure that someone out there is wondering why I don't simply pick another church. The answer is that, other than this issue, I do believe that the Catholic Church has it mostly right. I cannot in good conscience go to a Protestant church. While I may be able to find a more inclusive Catholic parish, it would not change the fact that the Church herself would not be welcoming to me or others like me. So I am caught in an almost impossible situation. Either I go back to a church that looks down on me and who I am, I go to a church that I do not believe in, or I don't go to church at all. So, I settled for the last option. None of the options is something I particularly like, but sometimes that happens.
I know there are people who are going to remind of various aspects of Catholic teaching. Believe me, I have considered all of them and you are unlikely (at best) to change my mind. Until the Church becomes more accepting of LGBT people and who they love, I am unlikely to go back except for rare occasions such as funerals or weddings.
As you can probably guess, most of my lack of going to mass has to do with the fact that I am (honestly) not welcome by the church. Not the true me. If I want to go to church, I need to be a truncated, almost castrated, version of myself. I am deemed to be "intrinsically disordered" because of the fact that I am gay. Several times, when I went to Confession about my feelings for other guys, I was told to focus on women and how women and men were complementary, as if that would help me become straight. I was constantly wracked by guilt because of feelings I had little to no control over and had to hide and deny who I was for years. If I ever fall in love, I cannot marry him in the church, which has been a lifelong dream for me. Instead, I will have to go to through a civil ceremony which, while not bad, is not what I have hoped and dreamed of for as long as I can remember.
In a religion about love, it is remarkable to discover that not all love is valued. Yes, I know all of the religious arguments about homosexuality (remember, I have taught both Religion and CCD classes for several years), but none of that changes the fact that I am looked upon by many people (and by the Church herself) as secondary and less than other people, merely because of the fact that I love other men and not women.
When I was teaching Religion and CCD, I always felt as if I almost had a split identity because I had to pretend to be one thing while actually being another. I cannot tell you how many times I had to talk about "love the sinner, but hate the sin" in regards to homosexuality while talking with students about sexuality. It happened so often that I actually ended up internalizing the arguments and coming perilously close to hating myself and everything that I was.
I am sure that someone out there is wondering why I don't simply pick another church. The answer is that, other than this issue, I do believe that the Catholic Church has it mostly right. I cannot in good conscience go to a Protestant church. While I may be able to find a more inclusive Catholic parish, it would not change the fact that the Church herself would not be welcoming to me or others like me. So I am caught in an almost impossible situation. Either I go back to a church that looks down on me and who I am, I go to a church that I do not believe in, or I don't go to church at all. So, I settled for the last option. None of the options is something I particularly like, but sometimes that happens.
I know there are people who are going to remind of various aspects of Catholic teaching. Believe me, I have considered all of them and you are unlikely (at best) to change my mind. Until the Church becomes more accepting of LGBT people and who they love, I am unlikely to go back except for rare occasions such as funerals or weddings.
Friday, September 12, 2014
On respect for marriage....
I ran into an interesting article on Slate.com today about two straight buddies from New Zealand who married each other in order to get tickets to the Rugby World Cup next year. The author of the piece basically argues that people who argue for marriage equality have no right to disagree with what these two gentlemen have done. To put it politely, the argument is completely ludicrous.
The author is correct when he argues that there are financial benefits to marriage and that is an important reason why marriage equality is so important. However, to compare financial issues like estate planning and taxes with the opportunity to get tickets to a sports game is so far beyond ridiculous as to cause one to question the sanity (or at very least the intelligence) of the person making the comparison.
In the second from last paragraph, the author does make great points when he says, "And if we're concerned about mocking marriage, we can campaign against Elvis impersonators performing quickie weddings in Las Vegas, against no-fault divorce, or point at the opponents of marriage equality who have been married several times." I am against each and every one of these. Each of these things (along with the competition under discussion) makes a mockery of marriage by making it seem like something that should be done on a whim.
Marriage is an institution which should a union of people who come together out of mutual love in order to form a family and provide a level of stability to society (conservatives actually get this right, they just don't extend marriage far enough). Marriage should never be entered into lightly, because "we wanted to", or any other trivial reason. That is why I am against divorce in almost all circumstances. The only reasons I think are viable ones for divorce are spousal or child abuse (emotional or physical). I hesitate to say that divorce is acceptable when two people start to disagree because too many people use this as an excuse to bail rather than work on their marriage. I despise (ok, that word is so not nearly strong enough!) reality shows which have people dating/marrying based on the show for the same reasons. These shows (like the Bachelor or Bachelorette) turn marriage into something where people pick mates for the wrong reasons and they never seem to stay together.
Don't believe me? Look at most marriage vows which ask people to stay together in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, etc. I have been to weddings conducted by Christians (of several denominations), justices of the peace, a pagan priestess, and an official whose official title I do not know. In each case, some variation of these vows were used. My point is that (from what I have seen) most marriage ceremonies intend to bind the couple together for longer than just their convenience.
So yes, I am mad about this sort of mockery of marriage because it makes what marriage equality advocates have worked on for years seem like nonsense and it debases the institution of marriage.
The author is correct when he argues that there are financial benefits to marriage and that is an important reason why marriage equality is so important. However, to compare financial issues like estate planning and taxes with the opportunity to get tickets to a sports game is so far beyond ridiculous as to cause one to question the sanity (or at very least the intelligence) of the person making the comparison.
In the second from last paragraph, the author does make great points when he says, "And if we're concerned about mocking marriage, we can campaign against Elvis impersonators performing quickie weddings in Las Vegas, against no-fault divorce, or point at the opponents of marriage equality who have been married several times." I am against each and every one of these. Each of these things (along with the competition under discussion) makes a mockery of marriage by making it seem like something that should be done on a whim.
Marriage is an institution which should a union of people who come together out of mutual love in order to form a family and provide a level of stability to society (conservatives actually get this right, they just don't extend marriage far enough). Marriage should never be entered into lightly, because "we wanted to", or any other trivial reason. That is why I am against divorce in almost all circumstances. The only reasons I think are viable ones for divorce are spousal or child abuse (emotional or physical). I hesitate to say that divorce is acceptable when two people start to disagree because too many people use this as an excuse to bail rather than work on their marriage. I despise (ok, that word is so not nearly strong enough!) reality shows which have people dating/marrying based on the show for the same reasons. These shows (like the Bachelor or Bachelorette) turn marriage into something where people pick mates for the wrong reasons and they never seem to stay together.
Don't believe me? Look at most marriage vows which ask people to stay together in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, etc. I have been to weddings conducted by Christians (of several denominations), justices of the peace, a pagan priestess, and an official whose official title I do not know. In each case, some variation of these vows were used. My point is that (from what I have seen) most marriage ceremonies intend to bind the couple together for longer than just their convenience.
So yes, I am mad about this sort of mockery of marriage because it makes what marriage equality advocates have worked on for years seem like nonsense and it debases the institution of marriage.
Friday, August 1, 2014
On the definition of marriage
Earlier today I was pointed towards this video in which Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation answers a question from a audience member who wants to an explanation as to why he, as a gay man, could not receive a tax break the way a straight couple could. Anderson at first attempts to evade the question by broadening the focus of the question to include any potential marriage (of whatever size). Two or three times the gentleman attempts to refocus the answer to the question which was asked and it was not until the last time that Anderson finally answers the question. And when he does his answer is that "You can't get married." because a same-sex marriage, to him, is not a marriage at all.
His answer relies on the acceptance of his definition of marriage as exclusively that between a man and a woman, or as he says it, "a union of sexually complementary spouses." In other words, because your marriage does not fit my definition of marriage, it is not really a marriage. This answer begs the question as to why this particular definition is the correct definition of marriage. I will grant that it is possible that Anderson answered this question earlier, but I can only work with what is in front of me. I have looked at several things on the Heritage Foundation website, but each time the definition seems to be assumed rather than explained.
Mr. Anderson also gives a stunning display of simplistic logic. Since marriage is "a union of sexually complementary spouses" and a union of two men or two women does not fit this particular definition, there is no discrimination involved in denying a same-sex couple access to the tax benefits available to a straight married couple. After all, homosexuals have full access to heterosexual marriage, so there is no discrimination. All you have to do is marry someone you are not attracted to at all and therefore undermine the very thing Mr. Anderson purports to want to defend. If this makes sense to anyone, please enlighten me because his idea of non-discrimination rests on his definition of marriage which is what is being argued here.
I, for one, would like an explanation as to why marriage *MUST* be defined as "a union of sexually complementary spouses". The most common answer is that this is the "traditional" definition of marriage. While I have no objection to tradition per se, I do object to it being the sole reason to carry out a discriminatory policy. After all, it was "tradition" to have a man marry multiple women, have marriages be arranged by parents, not to allow people of different races or religions to marry, etc. So why can the definition of marriage be stretched to encompass these and not same-sex marriages? Oh yeah, that's right. Because being a homosexual is a choice! See here for my reaction to that.
Will leave this alone for the moment. May write more after I have more of a chance to read his stuff.
His answer relies on the acceptance of his definition of marriage as exclusively that between a man and a woman, or as he says it, "a union of sexually complementary spouses." In other words, because your marriage does not fit my definition of marriage, it is not really a marriage. This answer begs the question as to why this particular definition is the correct definition of marriage. I will grant that it is possible that Anderson answered this question earlier, but I can only work with what is in front of me. I have looked at several things on the Heritage Foundation website, but each time the definition seems to be assumed rather than explained.
Mr. Anderson also gives a stunning display of simplistic logic. Since marriage is "a union of sexually complementary spouses" and a union of two men or two women does not fit this particular definition, there is no discrimination involved in denying a same-sex couple access to the tax benefits available to a straight married couple. After all, homosexuals have full access to heterosexual marriage, so there is no discrimination. All you have to do is marry someone you are not attracted to at all and therefore undermine the very thing Mr. Anderson purports to want to defend. If this makes sense to anyone, please enlighten me because his idea of non-discrimination rests on his definition of marriage which is what is being argued here.
I, for one, would like an explanation as to why marriage *MUST* be defined as "a union of sexually complementary spouses". The most common answer is that this is the "traditional" definition of marriage. While I have no objection to tradition per se, I do object to it being the sole reason to carry out a discriminatory policy. After all, it was "tradition" to have a man marry multiple women, have marriages be arranged by parents, not to allow people of different races or religions to marry, etc. So why can the definition of marriage be stretched to encompass these and not same-sex marriages? Oh yeah, that's right. Because being a homosexual is a choice! See here for my reaction to that.
Will leave this alone for the moment. May write more after I have more of a chance to read his stuff.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
On tolerance and the "persecution" of "traditional marriage" advocates.....
Ok, I want to address two different things in this post which are linked, but not the same.
First, I want to look at the supposed persecution of people advocating for "traditional marriage". If you look at any number of right wing blogs, the National Organization for Marriage website, or any similar site, you will notice a plethora of posts or items about how advocates of "traditional marriage" lamenting how they are being "persecuted" for their beliefs by people who advocate for marriage equality (or, as they put it, "redefining marriage").
This is a bit of a tricky situation. If someone is the public face of a company or group and they hold (and preach) beliefs that run counter to the beliefs of the company/group as a whole, then they should be let go because that creates a certain amount of dissonance in the organization. If, however, the person is not the public face, then the situation is different.
I also want to say that if they think that is persecution, they should step in the shoes of members of the LBGTQIA community. How many traditional marriage advocates are killed each year because of their beliefs? How many are beaten? How many are told that their sexuality means that they are "demonic"? How many are declared illegal in countries around the world because of who they are? How many of them are told that they want "to freely prey on little children sexually"? And I could go on. They ain't being persecuted. The extreme rhetoric coming out of their mouths is landing them in hot water with people as attitudes are becoming more and more inclusive over time.
What really baffles me is that most of the people who preach these sorts of things claim to be Christians, yet they say that it is a good thing for gays to be stoned (here or here) or worse (such as supporting Uganda's law outlawing homosexuality). Christianity is not a religion of hate, regardless of what these people make it seem like. Christianity is truly a religion of love. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 13, love is deemed the greatest virtue. That is why I get so upset about this. These people are twisting the religion I love all out of proportion and using it to advocate hate.
I do want to emphasize something (my second point), namely that not everyone who opposes marriage equality is advocating hate. There are a lot of people out there who sincerely believe that marriage should only be between members of the opposite sex, but don't look to harm those who believe otherwise. These people need to merely be educated and talked to. While they may not agree with marriage equality, they are not necessarily active hostile to it either. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating them. I am not saying they are never the same, but they are not always the same.
What we, as marriage equality advocates, need to do is to show them that we respect them and their beliefs, while making it clear that we think they are wrong. It needs to be done lovingly and respectfully, even if they deny us the same.
First, I want to look at the supposed persecution of people advocating for "traditional marriage". If you look at any number of right wing blogs, the National Organization for Marriage website, or any similar site, you will notice a plethora of posts or items about how advocates of "traditional marriage" lamenting how they are being "persecuted" for their beliefs by people who advocate for marriage equality (or, as they put it, "redefining marriage").
This is a bit of a tricky situation. If someone is the public face of a company or group and they hold (and preach) beliefs that run counter to the beliefs of the company/group as a whole, then they should be let go because that creates a certain amount of dissonance in the organization. If, however, the person is not the public face, then the situation is different.
I also want to say that if they think that is persecution, they should step in the shoes of members of the LBGTQIA community. How many traditional marriage advocates are killed each year because of their beliefs? How many are beaten? How many are told that their sexuality means that they are "demonic"? How many are declared illegal in countries around the world because of who they are? How many of them are told that they want "to freely prey on little children sexually"? And I could go on. They ain't being persecuted. The extreme rhetoric coming out of their mouths is landing them in hot water with people as attitudes are becoming more and more inclusive over time.
What really baffles me is that most of the people who preach these sorts of things claim to be Christians, yet they say that it is a good thing for gays to be stoned (here or here) or worse (such as supporting Uganda's law outlawing homosexuality). Christianity is not a religion of hate, regardless of what these people make it seem like. Christianity is truly a religion of love. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 13, love is deemed the greatest virtue. That is why I get so upset about this. These people are twisting the religion I love all out of proportion and using it to advocate hate.
I do want to emphasize something (my second point), namely that not everyone who opposes marriage equality is advocating hate. There are a lot of people out there who sincerely believe that marriage should only be between members of the opposite sex, but don't look to harm those who believe otherwise. These people need to merely be educated and talked to. While they may not agree with marriage equality, they are not necessarily active hostile to it either. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating them. I am not saying they are never the same, but they are not always the same.
What we, as marriage equality advocates, need to do is to show them that we respect them and their beliefs, while making it clear that we think they are wrong. It needs to be done lovingly and respectfully, even if they deny us the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)