May 28, 2009

• I'm a few days late to commentary, ought to be asleep by now, and utterly unsure of what more I could honestly say that would sway anyone. It seems my emotional or angry posts come off more as serving for me to rant about an issue than make any further impact on anyone. So here's to ramming the head against the wall until it cracks (the head, that is to say).

  I don't think it would be news to anyone to hear that Proposition 8 has passed in the eyes of the court. Nearly all of those I'm subscribed to have written about it (which is why I love you all dearly).

  I could write about how it wasn't fair; I could write about how the tyranny of the majority was exactly what James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wanted to avoid when they suggested a Republic for our government; I could focus on many other things related Prop. 8, I'm sure. But I'm not going to.

  Rather, I'm going to get at the root of an issue we often dance around and offer poor answers to because, without an answer to this dilemma, we cannot properly look at these idea of justice and equality or our equality movements of the past the same way again.

  It is American culture to have a view of universal truths and equalities. Many of our campaigns and our ideals must have that idea intact. While we tolerate different ideas (you can be and identify with the KKK or Nazi party), we do put forth that certain ideas are correct or right. We do not necessarily give every idea equal "correct" status. Racism is wrong - that is a American ideal, despite whatever anyone else may say. Racism is not tolerated, and, despite its prevalence and the pervasive nature of it, you cannot hope to do much with a public attitude of racism, and we would consider it an injustice to stain our laws with it. Thus, we've made it future policy to keep it removed (first instances of "activist judges"). No judge today would approve it (certainly not without backlash).

  Most people would agree with the above.

  Then we get gay equality (some would probably ask I put equality in quotes here). Obviously, not all of us agree with it. And I know my gut reaction would have been, "To each their own." The fact still remains that, unless there is a foreseeable harm to other people, there should be no law restricting. Even if a certain group disagrees. That's how our laws have always worked (in an ideal sense). Skipping the full explanation of how such a stance changes nothing of the current environment, I'll jump to why we cannot hold that view ("to each their own") and hope to view equality and, further, our past in the same way that we do.

  We would like to say that simply you can disagree. Fact doesn't change that you disadvantage millions by keeping them as second class citizens. Granting rights that others enjoy to tax paying citizens is, technically, equality. But it loses the luster when we can't claim it as some universal right, doesn't it?

  However, the fact is, if we wanted to say that it's "up to you", the fights to end slavery and to segregate this nation become not a matter of right vs. wrong but simply that our ideal is to treat every citizen the same. Not because it is right but because for functionality (or maybe just 'cause, if you think the country could function with differing classes). The second you decide to say that something is not a matter of moral right or wrong, you can't give a speech on the "evils of segregation" because - hey, your belief in segregation is just as valid as my belief in integration. And as difficult as it would realistically be to keep public opinion as such, even if the whole of the public decides to integrate the U. S., we cannot say to those who want segregation that they are really wrong. If our ideal is still equal treatment of each citizen, then they are only wrong based on that ideal. Morally, they are not incorrect.

  Obviously, we as a people don't function like that. We (I'll be so brave as to say the majority) want to decry racism and sexism. We want to say it is wrong and we as a people won't stand for it. That was the point behind the Declaration of Human Rights - that it is universal and obvious that certain rights are just morally right and deserve to be given because to deny and to act as if any other idea on the matter is legitimate is wrong.

  But when it comes to sexualism, we become a little more divided. So I will argue that we cannot simply give it a "To each their own" and must come to an actual conclusion of the morality of homosexuality. Because if there is one thing the opposition can blather truthfully in the concoction of their other string of lies, it's that, if gays are accepted by the majority (which they will be because the fact becomes clearer and clearer with each new generation), there will be a confirmation of the "gay lifestyle" (please, please, please, please sense the sarcasm in that) by the majority. So we need to decide preemptively if that is a fine pursual.

  Understanding that this is a debate over whether gay people can be confirmed by our sense of a universal morality, I'm not going to address any religious texts, etc. While (being Christian) I would argue there is a means for biblical inclusion, that's not the concern here.

  It's a simple question: what does the presence of homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, transsexuals, intersexes, and the many other that fall under transgendered do to you?

  Assuming that morality is based upon the harm inflicted (as in the examples of murder, theft, lying, cheating, abusing, etc.) - how do the above people harm you?

  And I've heard the accusations - apparently we like to drink, do drugs, and have tons of sex. I've done none, by the way (other than the wine every Sunday). I've heard the argument that "it's a violent sin" (you know, us wanting to rape those angels and all). And yet our stereotype is...that we're weak and "pansies".

  And, of course, if you just let go of those stupid "it's a fad" ideas and that we're capable to "convert", you'd realize we've been here for years and some of us have been crucial to what you enjoy today.

  We aren't child molesters (I've had too many come out to me at 15 to believe that tripe and the out teachers at my school are some of the best role models I've ever had) and there are just as many of us molested as any straight person (I'll go on record and say I wasn't; there, theory foiled).

  And you ought to realize that we cannot alter sexuality (so stop guarding your kids like we'll snatch them; if they turn out gay, we didn't do anything to them, and you've just got to accept the fact). Believe me, there are some days I wish I could. I seem to have a disposition towards gay women, and it drives me insane. But that's the nature of sexuality. Whether you want to accept the fact or not.

  I could go into a diatribe about why would we want to go through half the crap we do when people are struggling with the idea of having to brace this world and society as a new sex (the bravery of the Trans community will never cease to amaze me) - but I won't.

  I think I've made my point. Tell me how holding my boyfriend's hand will destroy you suddenly. In a country that has allowed gay marriage for more than a year now, when will the sky fall in? Or, better yet, how about those other countries who have had it longer. But let's forget these fantastical consequences and focus on the real and personal - how will I hurt you (for I already know from experience I will not hurt myself)?

  How are homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, and transgendered hurting anyone?

  • 3:07 am
  • 2 Comments