Dear Jocelyn White and other Citizens concerned about same-sex marriages
I question the validity of your argument which claims that by allowing our citizens freedom of choice (including same-sex marriage), we will somehow limit freedom of speech. How does it work in your mind that by limiting someone else’s freedoms, you are protecting your own, is this a joke! Are recent hate crime laws, invasions on our freedoms of speech and expression? Has our society gone astray by stopping racial slurs, sex-biased hiring practices, racial-profiling and by ensuring voting rights for all citizens?
I therefore say that you are not against same-sex marriage because of your “concerns” for your own freedoms, no it is because you are blinded by hate. Anyone who “hates” homosexuals or their lifestyle is the very same as the persons of our nation’s past who paraded our streets dressed in white sheets and hoods proclaiming hatred of a different breed but with similar sentiment. As a heterosexual man born 25 years ago I know very few people my own age who are openly homophobic (unless they have been raised by homophobic parents). I attribute this to a societal evolution in which we have come to understand homophobia to be a form of hate. This simple connection is a phenomenal change in our society. Join me in this understanding. Are you willing to tell your grandchildren that you were a bigot who detested someone else's lifestyle because it was different from yours (is there any difference between this and hating someone else who’s skin is a different color)?
Stop arguing that same-sex marriage will damage children, you might as well make divorce illegal if this is your platform for “saving traditional marriage” or keeping children safe from “grave physical, economic, and psychological consequences”. I just don’t know what to say to claims that children who are brought up within a loving marriage between two committed people could face grave physical consequences (are you insinuating a link between pedophilia and homosexuality?), economic consequences (children who’s parents face higher tax rates, inability to join in group healthcare together and higher rates across the spectrum currently imposed on singles would be better off?), psychological consequences (should these children be ashamed of their parents, are their parents bad people who deserve your hate?).
Labeling homosexuality a sin would not be a right stripped from our nations bigots because religious freedoms have been upheld since our constitution was written. Even though these same bigots might be forced to accept the resumes of the very persons they choose to hate, they would still uphold the constitutional right to tell those persons that they are headed to hell. Legalizing same-sex marriage would simply remind America that we as the citizens of this great county have a responsibility to overcome the mistakes and limitations on freedoms that we have inherited from our forefathers. The honorable Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have had more eloquent words than mine but I say to you now; Let God bring peace to your heart, let His teachings of compassion bring you closer to your fellow citizens and not further from Him as hate is designed to do.
11 comments:
I wish I believed in true societal evolution, but I feel like it's somehow more cyclical than evolving.
If we were truly evolving, I would think there would be fewer wars and killings, but that's not the case.
But yeah, I hear what you're saying, man.
They say that I'm a dreamer........
I still refuse to believe that the concept of "Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you" can't work in the "Real World".
While I tend to agree with what you have said, you should address the fears being espoused by pundits such as Bill O. He says that allowing same sex marriage will be the break-down of society and thus lead to polygamy and marriage with animals. A silly argument, I know, but one that should be addressed in your rant. Don't you think? And then there is also the fear that same-sex couples raising children could be harmful to the child. Show examples how this isn't the case.
Anon
Thanks for commenting. I'd like to address your comment. First "He says that allowing same sex marriage will be the break-down of society and thus lead to polygamy and marriage with animals. A silly argument,"-This statement contains no information. O'Reily provides no how-to on the supposed breaking down of society, and no factual basis to support the logic that allowing homosexual persons to marry will lead to sex with animals. In my opinion this argument is not weak, it is not an argument. It is a distractor that sounds like an argument but is solely intended to persuade instead of proving. I'll be back to further argue this point. Thanks for discussing it with me.
My point was if you want to convince someone of your side of the argument, it's better to address the root fears and reasons why someone doesn't want to see two guys kissing or raising a child. Calling someone a bigot doesn't make your point and usually turns people off to where they don't hear another word you speak. If a person stops listening to your argument, it doesn't matter what you say. Make sense? :-)
Very very true. I guess it's just hard to not be frustrated. Thanks for pointing that out (that being that we should always attempt to see the root cause). The only problem still is that I believe (entirely over-confident) that I do at least partially understand homophobia. I just wish that it helped me fix the problem. Lets address this
What causes homophobia....
Latent homosexuality and embarrassment for said tendencies.
Fear of the unknown
Religious dogma
I think it's pretty safe to say that society teaches us this. Each society has it's taboos. This one happens to be one predominate in todays culture. But you have to look at why it's taught in society and address those issues if you want to get anywhere. Also know that patience is key. You will more likely have a social EVOLUTION as apposed to a REVOLUTION. So address the fears, dispel them one by one and see the hearts and minds of people change.
Another thing. In Virgina we still have stupid laws on the books no one even knows about. Making people understand the absurdity of some of our Blue Laws and sex laws may help in arguing how silly our laws are when pertaining to homosexual couples. Did you know that having sex with your wife with the lights on or in any other position other than missionary is illegal? One of many sill things we need to address. Check this out: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/virginia/
I'm a dreamer too. And the concept of "Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you" is a myth.
The fact is, a lifestyle or living in a way that is different with the mainstream for many people pushes this concept. Many people think it messes with them!
You may think that a person can live in a vacuum, but that's not the case.
Think about the alcoholic who believes what he does effects only him for a moment....See what I'm saying?
Everything we do effects all of those around us.
Anon
First I’d like to discuss your statement
“I think it's pretty safe to say that society teaches us this. Each society has it's taboos. This one happens to be one predominate in today’s culture. But you have to look at why it's taught in society and address those issues if you want to get anywhere. Also know that patience is key. You will more likely have a social EVOLUTION as apposed to a REVOLUTION. So address the fears, dispel them one by one and see the hearts and minds of people change.”
I understand that people perceive homophobia to be a societal issue but I perceive it as a psychological issue that our society suffers from. I think that it is something that both patience and open discussion can and will cure.
Saying that “The fact is, a lifestyle or living in a way that is different with the mainstream for many people pushes this concept. Many people think it messes with them!” is a cop out. I don’t disagree with you but I disagree with the person that believes that Homosexuals somehow “mess with them”.
You go on to say that “You may think that a person can live in a vacuum, but that's not the case. Think about the alcoholic who believes what he does effects only him for a moment....See what I'm saying?”
I do see what you are saying but I see it as a logical fallacy. I think that you are saying that Homosexuals affect the persons around them (sorta like we all affect everyone around us?). Somehow, written into our constitution we have the inalienable right to only be surrounded by persons that don’t threaten our psyche or sexuality. This is not the case. Someone who is gay and allowed to marry their partner may affect everyone within the United States or World for that matter, but I can find no way in which that is negative.
“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” Thomas Jefferson.
I am not gay and will never have to worry about being allowed to marry the woman I choose (besides managing to talk her into it). What if the roles were reversed, I’d be pissed.
Post a Comment