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
