i'm a snot fountain this morning. ugh. started writing this post a week ago. then got busy. then got bored. then just didn't want to think about any of this stuff or the election for awhile.
hey annonny nonny (aka brick boy): it's all well and good. your breakdown of sexual orientation works on a simple hunger level - 'should i have the donut or not? i like donuts, but instead i will use self control and not have the donut. this makes me not a donut eater. tra la. the end.' you imagine that being gay holds similar weight.
but i implore you to try and understand that it goes far deeper than that. homosexuality is not a behavior. it goes to the core of identity. it speaks directly to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. it's difficult to get this point across, because you don't have a frame of reference for it. you only know your own experience. it's very easy to say 'if i did feel attraction to a man i would do such and such and such' when you don't have any experience of the crippling oppression so many of us experience while in the closet - especially those of us who subscribe to the 'moral' beliefs about sex and attraction being reserved only for heterosexuals. these are men who lead tortured, unhappy lives of deceit - never knowing or understanding the joy and potential of sex and love, having forced themselves to fit the antiquated society mold, lying to themselves and their families.
actually, one way that gay marriages will help straight marriages is by removing the need for closeted, self hating people to force themselves into unnatural relationships.
it's a tired analogy, but i'll repeat it again: think of it like left and right handedness. sure, lefties can cripple themselves writing with their right hands. it's a choice, right? so why don't they just choose to fit in with the rest of us? handedness is a morally irrelevant genetic predetermination. so is sexual orientation. tra la. the end.
it would be nice if the issue of choice wasn't an issue - it shouldn't be. we should all have the choice, and the choice (as well as the genetic predetermination) should be morally irrelevant. it's too bad that we do need evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally - as though its occurence in humans isn't evidence enough of this. when concrete evidence is found - i'm actually quite curious as to how the 'immoral choice' people will react. will they concede that homosexuality is natural, but then seek to find genetic 'cures,' or will they outright reject the evidence? (they do it so well with pollution and global warming)
what if a conservative mother's unborn baby tests positive for genetic gayness? would she believe the doctor? what if there was a gene therapy to increase the chances of the kid being straight? would she do it? hell, would i
do it? if she did, she would be admitting that gayness is genetic. if she didn't, she's risking a life of convincing junior to choose trucks instead of barbies. will we see a future in which gayness is viewed as an unfortunate genetic affliction - like down syndrome?
scott sends this:
As with everyone else, I've been arguing this topic with evangelicals since the election. It seems there is only one solution with adequate support from both sides: strike "marriage" from all government related documentation (state sponsored marriage certificates, tax documents, etc). Effective immediately, no American citizen is married as far as the state is concerned. Consenting adult partners may freely obtain civil union licenses, gaining access to all rights and privileges with which marriage had hitherto been associated. Religious and tradition-minded couples seeking "marital" status could then go to the religious organization of their choosing. Evangelicals would be free to restrict same sex marriage within the confines of their church. The Episcopal and Unitarian churches would accept same sex marriages with open arms. Everybody's happy. Am I right?
yep. i think you're right. though not everyone is happy. the problem is that it won't appease those who want to abolish all forms of recognizing gay relationships - because that's the root and eventual goal of all this legislation. these people see anything granting recognition to gay relationships as tantamount to government approval of moral deviance. they won't rest until the universe is put back neatly into tidy boxes where all gay people have been 'rescued' from their immoral 'choice' and we can all be a happy heterosexual society.
in other news. i've been taking a lot of boxing and kickboxing classes. i go to two of the gayest gyms in the city to take these classes, and me and my friend neal are the only gay men in the class. we punch the bags with a room full of angry angry women and two other guys who are straight. what's up with that? it's the weirdest thing ever. that room should be packed with angry queens wanting to beat the shit out of each other.