|
There is much talk in this country lately of a “cultural war”. There is a new phrase floating around among the news channels in addition to “red state” and “blue state”: “Two Americas”, and at times it seems that this is exactly what is being formed between gay and/or pro-choice liberals and conservative Christians. This may be an oversimplification, but this country is being increasingly pervaded with an “us” and “them” attitude. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christians and non-Christians, as if one is good and the other evil, one a “true American”, and the other a traitor or somehow inferior, and never the two shall meet. In this epic struggle between “good and evil”, I cannot be a completely neutral player. I am gay (or at least bisexual), I describe myself as pro-choice, and I am a registered member of the Democratic Party. In this area when “liberal” is so often used as if it is equitable with “Communist” or “terrorist”, I am not ashamed to describe myself as a liberal Democrat. It is no secret to anyone who knows me that I am strongly against President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. If you asked around with people I talk to or read some of what I have written, you will know I am not impartial. But in a moment of reflection, when hot emotions have died down, I ask the question, “is it necessary that we fight each other?”. At a time when we are facing dangerous and determined enemies at home and abroad, it does not strike me as a good time- insofar as there is ever is one- for Americans to be making bitter enemies out of each other. Issues of sexual orientation and religion which are meaningless differences to me are not to many others, and I am not sure if such fervently held and diametrically opposed beliefs can be surmounted. But abortion and gay marriage are not the only moral issues in America- if you consider them to be in the first place.
Homosexuality is widely considered a sin, but Jesus Christ himself said nothing about the issue at all. The only place in the Old Testament where any statement about homosexuality of any clarity can be found is in the Book of Leviticus, which proscribes the behaviors and practices to be followed by the Hebrews under the Law of Moses. Here it is said that “if a man lies with another man, they have committed an abomination. They must be put to death. Their blood will be on their own hands.” When read as is, this sounds like a clear- and very serious- condemnation of homosexuality. But is it as clear-cut and above question as many believe? I have a friend who believes firmly that everything said in the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, and that none is questionable. I also have a friend, who is also a devout Christian, who does not believe that every word of the Bible is above question, that it must be taken in context and that it is worth noting that it was written thousands of years ago. I agree with the latter, some may say conveniently, but hear me out. This passage was written after Exodus, in which Moses led the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt and received the Ten Commandments. Think of the circumstances. The Hebrews are alone, wandering, starving, not likely to survive. Moses must establish a new society out of these people. Strict rules and guidelines are often considered necessary to form such a group into a cohesive unit which will work as one to achieve survival and success. Much like the Puritans, Moses laid down very strict laws to effect the order and discipline the Hebrews would need to survive in their frightening new world. In order for the new society to survive and prosper, building families and producing children must be strongly encouraged. In such life-or-death circumstances, there would have been little room or tolerance for anything which may have interfered with that. Needless to say, the more homosexual relationships developed among the Hebrews, the fewer children would be born to form the next generation. Since, according to the Christian religion, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God himself as the laws for his people, if it was God and not only Moses who condemned homosexuality, why do none of the Commandments make the slightest mention of it? In my opinion, all of this gives plenty of room for the interpretation that it was Moses himself who condemned homosexuality and that he did so for pragmatic reasons. If this is true, and since Moses obviously did not receive any law against homosexuality from the Ten Commandments, then it would not be God condemning the practice, but a man, a human being, passing laws he deemed necessary to drive his people to keep their small race alive. The only other place in either testament of the Bible where virtually anything is said about homosexuality is in St. Paul’s Book of Romans, where Paul states in Romans 1:26 and 27:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was met.
Again, at first glance, this sounds like a fairly clear condemnation of homosexuality, but many liberal scholars have pointed out that if we take Paul’s judgment of same-sex relationships to be set in stone, then are we to put such unquestioning faith in his other passages condoning slavery and the oppression of women? If we do not believe Paul’s words about slavery and women, then why must we trust in his statements on homosexuality? These are not simply my opinions. There are many liberal Christian scholars who devoutly believe in the Word of God but believe these passages are the words of men rather than of God, and are therefore no more valid than the words of any other human being. Moses and St. Paul, as renowned figures as they may be, were not God. If God himself strongly condemns homosexuality, then why did he make absolutely no mention of it in the Ten Commandments which he directly handed down to mankind, and why was his Son equally silent about the issue?
These are questions which I wish more people would ask themselves. Every day I hear conservatives and evangelicals condemning not only the lifestyle, but gays as people. Some time ago, I heard an evangelist preacher addressing his congregation, telling them that homosexuality is a “horrifying, degrading practice” and that the higher suicide rates among gay teens proves what a self-destructive lifestyle it is. I do not know the exact statistics, but it would not surprise me in the least if the suicide rate was higher among gay teens, although not for the reasons he attributes to it. Being told that you are a pervert, that you are an abomination, that you are incapable of love, that you are evil, and a million other even harsher things cannot be good for a teenager’s already often fragile self-esteem. I also wish these people would question their beliefs before they so harshly push them on others, because while the Bible’s statements about homosexuality are- at least in my opinion and the opinion of many others- fairly open to interpretation, it is filled with clear instructions that even if something is to be condemned, the person committing the sin is still to be loved as a fellow human being. This renders the fervent hatred constantly expressed against homosexuals by certain people and organizations, most often under the guise of religion, utterly without the slightest moral justification. Being a teenager in and of itself is difficult enough, let alone being a teenager with such an important personal matter to sort out for themselves and with little positive encouragement from society at large. No one should have to see websites titled “GOD HATES FAGS” or hear the words of Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and drug use or suggesting that homosexuals are deserving of the horrendous- and by no means exclusively gay- AIDS virus. The Bible itself which these individuals profess to base so much of their very existences upon provides no justification for this hate-mongering. I have written all of this, as a homosexual, with as much self-restraint and objectivity as possible. As someone who is sometimes said by others to be vague or uncertain about his own religious beliefs or lack thereof, I will say this. I wholly believe in “love your fellow man”. I do not believe in exceptions. I hope that is clear enough.
It is unrealistic to expect politicians to separate their personal values completely from their public service; it is part of who you are and cannot be switched off and on. However, I would hope that values would not be so narrowly defined, nor so dogmatically. Abortion and gay rights should not be ignored, but they should not take precedent over the multitude of other pressing issues facing our country. We must focus not only on the issues which divide us, but also on the issues which unite us. We need to speak up in the name of the country instead of party allegiance.
On a subject such as gay marriage, where emotions run high and battle lines have been drawn, the only feasible conclusion that I can see is that we are going to have to come to a compromise. At the present time, civil unions are the most mutually acceptable option, granting people legal protection under the law to make decisions on their partner’s behalf in the event of a medical crisis, as well as innumerable other benefits which make life substantially easier for them without rewriting the definition of marriage, thus sparing both groups from their worst fears. As I type this, in many states, if one member of a gay couple had some sort of health emergency, their partner would have a difficult time even being allowed to visit them in the hospital. In my opinion, denying American citizens such basic rights is simply not right, and I do not believe that civil unions should be left in the hands of state governments. I advocate the full federal recognition of civil unions to protect the rights of gay couples across the entire nation. States should not have the right to turn law-abiding Americans into second-class citizens. We often hear of moral values. Well, in my opinion this is a moral value. This kind of blatant, immoral, and un-American legal discrimination should be something which we simply do not do in a country which refers to itself as the land of the free, and certain people and organizations should not be attempting to pit straight Americans against gay Americans, we are all Americans and that should be what matters.
Earlier I referred to myself as pro-choice, which I usually describe myself as simply because there isn’t really another term, but now I will clarify my exact thoughts on that. I do not advocate abortion simply as a standard form of birth control, but nor do I believe it is either wise or practical to make it completely illegal. If abortion became outlawed across the entire United States, wealthy women would go get them in Canada, and poor women would go to quack doctors or try to do it themselves, with the kinds of gruesome results we had before it was legalized in the first place, which I certainly do not see as a positive thing to go back to, which puts me in two minds about abortions. With so many couples across the United States eager to adopt a child, people should at least be strongly encouraged to put their babies up for adoption if they do not want them for themselves. A mutually acceptable compromise about abortion is not as easy as gay marriage, and I am not sure if one exists, but we should be striving to find one, instead of wasting our energies in loud attacks on the other side’s lack of morality. When people hold their beliefs so strongly, it may not be possible to surmount such severe differences, but it is necessary to at least try. Simply bashing each other relentlessly changes no one’s opinion and accomplishes nothing, and is akin to beating your head against a brick wall.
Since so many of these current controversies hinge on religious beliefs, I think it is worth noting that one of the basic tenets upon which this country was founded was separation of church and state. This country is not made up entirely of Christians. They have every right to have their faith respected, but so do the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and non-religious citizens of this country. I have heard far too many people speak as if this is not the case. Using a religion which generally promotes tolerance, love, and respect for all mankind to promote discrimination, arrogance, and a superior attitude towards those whom are different from yourself is in fact a misuse of that religion.
As for Iraq, whatever the rights or wrongs of the invasion, the troops who are fighting and dying are doing so for their country, not as Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, but as Americans, and as such deserve the utmost respect on both sides of the aisle. At the same time, support for the troops or lack therefore should not be automatically equated with a support or a lack of support for the current Administration. It is entirely possible to not approve of the President and his policies but to respect the troops as much as anyone else, and our soldiers deserve better than to be used as political footballs. Just as I do not believe that being a Christian necessitates an unquestioning adherence to every stated rule, nor do I believe that being a patriot necessitates or even permits a blind adherence to the party line.
Of course, all of this is only my opinion. No one else has to agree with me, but I hope you did not stop within the first paragraph when I mentioned that I was gay, liberal, or a Democrat. I did not write this as any of those, because none of those is the whole of my person. We are greater than the sum of our parts. I’m Jes. I wrote this as Jes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(96 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
