Top

Tag: homosexuality

August 2 2012

If you look at my Facebook posts over the past few weeks it might seem like I feel otherwise, but I really do want the Chick-fil-A conversation to come to a conclusion. I’m as tired of it as everyone else. But for some reason, we just can’t stop talking about it. We even have people who are complaining about people who are talking about it, and those people are just adding fuel to the fire. This is such a controversial topic that these discussions tend to be more emotional than intellectual. I mean, people are genuinely getting upset. People are fighting, enemies are being made, friends are getting unfriended,

target=”_blank”>our pet’s heads are falling off, etc.

So why can’t we let this go? Well, we are just now learning why memes go viral, so I can only speculate. But clearly, it has a lot to do with the presence of social networks like Facebook and Twitter. If you just look at the visceral nature of these discussions, you might think that Dan Cathy held a press conference to state that his company was going to engage in armed combat with homosexuals. But even his critics should recognize he was only answering questions that were put forth to him. Many people view the criticism as a breach of first amendment rights, while others base their criticism on a breach of basic human rights. But really, this conversation has proven that it’s not so much what people think as much as how they feel about it. That’s why the conversations get so heated. The mind of humanity is busy trying to decide where it stands, and that leaves the soul of humanity embroiled in this internal moral struggle.

Even though the discussions are extremely vitriolic, I do think it’s a good thing we’re finally having them in public. I mean, many of the people I’ve spoken to on this issue are relatively unknown to me. That sets up a situation where people are either very civil or downright antagonistic. And since we’re evolving socially, you see fewer and fewer people needlessly insulting each other. People are being forced to stop and think about this stuff, and it’s driving some people crazy.

Even those that don’t give a damn about it are having to deal with it. And honestly, I hope it does annoy people. This “meh…politics” attitude is how we ended up in the mess we’re in today. It got us into the Iraq war, which cost trillions of dollars and over 130,000 human lives. It plunged us into massive debt by allowing people to gamble with the nation’s economy. It allowed jobs to be outsourced while cutting critical programs at home. It neglected our education, our health, the health of our environment, and so on. We can blame the Republicans or the Democrats all we want, but we the people are ultimately to blame.

You don’t have to be a Republican to see that people’s first amendment rights are being protected, and you don’t have to be a Democrat to see how people’s human rights are being denied. The left and the right will always be at odds, especially if we oversimplify every debate into two sides. Really, it’s the people in the middle (including those who try to stay out of the discussion) that make all the difference. Only about half of all voters turnout for presidential elections, and only about a third turnout for congressional elections. That means a minority of Americans usually decide the leadership for the nation, and the majority just lets them do it then complains about it later. One of the only things on which George Carlin and I disagree is

target=”_blank”>his view that staying out of politics absolves you of any responsibility later on. Well, that’s just idiotic. You’re a part of this society whether you’re an active participant or not. Choosing not to take part in the discussion is still a choice, just like choosing not to vote is still a vote.

If you’ve eaten at Chick-fil-A with the intention of supporting their stance on gay marriage, then I genuinely commend you for sticking to your principles and voting with your wallet. There is hardly anything more capitalistic or democratic. Having said that, I want you to know that I also condemn you in the strongest possible terms for supporting discrimination and misunderstanding the issue. This never was about chicken, religion, or the first amendment. You’re free to believe whatever you want and to donate to whatever causes you support, but your beliefs do not empower you to infringe upon the basic human rights of others.

If you’re tired of talking about Chick-fil-A, then just stop doing it. Stop bringing it up, stop complaining about it, and stop bitching at the people who are talking about it. But if you think that avoiding the issue is going to make the whole issue of gay marriage go away, then you’re just fooling yourself. There are generations of discrimination to account for, and claiming that you don’t care and/or hiding behind your religion isn’t going to resolve the issue. The next time something like this happens (and it will…very soon) we should all remember this debate. You can’t sweep these things under the rug anymore. The Internet has given new life to these discussions, and people like us will continue to have them. It’s your choice whether you want to join in the discussion or let us do the thinking for you.

July 24 2012

So, you disagree/agree with all of the bitching about Chick-fil-A? Oh, what’s that? You don’t actually care? You just want to bitch at everyone who’s bitching?

Well, be careful what you start. Because that makes me want to bitch at those that bitch at everyone who’s bitching. And that’ll make someone else want to bitch about the people like me that are bitching about those that bitch at everyone who’s bitching. And that will piss someone else off, so they will start bitching at the people who bitch about the people that are bitching about those that bitch at everyone who’s bitching. See where I’m going with this?

This is the United States, and you’re on the Internet. People are always going to bitch. Either join the conversation or leave us to it. Bitching about it doesn’t help.

October 17 2010

The problem with the anti-homosexuality perspective is the belief that it is a choice. This leads people into the (very natural-but-misguided) assumption that it is therefore abnormal. The truth, however, is just the opposite. Anyone with enough intellectual integrity can take the time to look into it and realize the truth. Homosexuality occurs in virtually all mammalian species in a very predictable manner. Don’t believe me? That’s fine. It’s still the truth. Look it up. There are a million biology books written by hundreds of thousands of observational scientists that have proven this. Don’t believe the evil scientists? Then go do your own research. Don’t hate people for something you are too lazy to understand.

There’s a huge difference between subjective and objective. Opinions and beliefs are subjective; facts and statistics are objective. The belief that Justin Bieber is a musical genius is subjective; the fact that he is a highly-marketed adolescent is objective. We cannot be held responsible for our opinions because we do not choose what we will believe, but our opinions don’t change things that are simple fact. So, if someone believes that homosexuality is abnormal, they are completely entitled to that opinion or belief. But the fact that homosexuality is not abnormal just means they’re just misinformed. And if they want to stick beside that belief even in the face of evidence, it just means they’re a bigot.

And bigotry has no place in this world anymore.

December 10 2009

How gay are you?

Sacha Baron Cohen…

sacha_baron_cohen-cc

…acts gay…

sacha_baron_cohen-bruno-borat

…but isn’t.

isla-fisher-olive-sacha-baron-cohen-borat-baby


Sen. Larry Craig…

Larry_Craig_official_portrait

…acts straight…

larry craig and wife

…but isn’t.

larrycraigmugshot

October 26 2009

Q: If you had a spouse that claimed homosexuality was a choice?

A: If my spouse claimed homosexuality was a choice I would immediately doubt their reasoning skills and seriously consider divorcing them. Then I would slap myself for not realizing their bigotry before I married them.

July 25 2005

The issue of same-sex marriages has been a hot topic for many years, but not nearly as hot as it has been the past few. The most recent nation to legalize same-sex marriage is one that is very close to us, both physically and politically. On the 20th of July, Canada became the fourth nation to officially deem same-sex marriages the same as heterosexual marriages. With such a major influence so close to home, this decision could greatly influence the culture and attitude of the United States. Gay marriages have never been more relevant, and the entire debate is a sociological one. It has forced us to address the definitions of some of the most fundamental aspects of our society, and reopened dialogue about discrimination based on sexual-orientation. Sociologists can use data to reinforce or contradict popular opinion, which seems to be the driving force behind this entire issue.

The social problem with this issue can be viewed more-or-less in one of two ways. First of all, the perceived problem that many conservative or traditionally-minded people would use is that marriage is to be defined in the “traditional” sense as a union specifically between a man and a woman. From this perspective, same-sex marriage devalues the definition of a sacred institution. However, one quick look at the rest of the world, or in history books, reveals that there is no so-called traditional definition of marriage. It would seem, then, that the social problem here is the heterosexist nature of our society, not the threat posed to only a quarter of the population (Curran & Renzetti, p.235).

The Canadian Senate voted 47 to 21 to legalize same-sex marriages (5). Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada are the only nations in the world that currently recognize same-sex marriages (5). The Civil Marriage Act (which is the Canadian piece of legislation that effectively legalized same-sex marriages) consequently had the effect of amending eight of Canada’s federal acts (1). Same-sex marriages are now equal to heterosexual marriages, allowing them to get married at any courthouse or church in Canada (2). The Roman Catholic Church, which is highly opposed to same-sex marriage, is the most dominant religious group in Canada (3). The United Church of Christ (a church with 1.3 million members) became the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage in the United States on July 4th, 2005 (4).

Many people fear that allowing same-sex couples to wed would weaken the institution of heterosexual, or traditional, marriages. Still others contend that marriage is not as sacred as it is believed. Traditional marriages exist in a minority of households, and more than half end in divorce (Curran & Renzetti, p.234). Traditional marriages have been legal since the formation of the United States, and same-sex marriages have never been legal, yet problems persist. It is therefore hard to claim that same-sex marriages have any bearing on the success of traditional marriages. Debate remains open on the issue, despite the lack of evidence. Meanwhile, lifelong partners are refused the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts in our society. The recent change in Canadian law could greatly influence American opinion on the issue.

The Bush administration has not responded specifically to Canada’s newest marriage law, but its position on same-sex marriages has been clear for a while. President Bush does not support legislation that would legalize same-sex marriages in the United States; in fact, he has proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is very likely that he, and his administration, feel the new law in Canada is flawed and potentially disruptive to their campaign to ban the same practice.

The reaction to the Bush administration’s stance has been as divided as any of the most controversial issues we Americans talk about. While Canadians see this issue as the divisive topic it is, distracting the populace from more important issues (5), Americans tend to keep the debate alive. And since this is a highly emotional and caustic topic, people find themselves clearly split along a single line. Many conservatives want to see Bush fulfill his promise to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to Congress, while many liberals continue to push for the legalization of same-sex marriages. These two ideas leave no room for compromise, a hard position for a president to place its citizens.

The irony of the debate over same-sex marriages is that it seems that the main concern people have with it is unfounded. There is little or no proof that allowing same-sex couples to wed will disrupt the current institution of marriage. Heterosexual couples would be unaffected by same-sex couples, and proving otherwise seems so difficult as to border on impossible. Given this, it could be concluded that this a debate over nothing, except that this nothing keeps potentially millions of Americans from experiencing one of the fundamental aspects of living in our society. This cultural alienation becomes national discrimination when our laws reflect this prejudice. And now with our closest and most progressive neighbor is paving the way to a new shift in paradigm, putting extra pressure on the debate that may be a needless debate to begin with.

It seemed that, of the sites I visited that were biased in one way or the other, almost all of them were highly in favor of Canada’s decision. It is unlikely that all of these sites represented an equal cross section of opinion, as I could only find one or two of the dozens I searched through that were decidedly conservative. It could be that the reason there is not as much conservative news on the matter is because these news organizations are practicing symbolic annihilation of the issue. Perhaps they realize that the largest undefended border in the world is now between the United States and a nation that allows same-sex marriages.

Though it could be argued that the historical trend is moving towards a leniency of same-sex marriages, it could just as easily be argued that opposition to it is also gathering momentum. However, people who are opposed to these unions generally base their decision primarily on an emotional response. Once more studies are done on this sociological issue, perhaps it will shed light on this relatively-unexplored topic. Only then, with qualitative and quantitative evidence, will we be justified in taking severe measures. Limiting the rights of a minority for the good of the majority is a tough decision to make, and one we should not make lightly. At this stage most opinions on the issue are simply opinions, and few are based in actual knowledge (on both sides). Sociologists, and other scientists, can do their part to discovering and explaining the facts of the issue so that the populace can make more properly-informed decisions.

List of Works Consulted:
Curran, Daniel J.; Claire M. Renzetti. (2000). Social Problems: Society in Crisis (5th edition)
1. Liberal Party of Canada. Civil Marriage Act Receives Royal Assent . http://liberal.ca/
2. MyKawartha. Same-sex marriage legislation ‘a victory’. http://mykawartha.com/
3. MTV. Canada Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage. http://mtv.com/
4. Charlotte Observer. Church role is to welcome all. http://charlotte.com/
5. Washington Blade. Canada becomes 4th nation to OK gay marriage. http://washblade.com/
6. CNN. Vatican paper denounces gay marriage in Canada. http://cnn.com/
7. FOX News. Pope: Gay Nups a Form of ‘Anarchic Freedom’. http://foxnews.com/