How many of you watched the Iowa Caucuses last night? It became a dead heat between Mitt Romney, who bought his 24 percent, and Rick Santorum, who sang the hymns of the Bible Belters to get his 24 percent. But that was also the result of his upbringing.
Mitt spoke according to the make-up of the different audiences in the 99 counties, especially the counties with the biggest cities (and the money). His breakfast every morning was waffles.
Rick really spoke from the heart, I must admit. Unfortunately, his heart has been tainted all his life with the narrowness of the religious beliefs he follows.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, Mitt waffled all over the place, and exhibited nervousness in any responses. Rick, however, has long held that homosexuality is a grievous sin. He was one of the first politicians to sign up with the National Organization for Marriage promising to seek a federal ban on same-sex marriage via an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Here is my position on same-sex marriage.
The whole panic generated by the idea of two men or two women seeking the exact same benefits and obligations as opposite-sex pairings is based on misinformed beliefs, and hypocritical thinking.
I have no problem with how anyone in America — or for that matter, the world — practices his or her religion, as long as it does not impact on me. Unfortunately, most of those beliefs are based on ignorance, and outright lies that put fear in the hearts of ordinarily decent people. And people tend to act based on those fears.
You are free to believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I am free to believe that it doesn’t. In the Old Testament, the bottom line is that it condemns relationships that don’t produce more men able to fight against the enemies of the Jews. In the New Testament it speaks from the writings of a man who never met Jesus, but who believed that the crucified (and, as a matter of faith, was resurrected) Jesus was returning to an earth that had only a generation or two left to exist. Paul did not believe there would be at least another two millennia of humanity.
No matter what the Bible says, it does not — and cannot — decree what civil and human rights may or may not be exercised. If you run to the Founding Fathers to argue otherwise, then pay close attention. The most quoted Founding Father in this area is Thomas Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence. His very first reference to a deity is “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Jefferson never hints who God is, or what religion owns Him. But he admired the beliefs of the Native Americans, and especially the Iroquois Nations. They strongly believed in Nature’s God — the Great Spirit. They also recognized same-sex relationships.
Ironically, conservative Christians who want to support Jefferson in this area, refuse to acknowledge his beliefs when it comes to separation of Church and State. They argue that he was talking only to the Danbury Baptists, and not to the Nation as a whole when he referred to that notorious “Wall of Separation.” Pick and choose, pick and choose.
The Bible has thousands of beautiful thoughts and words, and guides whereby we should live. It also is filled with errors when it comes to Nature and Nature’s God. Don’t forget it was written by hundreds of mostly men who were either directly spoken to by God, or were inspired to write on His behalf. Is it not puzzling that the more people learned to read and write through civilization, the less God spoke to us?
Would these Conservative Christians rely on the knowledge that doctors had 3500 years ago when facing brain surgery? They had better not, since they had no idea what the brain did, let alone whether or not it had anything to do with sexual orientation. Yet these same people state authoritatively that homosexuality in “not natural.” What other “authority” can you show us?
In courts of law, “revelation” is revealed to the original person; anything generated from that revelation is called hearsay. God supposedly gave mankind the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone. This is an all-knowing God. One would think that He would have made them of a more durable substance, and be easily traced now. But apparently God did not know how sloppy the Israelites would be in keeping track of this most important revelation.
Over that last few decades, thinking men and women have come to accept the that homosexuality is a natural state. They have known gays and lesbians personally, and have not seen them (us) as the ogres and criminals foisted upon the gullible masses.
Not content with this disturbing development in American society and culture, the conservative Christians rolled out another weapon: homosexuals are child molesters. Remember Anita Bryant and her “Save the Children” crusade in the 1970s? Her claim was that because homosexuals weren’t born that way, they had to “recruit” the expand their power base, and they did this by going after easily-influenced children. She didn’t say exactly how we did this other than in generalities.
I did a cartoon that depicted a Gay Recruiting station, similar to the Armed Forces recruiting stations set up around the country. It had a recruiting officer speaking to a teenager:
“Once you choose to become gay, you’re eligible to be ridiculed, be shunned by classmates, thrown out of your home, condemned by your church, ignored by employers, beaten up, laughed at by cops, denied housing, denied medical insurance, and to be murdered and condemned to eternity in hell! Whaddaya say, son?”
The young man answers, “Cool, dude! Where do I sign?”
Pretty stupid notion, right? But it’s the drumbeat of Christian conservatives. Gays recruit. What man in his right mind would deliberately choose such a life?
Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition of America (formerly just Christian Coalition), when they held organizational seminars, made it a point to handle matters regarding homosexuality in a specific way. They were to immediately bring in references to the safety of children. They could not quote real statistics regarding child molestation and sexual orientation, but it was implied that homosexuals were by nature child molesters.
The reality is that most child molestation occurs within the family, and that up to 80 percent of such occurrences do not get reported. More often than not it gets out in divorce hearings.
But when an individual man is charged with child molestation and he is presumed to be gay, the media has historically played it to the hilt. When upwards of 95 percent of child molesters are in fact heterosexual, what percentage of homosexuals are child molesters? I guarantee it is lower.
Another point to consider: When homosexuals are singled out for this slander on a regular basis, it makes gay men excruciatingly careful about their behavior. Where straight men may ogle at the physical attributes of a teenaged girl (just look at the national media!), gay men turn their eyes the other way when an attractive male juvenile comes to view. It’s a protective habit borne out of experience.
Conservative Christians rarely quote Jesus when it comes to homosexuality. They make reference to all the other writers in the Bible (Paul is a favorite), but never Jesus. In matters of marriage, they claim it is a “sacred tradition instituted by God.” Well, maybe, depending on which god you mean.
Genesis states that God blessed the bond of a man and a woman, but says nothing about alternative bonds. Nowhere in the Bible are such bonds condemned. In the 2nd Book of Daniel, however, we can read the eloquence of the bond between David and Jonathan.
Marriage throughout history as been a property contract more than a matter of love between a man and a woman. It has only been in the last century that such a contract did not normally treat the woman as part of the property. And it has been only in the last few decades that marriage vows did not relegate the vow “to obey” to the woman specifically.
Is this the “sacred tradition instituted by God” that conservative Christians want to continue to promulgate?
We gay men and women want the same rights as straight men and women — no more, no less. The right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not something for legislation, or the “tyranny of the majority” to decide by vote.
Make those restrictions against same-sex unions in your churches, temples, mosques, or other private gatherings. We promise not to invade that privacy. But if marriage is meant solely to unite a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting children, then don’t allow any marriages where that is not possible. Don’t allow older people to get married; don’t allow the sterile, or impotent, or frigid to enter into such a union.
And while we’re on the subject, if sex is just for procreation, then once a wife is pregnant, stop any further sexual activity.
Here is the solution: Let only marriages that occur in a church, mosque, temple or synagogue and with a clergyman presiding be called a “marriage.” All other mergings between two people should be called something else, like Civil Unions, Commitment Ceremonies, Merges (sounds close), Partner Contracts, and so on.
Therefore, anyone who has been “married” by a judge, a justice of the peace, a sea captain, “Marryin’ ” Sam”, or any of the other non-religious officiators cannot be considered “married.”
As far as the legal rights and responsibilities therein, the government should not get involved in religious ceremonies and rites, and should not issue Certificates of Marriage. It is unconstitutional. If you want all those rights with the rites, get them from secular servants, county clerks, under due process. Let there be a standard, legally binding contract recognized between two adult non-blood-related people and honored all over the country and the world, totally separated from any religious rites.
So, all you people who got hitched in Las Vegas or Reno, too bad. You should not be considered married. Hitched, ball-and-chained, legally bound and gagged, sentenced for life, whatever. Just not married.
By the way, if you want to see more of my nasty LGBT cartoons, news stories, commentaries and interviews, buy my book, "God Told Me to Draw These" on the self-publishing web site, lulu.com.
Okay, let's talk. Give me your thoughts on the subject of same-sex marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment