RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/07/2007

Wherein we dignify thoughts that probably don't deserve it

by Jeremy Hooper

A Virginia man by the name of John Stec has written into The Roanoke Times to chastise what he perceives as the paper's gay-friendliness. Here's a brief sample of the brilliance:

We must be clear with what homosexual activity is before we can engage in a reasonable debate as to legalities concerning "rights." A man or boy can love another man or boy without the exchange of bodily fluids. I love my father deeply. Affection is physically given and proven by an appropriate and occasional embrace and a kiss. I love some of my friends deeply. They know it. They know it by my conversation, my commitment to their well-being and by the things we enjoy together. And they know it without having to disrobe to perform sex.

Father-son, coach-athlete, student-teacher, daughter-mother, friend-friend, doctor-patient, pastor-congregant, father-daughter, mother-son are all relationships of many sorts. But husband-wife even sounds different, especially when thinking of commitment and purpose, the intentions being marriage, home, children, family, permanence, in sickness and in health, good times and bad, till death do us part.

Mom and Dad and sons and daughters: sounds kind of natural and good, nuclear. The building block of society. Husband and wife complement each other physically, anatomically, emotionally and psychologically. Was this meant to be? Did marriage evolve this way? Should we make it different?

Our response:

Yo, guess what, John? This writer loves his father too. But despite being a dude who is an always has been same-sex oriented in his desires, I've never wanted to delve into incest. The same goes with male friends -- just because I like dudes and am in a loving, committed relationship with one of the XY set, it doesn't mean that I or any gay person wants to schtup every person who biologically fits their criteria in a mate. So your whole schpiel in which you try and make it seem as if you exist on a higher plane of morality than gays because you understand that there's a difference between sexual and other sorts of relationship -- well John, that's just dumb. No matter how much the fallacy gets fostered, the truth is that we gays are not machines whose dials are constantly set to "F**k everything in sight!"

As for the relationships you proceed to list: Well yes, those are all types of arrangements. However, there are a few that you've left off. For instance, boyfriend-girlfriend. Boyfriend-boyfriend and girlfriend-girlfriend are two more. And someday, fair-mindedness willing, husband-husband and wife-wife will also be common on our landscape. But the idea that husband-wife somehow "sounds different" or conveys some sort of special purpose merely by its syntax is yet another simplistic point. Because if this particular word arrangement DOES hold some sort of reverential place in your ear, it's solely because you have personally made some sort of psychological connection between these two terms and "righteousness." But for those of us on the pro-gay side, we understand that the husband-hisband and wife-wife couplings can and DO hold the same capacity for embracing the "
marriage, home, children, family, permanence, in sickness and in health, good times and bad, till death do us part." And if you want to deny us of that right, you are going to have to do much more than declare husband-wife to be a semantically superior word grouping.

For you see, John, we too are moms and dads and sons and daughters. And we enjoy relationships that fully complement us on a physical, anatomic (despite childish far-right protestations that our sex is incompatible), emotional, and psychological level! You ask if marriage evolved this way and if we should make it different? Well yes, we should absolutely take the step to fold the full spectrum of love and commitment into the system of government recognition. But not because marriage or relationships have suddenly evolved. No, no. We gay folks have been here for eons. What has evolved are societal attitudes, bringing us the point where our acceptance is, for the first time in modern history, somewhat in sight. What we have is a community of good and decent humans triumphing above the devolution that our opposition is trying to foist onto our rightful progression.

For much more of John's gay "wisdom" -- gay marriage is "oxymoronic," transgenders and pedophiles are one and the same, snorting cocaine and euthanizing your grandmother are comparable to our equality discussion -- click the link below:

No one has 'right' to sin [Roanoke.com]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails