![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scribblemynameThis has been bothering me long enough to finally say something openly, even though I could alienate a lot of people by saying it. I find proponents of homosexuality constantly try to shut up anyone with a differing opinion by lumping them in with the extremists who will not shut up no matter what those proponents say. The result is stifling anything like reasonable discussion: most folks who are reasonable aren't all that into conflict and arguments about this stuff.
Fact: I disapprove of homosexuality.
Fact: Those who state disapproval of homosexuality are called bigots who do not want homosexuals to exist and akin to disliking someone because they have red hair.
Fact: Disagreeing with what someone does has nothing to do with who they are.
My disapproval of homosexual behavior is not at all akin to disliking red hair (which I adore, by the way). I disapprove of sex outside of marriage. I disapprove of adultery. These are all sins according to my faith and beliefs, and yet, guess who else has sinned? Me. Different sins, but so what? Everyone I know has sinned by the standards of my faith, and I have plenty of friends or acquaintances who have done so sexually.
I'm not interested in somebody else's sexual sins. You're a person. You have the freedom to do whatever you please within certain fairly obvious constraints. I don't even care about what you want to do sexually until you bring the battle to me.
Sex outside of marriage is not illegal. Adultery is not illegal. Homosexual behavior is not illegal. But none of these things are specially condoned by law either, and if you ask me to vote to give these behaviors special protection, I won't. I will vote against that. If you ask me to vote to ban these behaviors, I'll tell the federal government, get out of social issues, I don't think so.
You can call me bigoted for not caring about your opinion on other people's sex lives and bigoted for not wanting the government to render an opinion either—for or against, but frankly, you shouldn't care about my opinion either. I will never bother fighting for social approval of who I am, what I do, or what I represent. Either you will love me, hate me, or tolerate me in neutrality, and I don't care which.
Due to the nature of this particular post, I reserve the right to delete any comments that are abusive, vitriolic, etc.
Edited to Add: For future record and complete clarification of a particular point frequently misinterpreted, I believe there is a distinct and significant difference between sexual orientation and sexual conduct. Sexual orientation is a desire; sexual conduct is a choice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-03 01:36 am (UTC)I say well done for speaking up about it.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-03 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 11:19 am (UTC)If you voted for gay marriage, you would vote for giving gays a chance to not have sex outside of marriage. Lesser evil, no? :)
You can call me bigoted for not caring about your opinion on other people's sex lives and bigoted for not wanting the government to render an opinion either—for or against, but frankly, you shouldn't care about my opinion either.
Well, no offense, but yeah, I will (but I still like you despite of that, and don't want to pick a fight. But I know you know I think it's awesome that there's no such thing as no sex before marriage where I live, and you seem to like me anyway, so let's give this a shot). Because the thing is, you're not just a Christian. You're also an American citizen with responsibilities to vote, and to help shape a world in which not everybody shares your believes. If we all voted on what directly pertains to us, there would be no equality, and no liberty.
The problem with the whole political discussion of homosexuality is, it's personal for people. It's not personal to you, but it's personal to queer folks. There are still a lot of places where people can't dare coming out because it would open them up to the threat of being physically harmed. They're treated like second class human beings, every day of their lives, because the majority (and that's what hurts most: the majority) has decided that they're sub-standard, and have no right to be equal, and free. Essentially, they're lower beings. If you say, you don't approve of what gay people do, and that's why you won't vote for them getting those rights, that's a slap in the face. It means you support the idea that they are worth less than you are, that they should have less rights, and that they should continue living second class. That's personal. It has everything to do with who they are, not just with what they do. What they do influences who they are right there, right here at this very moment when they're reading your post, because that post is about them and it is influencing their lives right now, as we speak. And as a responsible American citizen, you and your personal stance and your vote are a part of the reason why they can't come out to their favorite uncle for fear of breaking into tears, why they will never be able to hold hands on a street in Texas, why they have to brace themselves every time they open their mouths about being gay on LJ.
Whether or not social issues should be part of politics is neither here nor there. They are. They are deeply embedded into everything in our lives. Every political issue is also a social issue, all the time, and the other way around. If you say social issues should be banned from politics, at the very least you should vote against the right of straight people to get married.
So I respect your opinion, and I don't think you should change your opinion just to make people you don't care about happy. That would be dumb. But you can't say you disapprove of what gay people do without disapproving of gay people. Because at the very moment you make that statement, you're already influencing their lives, who they are. And you can't expect people not to call you a bigot, when you are using your privilege of fitting into the current world order to act as if you weren't a part of the reason why gay people are highly more likely to get clinically depressed. It's okay to have a different opinion. But if you do, you have to be aware of the consequences of having that opinion. I tip my hat to you if you can stand in front of somebody you love and tell them you don't approve of them being gay, you don't think they should have equal rights, and you don't care if they're miserable. Made all the more hurtful to those who were around for AIDS, when the majority was refusing to sponsor research on why gay people get sick - also a deeply social issue. That's the consequence of that particular stance.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 11:19 am (UTC)I'm gay and I'm German, not in any danger of being harmed, and I don't have to care in any way, what you say isn't personal to me. But I know if you were German and you would be telling me, say, you don't disapprove of clinically depressed people, only of how they're lazy and self-involved, I would be flying off the handle so quickly, and so heatedly, you have no idea. Because you, right there in front of me, would be the reason why I've suffered all my life. There would be no room for differenciating. And that's what it's like for American queers.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 02:45 pm (UTC)People lump me in with WASP, but fact is I'm a ethnically mixed, born within the poverty level, handout-hating, nondenominational Christian independent that generally votes Republican because at least they can get elected.
I believe that people should be taught not to hate, but not the acts of sex and that they should try them. In kindergarten. (Ew.) I believe that homosexuals should have their rights. I don't want them dead, banned, harmed, or anything else. I disapprove as strongly of bullying and bigotry as I do of being called a bigot because I think certain legal things to do are sins.
I also don't think anyone has a civil right to social approval, only tolerance, to use that generally hated word. I respect you very much. I want you to be happy. I pray for your headaches to stop bothering you. I hope that nobody judges you for your decisions. If someone asked me to vote to ban homosexuality, I would vote against that. If someone asked me to vote to ban homosexual discrimination, I would make sure that they're including the rights of religious groups to stick to their beliefs, then vote for it. If someone asked me to vote to approve homosexuality, then by my conscience, I'm sorry, but I can't.
On the religious groups: if a ministry can turn me away because I strongly do not fit their doctrinal statement and they hire people who share their faith and if a nurse can do every job in the hospital and leave the abortions to the other nurses who are quite willing to do them, then I believe that religious adoption agencies and churches and wedding photographers should be able to choose whether they feel they are sinning by providing those services in a way they never intended by serving them in a homosexual ceremony. There are other agencies, photographers, options, etc., many they could probably recommend, that will gladly provide those services.
But of course, I'm of the hot chocolate school of politics. I don't want anyone stepped on, anyone's beliefs downtrodden, and I'd rather we all looked at compromises instead of hatred.
(Thank you for not hating me. I did worry what you would think if you read it, and I like you. A lot.)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 03:37 pm (UTC)And I could see that, but you stretch my stance to places it doesn't go. I didn't vote for or against a legal way to handle marriage.
No, you did. That's the problem with the two-party-system. It's fair enough if you say, for example, that you vote Republican because you approve of their stance on religion (or economy or whatever) and that this is so important to you that you'll vote for it despite of their stance on gay rights. One does have to prioritize. But then you can't complain if gay people accuse you of deciding that they aren't important enough. If there are only two parties, and if you voted, then you voted for or against gay rights. If you decide not to vote for it, you decide that gay people should not be equal. If a gay person learns about that, they're likely to take it personal. I personally think you can never blame somebody for getting angry at a person who is standing in the way of their equality. That's just the prize you pay.
I can see that, but it is weird to be told that disapproving of any action that doesn't hurt someone else means that I hate the person. There is a substantial difference.
Not from the gay POV though. Homosexuality is a matter of identity just like religion. People might express their sexual identity in their actions, but that's no different from a religious person expressing their believes by going to church, lighting candles, or leaving little stones on the graves of the dead.
The thing is, if a straight person talks to a queer person about homosexuality, it's not just abstract for straights but personal to gays, but it's foreign and simplified in the heads of straights, while gays have been forced to contemplate it a lot. We're more familiar with all the ways in which a straight person's stance can be hurtful while straight people think we're splitting hairs. We also know that we'll never be equal if too many people take your stance. We rely on other people caring. That makes us helpless, and feeling like that makes us angry. It's good that we get angry because that helps us get organized, and moving things forward. While I can see how that can be annoying, how that can take away our ability to see a difference between someone like you and an extremtist, I'd also say that we should be cut some slack considering our current, unacceptable situation.
It's interesting for me to see this topic raised on your LJ at this particular time, when there's currently a debate in German politics on the exact opposite problem. Left-wing parties are trying to ban circumcision for religious (non-medical) reasons by pointing out, quite rightfully, that it constitutes bodily harm of minors. I had to think about that a lot before deciding to take the right-wing stance on this for a change, and to lobby with the Jews and Muslims. While it's true that it's harmful, some traditions cultures have just are. And I don't think we have a right to take away a millenia-old Jewish ritual just because there's more of us. But it's interesting. I'm glad that we don't have a two-party-system and that my party, who are pro-gay, are still considering taking the Jewish orthodox side. It would be a lot messier if I would have to prioritize gay rights over Jewish rights, though if Jews would end up calling me names because of it, I'd try to take it like a man because they'd have really good reasons to do that.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 03:49 pm (UTC)I don't have the choice to have brown skin and hispanic-afro hair that got me evil looks in Texas, but that I shrugged off because I do not care.
Amen. That is the problem. I just really wish that reasonable discussions like this one, where people can decide whether or not they agree, on what points, and to what extent could happen more often.
I'm a creationist too and talked to a vehemently Jewish evolutionist whose initial response was to villify me for simply disagreeing. Then they settled down and realized that disagreement does not equal extreme hatred and unwillingness to compare notes and really think about how to best serve everyone. We actually discussed.
And that's what I was bringing up here. If the automatic reaction is, "if you don't celebrate my homosexuality, you're an evil bigot who wants us dead," then I have a problem with that. There's a continuum. I'm just wishing more people would actually look at that continuum instead of pushing forward this myth that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality wants all homosexuals marginalized, banned, and/or destroyed. There are those who do. They're the extremists I was saying would never be shut up.
But that's also why I rarely comment on this unless someone's getting wrongfully dumped on (I've only mentioned it twice, in passing, before I came out and said in this post, stop telling everyone that everybody who isn't pro-homosexual actively hates you). I do try to cut some slack. It's just gotten so hateful from the pro-homosexual community online, that I want to remind them, if you won't discuss with the moderates, then how will we ever reach a middle ground?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 06:12 pm (UTC)You're wrong about that. That's the one thing where I'd really appreciate it if you reconsidered. Because not only is that not how it works, but it also is a misconception that raises a big red flag for queers. Historically, treating homosexuality as a behavior has always been used as grounds to make it illegal, and to even have us killed, certainly to deny us rights. Sexuality as identity, on the other hand, has always been tied in with liberation, emancipation, and gaining more self-confidence and happiness. Saying you regard it a choice will make gay people reclassify you as a homophobe, no matter how you might argue otherwise. There are very few gay people who have never tried not to be gay.
(and from working in Holocaust research, I know that every religious minority that has ever been persecuted will regard their religion as a part of their identity as well. The idea that Christians were persecuted by Romans, Jews were killed by the Nazis because of their choices is absurd. And yeah, that means that the people who persecuted them were one source of each religious identity, just like homophobia is one of many sources of sexual identity, and that's ironic, but it's still the way it is)
Being gay is not a choice. If I decided to sleep with nobody, I would be lonely and miserable, and if I decided to sleep with men, I would just be miserable. Because I'm gay. My gay identity determines what I like, just like my 21st century identity makes me believe I can go and have a career, and my identity as a German makes me stare in befuddlement at all the American flags. I wish there was a way of telling you what it's like to figure out you're gay. It changes everything. You try and trace those feelings you have, and where they come from, and why you have them, but in the end, you only can know that you have them. You're completely helpless about that, and it has both the potential of making you incredibly happy and incredibly miserable, depending on how your environment reacts to it. It'll color every action you take in such a powerful way. It has nothing to do with choice at all.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 06:56 pm (UTC)And I appreciate that identification may make you a happier person. It makes me much happier to detach and to realize that if I change my religion (which will never be happening because as you said about your own situation, I'd just be miserable), even so I'd still be the same person.
I don't believe that homosexual desires are a choice any more than I think having the occasional sex dream or the major crushes, biological clock hit so I wanted a baby, etc. is mine. I also know that I am currently single, a virgin, and that's by choice.
And yes, I have had people hate me because of my religious choices. I still make them. There were Christians who chose to stop being Christian because of persecution and those who stood strong, God bless them. It's not absurd to think that a religion is a choice. It is absurd to think ethnicity (Jewish, in this case) is a choice. Or that they chose to be persecuted. That would be ridiculous.
And I admit, I simply do not have sexual interest coloring everything I do. If I did, perhaps I would understand better why some people choose to make their sexuality part of their identity. I think everyone has the right to have sex or not have sex with whoever they want. I just don't think they have the right to demand that I say that's a good thing.
Sorry to have hit a button there or to have been unclear.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 07:36 pm (UTC)Are you sure about that? It's often harder to see in what ways heterosexuality influences who people are, because it's the norm. Certainly, you'd be a very different person if you were gay. You would have to question your sexual desires, possibly feel bad about them, when right now, rare as they may be, you don't have to contemplate them because they're accepted. You haven't been socialized by a process of coming out - either to yourself or to others. You arrange your life around the possibility of getting married - the choice to not have sex before marriage is a heterosexual one in most states, as you can't make that choice if you can't get married at all. You do not have to fear what your parents would say, or contemplate whether you should tell them, whether your church would tell you not to come back until you stop having those fantasies. All those things are determined by your sexuality. My sexuality determines the way colleagues treat me (fortunately, I live in a country, and work in an environment, where this is actually an advantage), it changes the way I interact with men and women both even if I'm not interested in them sexually, and to my surprise, I have found that it changes the way I dress and do my hair.
You don't have to apologize for having hit a button. I'm not all that bothered. I'm just saying, it's a dangerous thing to say in a conversation with a gay person because it's an easy way of making them see red. Especially since, when it comes down to it, it's not that important a point in most debates.
You do make an excellent point about religious believes in your comment below. However, I do think that there are plenty religious people who think otherwise, who do regard their belief a matter of identity. Sure, whether or not you do is partly your choice - although society can also force you into that choice, which is what's happening to gays in this century. Fact is, the vaste majority of gays regard it as a matter of identity. It's generally accepted in the gay community that that's how it works, and those guys should know, 'cause they've thought about for a long time and analysed it from philosophical, psychological, historical POVs. It's pretty useless to question something that's been so firmly established.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 08:27 pm (UTC)I'm glad to take a look at this thinking from an insider, as I can only verify my own side, and I admit to truly not considering my sexuality or marriage at all.
I'm not planning on marriage any more than I ever planned on college. I'm a virgin for the most embarrassing reasons ever: 1) never had an opportunity (though I deliberately never gave myself one), and 2) when I found out about the hymen, pretty much wrote off ever having sex or kids altogether. My taste in everything is eclectic, including dress, etc.: rugged, Victorian, and contemporary all combined. That equates to masculine and feminine styles. I relate to guys and girls both on a largely intellectual level, unless they are family. I've only ever met two people I didn't think of in a purely platonic fashion. That's... maybe scary, but I'm too busy with other things, creating, living to have time to bother with sex and romantic relationships. They just don't even make it on the docket.
And I can see how being in the majority would cause more obliviousness, but I think I'm just a rather mental person. I was oblivious to my own mixed race being a minority until it was rammed down my throat that my beliefs were apparently "oppressive" to me. Nearly choked on that one. I only ever experienced bigotry against my racial makeup in Texas (one visit for about a week), and the only other state where I could tell anyone cared was New Mexico (majority there), but in Colorado, I've always just been a person. And that's how I feel about homosexuals, which is why I brought up the point.
They're people. I can disagree or wish they had a different situation, etc., but they're people with their own lives, making their own decisions. My faith says that God gave everyone free will. I have no intention of abdridging that. I want those rights protected.
But I also have my own free will and need to obey God without hurting anyone else, as much as possible. I'm not held responsible for someone else's sins, just mine. I'm only held responsible for saying, "I condone this." So I don't. And that's the middle ground I'm talking about. That's why I don't want anyone wiping out the middle ground. We can moderate the extreme ends of our own side of the continuum. That's important.
I am reminded of the man who wanted to speak up on behalf of the beautiful, strong, independent women he knew and was told that he was a man, he had no right, he couldn't understand. Another voice on their own behalf silenced.
And thank you for really unpacking this topic without "being bothered." I wish I knew how to encapsulate better how much it matters to me when someone is willing to set aside anger long enough to really hit details, even the points of misunderstanding or uncertainty, without resorting to vitriol, but it does matter to me. It restores my faith in open discourse and the willingness to try to understand each other.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 10:49 pm (UTC)Heh. Aw.
Yeah, I live in ignorance on the race thing too. I only learned that I'm supposed to have an immigrant background when I was filling out forms for a scholarship program and reading the fine print on the exact definition. Because my mom's family are from Hungary originally. I don't know anything about Hungary though.
And concerning the asexuality, well, you know, these things are meant to be labels. There's no exact definition of who's an asexual. Some people might call themselves asexual because they don't want relationships or sex, even if they'd enjoy it if they chose to have it, and the asexual label reflects that. Others might find they have no interest in sex whatsoever but call themselves straight or gay because they'd still want a romantic relationship despite o the lack of sex drive. So it's mostly a decision on what makes you most comfortable and how you want to communicate who you are to the world. :) (see? identity issue! right there! :D)
Thank you also for engaging in this conversation! It was really interesting and made me get to know you better. I enjoyed it a lot.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-05 07:04 pm (UTC)My faith states that to worship a different God is a sin. That means that I feel that Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., etc. are wrong. But I don't hate any of their followers or treat those people as any less than I want to be treated, etc. They have the right to their beliefs. Obviously, they don't have a right to kill (Sharia law) any more than I would want Biblical death penalties put in our lawbooks either.
I can indeed disapprove of these religions without hating or disrespecting the people in them. That's what I'm saying. It bothers me that only in this homosexual issue are the two conflated. A belief = a person. It's a strange concept. I'm shocked at how much Orthodox Judaism would actually rather that gentiles NOT participate in their religious practices, even if those gentiles respect Jews.
If I wanted to hurt or marginalize or mistreat anyone that believed something, then that falls under persecution, etc., but if I simply think they are doing something wrong (which I do plenty of things I think are wrong), and that I won't vote for a law saying this is a good thing, then they are free to think that's bigoted and try to shut me up. Because I will shut up. And stop defending their rights to the people that really do hate them.