Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Let's Stop Killing Homosexuals

The three natural rights of all: Life, liberty, and property.

You will rarely find someone more anti-PC than me. I find it silly to explain rights in terms of groups (gay, women, minority, etc). This is not because they don't have rights, but in fact precisely because they do. We all do. You have those three all-encompassing rights. So do I.

Yesterday, a middle school student in Pennsylvania killed himself in highway traffic after being subjected to relentless anti-gay bullying. This comes weeks after a Rutgers student killed himself over even more aggressive torment.

Last month in the Bronx, three men assumed to be gay were tortured for hours by thugs.

These acts are utterly deplorable. People who hesitate to condemn them should be viewed suspiciously.

I confess readily that I was a typical adolescent from the past two decades. "Gay" meant "bad." "Faggot" meant "loser." You get it. It's a childish outlook out of which many never grow.

Sexuality most certainly does not a define a person. It is but one aspect of what makes us individual persons. It is lunacy to persecute people based on their love life, not least of which because we all have to pay for the persecuting officers' salaries, benefits, pension, gas to drive to the tax-funded persecution. Is that enough?

And as these tortured souls are beaten into a pulp, emotionally and physically, they will die or go into isolation. The world will lose their talents and possible contributions to society. It simply doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. Of course, that's not the primary concern.

Conservative social engineers drone on about "changing the definition of marriage." It drives me up the wall to hear people saying that the state should define marriage for churches (or any religious institution) in the first place! No one in the first century asked Rome for a marriage license, which is one of the stupidest terms in the English language. In fact, until the 16th century, married couples were married because they said they were married and found a church to bless their union.

Gay activists, who seek freedom for a terrorized class, should take a step back and consider their strategy, along with conservative Christians. They should find interesting parallels.

Ultimately, the real issue is that marriage, once snatched by the state, also became enmeshed with issues such as taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, do-not-resuscitate issues, etc., also heavily regulated. It is sensible to consider these things together, since your spouse will likely be the one you want to get/do all these things.

But that does not mean that they should be or even need to be written into the legal code as subsections of marriage law (another dumb phrase). They can be handled quite simply with short contracts with their respective attorneys. But the issue to remember is that marriage is exclusive from those things.

This is because marriage was and should again become a purely religious institution, fully under the purview of clergy. This, of course, means that I oppose ALL laws and actions that attempt to force churches to bless or reject unions of certain natures. A federal ban on gay marriage written in the Constitution would be a definite tragedy. When you read the Constitution as a whole, you see that it is made essentially to organize a common defense between the state governments. So while it would be an interesting change of pace for Congress to actually take the constitutional steps to make an unconstitutional act legitimate (under that document, I mean), it would be one hell of a waste of proper procedure. How would it even be enforced? Marriage police forever at the doors of churches and Vegas hitch shacks? But these are the morons in Congress, my friends.

I consider it pathetic that Christians run to the government to protect our traditions. I may remind them that a government killed Jesus, and then that same one murdered his followers for centuries. If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, work on the divorce rate. Don't get your panties in a bunch over a few left-leaning churches that choose to bless the unions of homosexuals as marriage. YOU don't need to call it a marriage, much less attend that congregation. Or even read their announcement in the paper.

In the end, we realize that the government should not have its destructive and divisive tentacles in a religious institution. I hope you see that conservative Christians have it 100% backwards, and should actually join (if not just cease opposing) gay activists in opposing state regulation of marriage.

After a quick peek through the Rolodex of my memories, I can recall knowing seven homosexuals. All upstanding, enjoyable people. As the years went by, their sexuality was relegated to my subconscious.

A thought experiment for any with a passionate hatred of homosexuals: Imagine you are being mugged in a dark alley by an armed man who is also twice your size. Imagine the most flaming fellow you can, naturally with that grating lisp that makes your blood boil. Yes, imagine he --a human with a human mind and the human conscience-- sees and hears your desperation and bounds down the alley.

Grant me five illogical seconds where the gay man, close to your aid, asks calmly and clearly (and "lisply", of course), "Do you want my help?" What do you say?

Yes...duh. If you are loony enough to say no, fine. You are the most principled bigot I've ever heard of. We'll put it on your tombstone. You will say yes. Your homosexual savior is also a gym rat and your mugger is fought off.

You have four options I see:
1. In keeping with the theme of the evening, beat the snot out of him for being a homosexual. Of course, this is illogical and I don't think even Fred Phelps would act like that.
2. Verbally abuse him for being a homosexual, insisting like a child that "I coulda handled him fag!"
3. Walk away in silence immediately.
In these options, you are proven to be a bigot of various degrees, having learned nothing. Consider the fact that a straight man will always be more of a threat to you than a homosexual (are they any at all?). This is because straight men fight over women. And finally...
4. Thank the gentleman, reward him fairly (become friends? Only for a buddy movie, maybe). At the very least, you walk out of the alley with a new perspective acknowledging the humanity of gays.

I am not a homosexual. Therefore, I'm sure it's farfetched that gay activists would listen intently to me and my suggestions for their goals. But I am a Christian, and I see much error in how our faith is conducted and otherwise displayed. Therefore, I focus on convincing Christians that their strategy is flawed and dangerous. Success in that regard would mean exactly what the homosexual community is seeking would be accomplished.

I implore the Christian community (most anti-gay bigots I've met are actually not professing Christians) to simultaneously and immediately reject marriage law and embrace these heartbroken children (and adults, of course) before another is lost.
Post a Comment