Leftover 1:
One of the claims that Kris Mineau (head of the Mass Family Institute) makes regarding how same-sex marriage is dangerous to children centers around an anecdote about a mother who came to him with a serious concern. Apparently this mother was doing yardwork with her son when the little boy down the street came up to her and asked if it would be alright for him to marry her son when he grew up. According to Mineau, this mother was absolutely aghast, and said "No, of course not! That wouldn't be right!" The neighborhood boy then replied, "Oh yes! In the state of Massachusetts, I can marry a man when I grow up."
This is supposed to be an example of how damaging same-sex marriage can be to our children. And yet I see it demonstrating the reverse. I don't understand why anything in this conversation was perverse or wrong, except maybe the mother's response making the little boy feel bad or uncomfortable. But bravo to him for following up with a positive statement in the face of her negativity.
Children, especially at the age of five or six, as this little boy was supposed to have been, are notorious for declaring they're going to marry so-and-so when they grow up. Sisters say that about brothers, cousins about cousins...my own son told me when he was about four that he was going to marry me when he was "big", because I was the best mommy ever. They have no concept of romantic love or of what marriage means at this age. So more than likely, this child was only participating in the same kind of behavior, and his choice of future spouse was born of nothing more than admiration of the woman's son and something he heard from his parent(s) or on the news.
The second option here is that this child, whether by himself or because of his parent(s), has already acknowledged and accepted a world where anyone can marry whom they love. What a wonderful, beautiful future adult he is already! And for this woman to come along and try to derail this sweet child's uninhibited acceptance of equality is just disgusting to me. Yes, she has a right to her opinion, and a right to declare at this age what her son can and cannot do. But those days won't last forever, and how is she going to feel if her son turns out to be homosexual and remembers this conversation? How is that going to affect his sense of self-worth, or his ability to come out safely? And that leads us to my final point on this leftover.
The third (and most important) option in this scenario is that the neighborhood child - even at this early age - already knows there is something 'different' or 'other' about him. I stick by my earlier statement that children in this age group do not have a true concept of romantic love. But they do know whether they are drawn more to the same sex or the opposite sex - and if they are more drawn to the same sex they can see in their friends around them that they are not in the majority. I experienced this, as did many other LGBT individuals I know. And if this conversation was a natural extension of those feelings, this mother telling him that no it was not okay and was, in fact, wrong could do unimaginable damage to his little self-image as he grows and matures. Having adults react this way to things that are normal and natural for him to feel can begin the downward spiral of self-doubt that he is not normal and natural, which can in turn lead to serious emotional issues down the line.
This is where the shame comes from that LGBT children and teens experience. It is not from inherently knowing they are "wrong" in their feelings - it is from being constantly told from all sides that it is not 'normal' and needs to be 'fixed' or changed in some way. A little girl who is African-American can see that she's different from the rest of the kids at an all-white school, but she will not be ashamed of who she is unless she is ridiculed, teased, or ostracized by the other children because of her skin color. If she is fostered in an environment of acceptance and love, then she will not doubt that she is worth as much as the other children even though she is not like them on the outside.
The same goes for LGBT children. If they are raised in a culture of acceptance, validation, compassion, and love, they will not doubt themselves down the line and focus on how strange or weird they are compared to the 'norm'. Yes, they will still feel different - it's hard not to when the majority representation in society, the media, etc. features people that are not like you - but it will be a difference they are comfortable with because the people around them do not see or treat them as different. The more equal LGBT individuals are made legislatively, the more confidence a child or teen (or even adult) will have because they are not second-class citizens driven to the back of the bus by society. That's not a negative effect, it's a positive effect. And I feel pity toward Mr. Mineau that he cannot see it that way.
Leftover 2:
Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of the Liberty Legal Institute, says that the homosexual community is attacking DOMA because we believe somewhere in the constitution there is a right to homosexual marriage; and further, that if we succeed it will force same-sex marriage on the entire country without anyone having the right to vote on it.
Now before your head explodes like mine did, keep in mind that the purpose of Shackelford's organization is to defend and restore religious liberty in America. Indeed, their mission statement contains the phrase, "Liberty Institute’s mission is to defend and restore religious liberty across America — in our schools, for our churches and throughout the public arena."
So you have to take into account that he's already coming from a position of completely ignoring the idea of separation of church and state, as well as fundamentally not understanding what the phrase "religious liberty" actually means. When you look at it that way, your head might only create enough steam for a headache instead of a full-blown explosion. But then again, it might only make it worse.
Because here is the crux of every argument like this - every single one I have come across (and especially in the case of the FRC) - is centered around Christian rights. Not human rights, not civil rights, not secular rights, not Muslim rights or atheist rights or Jewish rights or pagan rights or Buddhist rights or any other religious group's rights. So tell me again, please...how is this religious freedom and religious liberty?
Yes, Christians are the majority in America. I get that. And I also get that there are hundreds of thousands of Christians that would like to give Tony Perkins & Crew a piece of their mind as much as the rest of us. But fundamentalist Christians such as these we see in the video are no less than bullies in the name of the God they claim to serve. And just because Christianity is the majority religion does not mean they get to make the rules. Just like because white people are the majority race (although not for much longer, which I think is cool), it does not mean they get to make all the rules.
Allowing the Christian Right to dominate and say what is and is not acceptable simply by virtue of their numbers is tantamount to a Hitler situation. Yeah, I said it. And it's also awfully similar to the whole Sharia Law issue that they denounce so forcefully. The only difference between Sharia Law and what the CR wants to do is the name of the deity involved. If these people are so set to live under a theocracy, then by all means let them move somewhere that ascribes to that belief. As for the United States of America, we are a nation built on the premise of freedom - including the freedom of religion - and their "our way is the only right way" message is not welcome nor is it allowed by law.
That is what they need to remember. Claiming that homosexuality is bad because their God says it's bad falls into the camp of opinion. A misinformed opinion, but an opinion. It does not fall into any category pertaining to law and legislation, however, and it's getting out of control. For a group like Mr. Shackelford's to claim that they exist to fight for religious liberty in our country is a joke. Unfortunately it's not funny.
And no, we are not attacking DOMA because we believe there is a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution. Of course there isn't. Because with all people being equal under the law, there was no reason to write in anything specifically about homosexual marriage, just as there was no reason to write in special passages about mixed-race marriages or a woman's right to vote. When all individuals are considered equal, then all the passages from the constitution apply to them equally. It really isn't that hard, and it is concerning to me that the Christian Right cannot - or will not - see it.
Conversely, I agree with his second statement - that same-sex marriage will be forced on the entire nation without anyone having the right to vote on it. Just as the end of slavery was forced...and a women's right to vote...and marriage between people of two different races. Basic human rights are not put to a vote, nor should they be. And these people need to remember that if you create the type of society that does vote on basic human rights, you have created an avalanche that will eventually bury you underneath it right along with the rest of us.
The thing is, there are times in our history when the human condition has deteriorated so much that the people in power begin to honestly believe they speak for the nation at large. When that occurs, it comes down to the law to right the wrongs done by the entitled majority.
This is one of those times.
Leftover 3:
We are told, during the portion where the FRC claims we are taking away their religious rights, about a college student named Julea Ward enrolled in the graduate program at East Michigan University. A state school. A public, secular, state school. Keep that in mind, because it will be important later.
Ms. Ward was removed from her graduate program because she refused to counsel a gay couple. She said that, "As a Christian, she could not in good conscience give counseling to a gay couple." And our friend Mario Bergner from earlier in the video states dramatically, "Unless she signs on the dotted line of a particular ideology regarding same-sex attraction, she can't get her education."
It has nothing at all to do with her ascribing to any ideology. If you are going to go to a public, secular state college, then there are certain things you must expect. One, that your religious views and ideas/ideals are not going to take precedence over the coursework. No other religion is expecting special treatment, but here again we see the Christian Right's incredible sense of entitlement. Secondly, you must know - especially getting into any kind of counseling field - you are going to come across things you don't believe in and things that you don't like. I'm going to assume that had she stayed with her education and on into her profession as a counselor of some sort, she would have had to face all sorts of undesirable clients.
Murder is clearly against the Bible, as is pedophilia (which is actually what many of the passages that have been translated into "homosexual" in the Bible are referring to, but I don't want to confuse you with actual facts). So what would she do if she were placed in a situation by her employer where she had to counsel a child molester? A murderer? Someone who covets his neighbor's wife? Couples made up of remarried individuals? Because the Bible is very clear about all of those things (unlike homosexuality). And if she's going to reject a loving couple who is seeking out counseling to heal their marriage/union because she is a Christian, what in the world would she do with people exhibiting the above listed issues or other clearly forbidden things in the Bible? Not to mention if you take all of those things away, she would be hard pressed to find enough clients to even make a living.
Ms. Ward was not removed from her program because of a bias against Christians, as this documentary is trying to make it seem. She was removed for refusing to do her coursework, which would be the same result for any student that did so. And she and the FRC are so incensed about it because it flies in the face of their entitlement to do as they please without regard to the rules set in place by those in authority.
Leftover 4: (the last leftover)
Tony wraps up his 30 minutes of horribly ignorant rhetoric with a plea directed at his viewers...a call to action, if you will. He states that there are many things we can do to fight the horror of same-sex marriage and the way it is bringing about the complete destruction of society.
First, he calls us all to renew our personal commitment to our own marriage, making it everything God intended it to be. That sounds easy enough.
Oh, wait. He just means the straight people. My bad.
Secondly he reminds us that our votes do matter, and who occupies the office of President or the chairs of the Senate (and subsequently who is responsible for choosing the Supreme Court Justices) is up to us. So we're to take interest and participate in the issues surrounding the candidates, and then vote to express our preferences politically. Now that one I've definitely got. Don't worry, Tony - I'm all over the voting thing. It just might not be the way you'd want.
Third, he reminds the viewing audience that 80% of the U.S. identifies as Christian. Again, he is assuming that 1) his statistics are correct (which, given the history of this video is a big assumption); and 2) that the fact they are the majority means that they should have things their way. His audacity is mind-blowing, truly.
Lastly, he quotes scripture - 1 Timothy 2 to be specific. This chapter states,
"2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying —and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Yeah, I can see how that would be the ideal passage for a married, white, Christian man to use in describing how best to save the world from destruction. There are so many things wrong with that passage that I just don't feel up to addressing them all in detail. Sadly, I have to touch on at least a few, since this is the ending statement he leaves us with and the standard by which he believes we are to live.
First - although this is off topic and something for which I am going to start a separate series - the book of 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. There is a strongly developing movement regarding the dissension between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught and the issues surrounding that fact, especially since Paul never even met Jesus. I guess Paul had a complex about this, because he takes up a whole verse letting us know he was appointed an apostle and that he's telling the truth about that- he's not lying! Anyone with a young child will recognize that argument structure right out of the gate. I know I've personally heard it many times, generally right after I find melted chocolate in their bed or get told that their report card was somehow strangely lost. I mean, who is he trying to convince here, anyway...himself or his audience? Maybe both.
Second, I hope Mr. Perkins hasn't bought his wife any gold or pearls lately, because apparently that's a no-no. Also, I hope she obeys him in quietness and submission, and doesn't ever try to assume authority over a man. I'd hate for her to be riding that bus to hell right next to me. Also, I truly hope that she was able to bear children, because apparently that is how women become saved. So sad that all these poor women who had to adopt or chose to never have kids are going to be condemned to eternal hellfire. It all could have been avoided by popping out a kid or two.
Once again, the opposition has accidentally proven for us how far outside of literally-based scriptural enforcement we have come as a society. If they are not willing to go by the literal translation of every passage, then they should go by no literal translations at all. They accuse us of "cherry picking", when it is they who do this.
This concludes the last few points of the video I wanted to share with you. I will be writing a summary of sorts to the series and posting it tomorrow or the next day, so don't go away just yet!
No comments:
Post a Comment