Am I a homophobic bigot?
This might surprise a few readers of this site, but I think gay unions should be perfectly legal (I don't consider them marriages by definition). I strongly believe in the freedom of all adults to enjoy their life as they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom or create an issue of public safety.
That said, I still would fight tooth and nail against any attempt to bless gay marriages in my Church. And if they did, I would find another Church to join. That would be me exercising my choice. Something I find abhorrent are the Biblical revisionists who try to convince us that gay marriages are supported by Scripture. But the point is, in the name of freedom, people should have the right to do even the wrong thing. The state should not act like a parent and decide this issue for the rest of us.
Still, these photos of Andrew Sullivan and his bride/groom make my stomach turn. There's nothing pornographic, they're just photos of their ceremony on the beach. But there's just something about two bearded men getting married to one another that I find extremely repugnant. Does that make me a bigot? I welcome any opinion on the subject.
I don't think that it does; I can't force myself to like something, after all. Nor is Mr. Sullivan or anyone else required to be thrilled about everything that I do. It's called a free country. Let's keep it that way.
Incidentally, I've got my own solution to the gay marriage issue that, as far as I know, no one else has even suggested yet.
Simply get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
Why not? Marriage is, after all, a holy sacrament or a cultural rite, depending on your particular upbringing and beliefs. If my marriage has been blessed by God, then I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether the state recognizes it or not.
If people want all the legal protections of marriage, they can just draw up a legal contract and wills to reflect that. Meanwhile, they could simply marry or divorce in their own Church in the eyes of their own faith and community. There is no particular need for the state to be involved at all.
As it is, I think the gay marriage issue has become way overblown by both sides in American political debates, as well as an unfortunate distraction from more substantial issues. And since Iowa just legalized gay unions (and then shortly afterward ordered a temporary stay on the ruling), you can bet that we'll hear a lot about the issue in the coming months, since the Iowa caucus is scheduled for January 2008.
I'm also still wondering why the "live and let live" types who support gay marriage don't speak up in favor of other marriages that (mostly) involve consenting adults, such as polygamists in Utah. Why is that? Is it because they are religious rural white folks who tend to vote Republican, instead of liberal urban minorities who tend to vote Democrat? If they are really adults, people should be free to enter into whatever living/sleeping/marrying relationships they want. However, I have no problem with prosecuting polygamists who take underage girls to their marriage bed.
In any case, maybe this solution would take the issue off the table altogether. 
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed 
21 comments:
i don't think it makes you a bigot but homophobic - yes!
This issue is not as simple as calling someone a bigot or homophobe but unfortunately thats what debate often comes down to these days. Like calling someone racist, even if you have no hate in you, if you aren't ecstatic about a black man marrying your white daughter or visa versa that automatically makes you a racist in our society.
To answer your question, no. You're not a bigot so long as you do't let your emotional responses drive your policy positions. And you apparently don't, so you're on the correct side of the bigotry line.
I can't point you to any statistics, but it is my understanding that most of the polygamous marriages DO NOT start with consenting adults. I can't be bothered to try and find statistics of my own, but I believe that most of the wives in those marriages were child brides.
I would not condemn polygamous marriages that actually involved consenting adults. I agree with your central point, that the church/state distinction has gotten awfully blurry here.
Though from a purely legal perspective, the laws regarding marital property are designed to protect people who need to get divorced. Particularly, the laws protect stay-at-home Moms and others who have little economic power, negotiating skill, or leverage when it is time to split the sheets. Society has a valid interest there, and I can't agree that we should abolish those laws.
You are exactly right about the government having nothing to do with marriage. Government has no apparatus to judge the quality or content of any relationship until a contract is breached.
It also has the added weirdness of making a religious leader an agent of the state. Churches should be able to join or not join whomever their religious doctrine compels them to tolerate or forbid.
As to critics who see marriage as primarily as a method of controlling who has sex with whom, well, they really can't be paying very close attention. Sex happens or doesn't happen in marriage. Sex is only one component of marriage (and it my case, a very, very small component. Can I hear a rimshot?)
Society has an interest creating an environment that promotes the interests of children and protecting the care giving spouses. Therefore, the legal system provides certain protections for these people. I would even argue more protections should be built in. Such as: spousal and child health care, marriage credit rather than marriage penalty in tax system, more affordable education.
It just isn't as high a priority for society to protect the rights of two gay men sharing an apartment. Allowing spousal benefits and special protections just encourages another person to stay out of the work force and spreads scarce resources across a larger group.
I really appreciate your taking time to think about this stuff, then being forward and open enough to actually publish it.
Just a little info about me: I'm a 24 year old gay guy (with no beard! haha) living in California. My political alliances are all over the map, depending on the subject in question -- lately I've been finding myself least displeased mostly with libertarian ideals, followed by traditional (pre neocon) republican ideals.
I have to admit to an emotional reaction to your squeamishness regarding the Andrew Sullivan pictures. I look at the photos and see something absolutely beautiful: two (albeit rather bearded! lol) people in love! ...This evaluation is absolutely my personal opinion. Others certainly have a similar opinion to mine, and other surely a rather different opinion.
I absolutely respect your opinion (even if I think it is silly) and I'd imagine you respect my opinion as well. I wholeheartedly support (and would "fight" for) your right and freedom to have a different opinion than I do, even regarding such a deeply personal topic.
In your posting, you invoked a civic philosophy that far too many Americans do not even begin to understand as you do: one having an opinion on a matter does not provide a sufficient means or appropriate condition for said opinion to be a law or policy. It's striking to me how many people either never thought about such a concept and/or were never exposed to such an idea in school. I suppose it may have something to do with American public schools basically not teaching (well, or at all) on topics of civics; instead, the focus is on the related topic of politics.
Many of my friends (gay and straight) cringe when I say things like this, but I support the right for churches to declare any rules they demand of its participants. Churches are private institutions that can do whatever they'd like. I'd love to get married in the church I was baptized in, but if they don't let homosexuals get married in their private club, then tough luck for me! I can go start my own homo-only church/club and not let any heterosexuals in.
(For the most part what I wrote above is honest. I'm not sure of all the details on this, but I don't think churches are strictly private institutions, which was the basis for my entire point! lol I believe there is special tax status for official church people, exemptions all over the place, public tax money given to religious institutions for who-knows-what, etc. - I too certainly agree that the state needs to severe itself 100% from religious institutions, only then will I truly be comfortable with my position on churches rights.)
Have I babbled mostly off topic enough yet? :) ...
To answer your question, I don't think you are a full-fledged bigot. :) I think for the most part the (Christian, at least) church enterprise has a lot of bigotry in it. So by association lets say that makes you only a 50% bigot. :)
However, there is hope! haha I say your (50%) bigotry status is hinged entirely upon the state of your homophobia! Homophobia, like many other phobias, can be a temporary condition.
I have a few straight friends that were extremely homophobic years ago but since have been best buddies with me. I've been through the growing out of homophobia process with them and to sum it up they freed themselves of the irrational fear mainly by taking a bold risk and making an honest attempt at being friends with a gay person. Eventually they realized that everyone is different in some ways and similar in others; over time their emotional reactions began to reflect their new intellectual understanding of what used to be feared.
...Anyway, like I said before, it's awesome you put some thought in to this topic and are making an attempt at trying to understand yourself and perhaps others.
I love that you say these things. Even though I don’t always agree with the things you say I have to respect your honesty. I think that too often people forget that we are hard wired for some distasteful things. It is human nature to be selfish, and to stereotype, and to dislike that which is different. These things are built into us (for good reason), and while as logical and free thinking individuals we can take those facts into account and make the effort to be politically correct, the hard wiring is still there. I think that many people who truly understand and value peoples rights to their own lifestyle choices may somewhere deep down be uncomfortable with some things that they would not admit publicly to. Good for you.
Phobia and aversion are two different things. Phobia is irrational and exaggerated fear. Aversion is also irrational - who can rationalize why certain ugly sights are ugly? - but there is no fear involved. Who really fears faggots? Nobody, we simply can not imagine ourselves doing such ugly and unnatural things. I believe that this almost universal aversion is a component of a normal sexuality, that is, it is instinctive. And if you take seriously liberal mantra that noting natural is shameful, you have to derive inavoidal conclusion that so called homophobia is nothing to be ashamed, too. We should behave with these invalids with malfunction of sexual instinct just as with any other invalides - lame, disfigured, blind and so on humanly. But do not requre us to by their favorite obsession that their lifestyle is as normal and healthy as ours!
I know that your blog is about Achilles' shield and that you half disavow any admiration for Achilles, but the irony of your praise for a symbol of Achilles and your revulsion towards the wedding photos is too rich to pass up.
The exact nature of Achilles' relationship with Patroclus has been a subject of dispute in both the classical period and modern times.
People tend to interpret the relationship through the lens of their own cultures. Thus, in 5th century BC Athens, the relationship was commonly interpreted as pederastic.
How does the culture that created the myth of the shield reconcile a pederastic relationship with their values of good and evil?
Yes, Mary, you are homophobic and bigoted.
If you found the idea of a black man and a white woman exchanging vows repugnant, who would question whether you were a bigot?
And, please, who's telling your church it has to perform same sex marriages? Last time I checked it was churches telling us what government may do, not the other way around--and even if it were, the Bill of Rights would decide the issue in your church's favor (that's one clause in the Bill of Rights which Bush and Cheney won't be erasing for awhile). Stop playing a victim--it's tedious and deceitful.
So, it's fine for you to think Andrew Sullivan's clothed wedding photos are repugnant, but seeing the underwear clad women rubbing suntan oil on each other your blog is perfectly acceptable.
To Paula:
Yes - you better believe it. We all pursue our own happiness as we see fit.
Well, what heterosexual person is/was not
shocked by the stomach-turning THOUGHT of the heterosexual activities of their own (grand)parents?! But without "the nasty", they would not even have been born.
Many reactions to photo images of such intercourse might be even more extreme than "stomach-turning".
And yet, somehow, most of these same heterosexuals go forth and procreate their own (grand)kids by these same unthinkable and unspeakable behaviors.
I now can totally enjoy participating in many sexual acts that I at first found/find squeamish to view, even in pictures.
So, I have to believe that this personal disconnect is a byproduct of my general eroto-phobia which we were all raised with.
This is the same inoculation we got right along with the fear-based brainwashing against ANYTHING homosexual.
Fortunately, after years of de-programming (and a little practice), my shiver-like anticipations/reactions have all but vanished.
I believe the majority of adults spending much of their lives trying to unlearn so much of the brainwashing used to socialize us since infancy. (Well, the lucky or honest ones do.)
Like sexism and rascism, it's not so much the willful fault of our trainers as their own fears and ignorance of not knowing any better. But at this point in time, the honest do know better. And so there is no honest reason to continue this cycle of fear and ignorance.
So, keep an open mind as you keep an open eye. I think only then can "vices" be appreciated for their virtues.
Yes, you are a homophobic bigot. You have every right to be one.
I'm right there with you. I would probably find your wedding photos repugnant.
Not everyone wants to be married in a church. How old are you? Do you live under a rock?
I don't think you're the right person to make policy decisions, or drapery decisions for that matter.
Under the heading of Great websites, some you may never have even heard of:, don't forget the website http://article-niche.com
Each to thier own, thats my opinion anyway..
You are truly a bigot. You are also homophobic. You are an ignorant, narrow minded, self-righteous hypocrite. That is a just what a bigot is. You, like your fellow bigots only select facts, research, that support your own narrow minded position.
Bigots start with a position and look for data that support only their position. Truly honest scientist and researchers look at the data and ask what can we derive from the data. Bigots religious or otherwise, have no respect for what truly objective unbiased research indicates. Bigots such as yourself stop at nothing to discredit those who follow true ethical, moral and professional standards to obtain honest objectively obtained data. Your type are centuries old. Such bigotry, will always be around for centuries to come. Just keep deluding yourself and your fellow bigots.
Live and let live, that's what I say. Before you start criticizing what other people want to do you should look in the mirror first.
I've always found the most judgmental among us are hiding the worst secrets of all.
I think you really need to learn to chill out. Let others do what they want to do, as long as they're not harming others then why not?
Testarol
Not a bigot at all... but definitely homophobic..
Penny Stock Prophet review
Let's play HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:
Photos of interracial couples make me feel a bit ill. There's just something about two people of different races getting married that doesn't sit right with me. They can do it if they want, but if they tried to in my church, I'd fight tooth and nail against it.
Am I a racist bigot?
Post a Comment