Friday, April 3, 2009

"Marriage= One Man + One Woman"-- unknown farmer

Before i continue to a long, rambly and offensive post i want to say a couple things first.

First, i can't access my Gmail right now because every time i log in it asks me to type in the letters i see (to make sure i'm human), but i never see any letters (help please...)

secondly, thank you to all of you have commented on my last post, it was good reading your encouragements and advice. I'll comment on them latter. you rock!

thirdly, i'm still not out of my rut, but i am feeling a bit better. I am feeling more self-confident if nothing else. I'm still really piss scared about coming out, especially to Aaron. but i'm moving along. hell i almost came out to some one the other night, really should've.

fourthly this post is gonna get long and has at times an angry tone... it also has some philosophical mumbo jumbo in it. i don't know if it makes perfect sense, but have patience with me. my next post will be a little lighter

for your pleasure
________________________________

Last weekend I drove through what would be considered 'hickville'. There were more cows on roids, big trucks, barns, cigarettes, Bush '04 bumper stickers, and mullets than I care to remember. There was a trailer oriented towards the highway to serve as a makeshift billboard upon which was written in red paint [or blood?]:

Abortion=Murder
Marriage=One Man + One Woman



I have a hunch that the novel farmer who set up this trailer intended to do more than merely state what he took to be the analytic meanings of the terms 'Abortion' and 'Marriage'. My focus, obviously, is what exactly was intended, implicitly and explicitly, by the second definition.

Explicitly speaking he is making a claim about the extension of the word marriage: that marriage properly extends only to a pairing of one man and one woman.

Implicitly it would be fair to assume, given the social issues surrounding marriage in our country that the farmer is also making ethical and teleological claims. Ethically speaking his position would undoubtedly be that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, and furthermore that all sexual and romantic relationships which are akin to marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. Teleologically speaking his position would be that the only natural and wholesome expression of sexuality is found in marriage. Any sexuality which falls outside of marriage between a man and a woman is to be considered degenerate, aberrational, unwholesome, and absent of true human flourishing. To him there is something sanctimonious about a man-woman marital relationship which cannot be emulated by any other coupling of autonomous beings.

Besides being err to the naturalistic fallacy our fellow countryman’s position serves a purpose: to let the reader of the sign know that non-heterosexual relationships do not fit into the category of marriage, and furthermore are morally and socially reprehensible.

I suppose one could argue endlessly, and heedlessly, for or against the truth of said farmer’s position. Upon surveying the fact that many have laid out such arguments I will choose to abstain from such dialogue and instead talk about the actually effects of that sign and everything it stands for.

My position is that trailers painted in favor of ‘traditional marriage’, ‘traditional marriage’ bumper stickers, ‘yes on prop 8’ signs, and all other symbols intending to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’ appear vitriolic to GLBT persons and as such are extremely psychologically damaging. It may also be added that such signs serve to condone, justify, and even encourage acts of hate and bigotry towards GLBT persons, but such an effect will not be dealt with in length here.

My evidence for my position is the actual experiences of actual homosexual persons, which include my own. Upon reading the sign ‘marriage = one man + one woman’ I was reminded that there are those out there who hate me for what I am. They hate me for being attracted romantically and sexually to men. To them I am unnatural, degenerate, unworthy, ungodly, unholy, sinful, and reprehensible. My desires towards men are not consider beautiful or god-given, but something which I have ‘chosen’ and should be converted away from. Furthermore I am reminded of the many who think that if I pursue a relationship with another man it will not and cannot be good, wholesome, loving, Godly, and conducive to my ultimate good as a human being—in fact I will ‘undoubtedly’ suffer hellfire if I should act upon my desires.

All in all when I read that sign I felt that I was less valued and even unwanted for being gay.

If proponents of ‘family values’ took damage inventory in an unbiased way I think that they would see that all their campaigning and advertisement has, besides from empowering bigots, severely psychologically scarred homosexual persons with feelings of guilt, hate, estrangement, and isolation.

I earnestly desire that such people would have to sit down and hear the stories of homosexual persons, read blogs like ours, and actually hear the pain behind all the banter. I wish that such pain would be uncovered so that the true injustice of anti-gay politics would be revealed.

The strongly held opinion that ‘marriage = one man + one woman’ and all its corollaries is not a mere idea with no outpouring into the real world. Instead it is an idea which directly affects persons, predominantly homosexual persons, in a negative way. It is the source of much psychological distress, sexual repression, and self-harm. It is the spawn of much hate, bigotry, and social discrimination.

When ‘family values’ are preached families will be broken apart.
When the ‘threat of homosexuals’ is propounded upon there will be threatened homosexuals.
When ‘marriage = man + woman’ is forcefully displayed meaningful homosexual relationships will be averted, loneliness will increase, and there will be many who are never married.

This is all due to the fact that such seemingly analytic statements such as ‘marriage = man + woman’ are not harmless ideologies, but socially meaningful statements which communicate hate and exclusion towards homosexuals

Enough of that rant

Jordan

11 comments:

billy said...

If you believe your God condemns sinners to eternal torment then the suffering caused by your own bigotry pales in comparison.

America is a big, big place. This just emphasises how important it is for you to build your life in a part of it where people share your values and you can find love and acceptance.

Anonymous said...

I'm on my feet, clapping my hands sore and cheering myself hoarse in support of your magnificent blog!

Here in the UK we have something called 'Civil Partnership'. It's not called 'gay marriage' coz the biggots and narrow-minded you have identified, would not stomach it.

It is not limited to gay & lesbian couples for the same reason. They could not bear to let us get too near to the thing they hold most dear after their genitals.

There is no practical difference between marriage and Civil Partnership in our law - only in our custom. We still need some tax things sorting, but most of the legal oppression I've grown up with in the UK has now been righted.

On the broader front I see huge parallels between the fights for equality by black people, women, gays and, ultimately, gypsies.

If you threaten the rich, 'christian' white man's things then you threaten him and he will fight you. And don't blacks, women, gays and gay folk all know it.

But pause a moment - I know far too many gay people who won't accept that gypsies should have comparable rights.

We've still a heck of a long way to go!

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything you've said. We have a civil rights struggle on our hands. Just like the blacks and women before us. Screw the religious right's view on what is morally acceptable; everything you've mentioned comes down to our right as Americans to pursue happiness.

Christianity used to be about accepting the dregs and the outcasts of society. Now they just preach hate to fuel their political agenda. Another reason I believe religion must be separated from political decision.

Anonymous said...

Besides agreeing with all your points along the lines "that such seemingly analytic statements such as ‘marriage = man + woman’ are not harmless ideologies, but socially meaningful statements which communicate hate and exclusion towards homosexuals," I have a couple comments to make that might lend more validity to your arguments.

First, refer to the person in the trailer as a "person." Referring to him as a hick is really no better than others calling you or I a "fag." In that sense, remaining linguistically neutral when possible on such things makes you more credible. (Yes, unfortunately that's the way it works with people, they'll get hung up on that and not your actual arguments.)

Second, I think it's wise to avoid generalizations where they don't apply. True, this person in the trailer may have had feelings of hate for gays, or maybe not...and not everyone that reads his sign is going to react the same. Some may even have a negative reaction to his seeming bigotry. I'm sure you recognize this, but I'm explicitly pointing it out.

So those are my comments, but in the end I agree with you: such comments often negatively influence those in the gay community by making us feel different, etc. I've often felt this way when seeing such signs, like a reality check for me, not everyone likes us, or is even willing to tolerate us. Thanks for an awesome post Jordon (and well-argued, too).

Jordan said...

-billy
good point, the pain caused by bigotry is seen as insignificant by certain religious persons... which is really sad to me

-Micky
yeah we do have a long way to go, and not just for gays... tho i've never heard of gypsies being discriminated against except during the holocaust, hell and they persecuted everyone. but i don't have a problem with them (at least i don't think i do). that's good about the uk tho

-randy
yeah, i know Christianity has been a real bitch about discriminating against gays. for the life of me i cannot figure out why, but they do it nevertheless.

-james

point well taken... i'm editing 'hick' to 'farmer' because it was a farmers trailer. hick is a stereotyping word with negative connotations.

as far as the farmer's actual beliefs go... well i should say that i don't know what he actually believed.... i guess my point was to show what the sign impressed upon me regarding said farmer's beliefs, and more importantly how that made me feel as a person. but i think that you understand that.

i apologize for any generalizations i've made, and i agree it is not proper for a legitimate argument...
i suppose you could say i wrote this post while enraged, so it is not 'neutral' or even decent...
my apologies

Jordo

naturgesetz said...

Jordo — the problem I have with your post is that it denies the right of people who do *not* hate homosexuals to express an opinion in opposition to same-sex marriage. Unless you want to take away the free speech rights of every person who believes that homosexual activity is objectively wrong, you cannot argue that because *some* people hate gays no one should express an opinion which reminds you of that fact, regardless of how neutrally they express it, regardless of whether they are themselves gay, regardless of the fact that there is a political question before the people on which they would like to take sides.

Dare I say I think you are being far too sensitive here? I think you cause yourself unnecessary distress when you insist on seeing hatred behind expressions which do not explicitly state hatred. There are actually many homosexuals who believe that their same-sex attraction is, in fact, not a sin, but a disorder. They believe that if they were to actually engage in sexual activity with other men they would be sinning. They certainly do not hate gays. But you you seem to be suggesting that they should not express their beliefs because other people hate gays. It doesn't make sense to me.

I think you would do well to keep reminding yourself that there are people who oppose same-sex marriage who do not hate homosexuals, so that these expressions will not cause you unnecessary pain. Sure, you are sorry to see the signs, just as I am sorry to see signs in support of a candidate I oppose, but there is no need to freight them with so much additional baggage.

I certainly agree with you that people who consider homosexuals inferior beings should come to know the stories of homosexuals, indeed should come to know homosexuals. There is no better remedy for prejudice than a person to person human encounter, especially one which gives one person grounds for empathy with the other.

But please do not tar all opposition to same-sex marriage with the same brush and seek to delegitimize all of it because of the prejudices of some of its adherents. That's just not fair.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's okay Jordon. I understand your being upset and angered at these things, and can say that I have also been so a number of times myself.

But we have to have a little faith in people. Faith that they are more decent than what they spew. Faith that, if they aren't decent people, they can become so.

I read you man, and I think we all understand what you're going through when you experience those signs.

tommy said...

Actually, when any group fights to restrict a minorities ability to enter into contracts such as marriage, taxation, personal property, real property, adoption, etc.; it really doesn’t matter whether you call it hate, love, or something in between.

The issue is a legal one that simply asks if there is a specific reason to withhold contract participation from homosexuals in light of the equal protection clause. The scientific data does not support the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, and luckily in court it is simply not good enough to say because a bronze-age sky god said so.

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court ruling addressed religious concerns by saying "civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals." The justices also refuted the state's attempts to show there was a rational basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage, such as the “best interest of children” argument. The Court said, "the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban."

Any attempts shame or limit equal legal participation of a minority is a form of hate, and is not in the best interest of America.

Anonymous said...

I hear you Jordan, but I'm not sure I'm so ready for the fight. Do we have to fight? Can we not just let them have their views and they let us have ours?

Deadwing said...

Well written. I angers me to think that if i ever meet the guy of my dreams, we will not be able to enter a legal union and share the same rights, privileges and pitfalls of heterosexual couples. I pay my taxes, go to work, and contribute more than my fair share to social well being of this country. Yet, I am now the outcast, the one being discriminated against and hated for simply being born gay. I agree with Kiwi, why can't "they" have their belief, and we have ours, and just accept that their will be a difference of opinion on the matter. Just let me live my life, as you are allowed to live yours. I really don't care if it's called "marriage" or a civil union or whatever else, just so long as my partner and i are given legal recognition and the same rights as everyone else. Hate is not a family value. Denying gays the same rights as straights is no different from discriminating against someone due to the color of their skin or their religious beliefs. All it does is further serve to segregate society, the us and them mentality. While i would like to have faith in humanity, and believe that people are inherently good and compassionate and accepting, the sad truth is that most will cave into peer pressure and deny that they are supportive or indifferent towards same sex couples in order to fit in with the views and beliefs of their friends and family. The result is a snowball effect. But once in a while, there are a few brave souls who will stand up for what they believe.