A Gay/Lesbian W/O Contribution That Goes Well Beyond That Issue!Jul 03 '05 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line Covering the black, white, and shades of gray to the best of my abilities.
Chad, it's my pleasure to take you up on your W/O challenge! Even though you opened it up in April, this is an ideal think piece to go along with celebrating Independence Day 2005, which is coming up tomorrow. So let's begin... What are your spiritual beliefs or religious affiliations? Christian under construction--United Methodist to be exact. But I don't necessarily agree with everything written down as being the beliefs of The United Methodist Church (For instance, I play the lottery--though I do so sensibly and in moderation). But I believe in what's most important--which has to do with Jesus and what He expects out of us when it comes to important matters like showing love, compassion, and forgiveness. I try to use my talents and other resources in ways that will glorify Him and His will. And, yes, I do fall short, but I aim high. What is your sexual orientation? 100% straight! My first crush was on my tall, dark, handsome, and very caring surgeon, Dr. C. Richard Bowers, who operated on my hernia when I was three. And, before I'd even gotten as old as kindergarten, I also had it bad for Dick Clark and "Pat Boom." How do you see your own religious/spiritual views as influencing your opinion of sexuality? I see my sexuality as a gift from God, and I believe that I have a choice in what I do with this gift. However, I also realize that, as with all gifts, there are better ways to use the gift that others. For one thing, I've chosen not to have sex until I get married (When pigs fly? When hell freezes over? Who knows!?!), but I've still chosen to celebrate and enjoy these feelings in ways I find acceptable--among them, masturbation. There are some people who wouldn't agree with me there, but I don't find masturbation to be wrong, if it's not done out where others are forced to watch me. There are just some things better done in private. (Required) How do you define marriage? Of course, the first thing that comes to my mind is the traditional view of marriage--one man and one woman joined in holy matrimony (or, at least, by the local Justice Of The Peace). Now, of course, there are unofficial unions taking place between two women or two men--and, even though these couples have very few places to go where they can have their unions recognized by local government as such, they seem to consider themselves to be married, just as much as the traditional couple I mentioned first. Then, there are people who practice polygamy where one or both people have more than one spouse. Usually, it's been the man who has several wives, but that isn't always the case. I can see where a marriage such as that would pose some difficulties if recognized by the government, because it's set up in most businesses that they would provide insurance and other benefits for the person you were married to--but it might just bankrupt your average company to have to do this for a polygamous marriage. In this case, I would say that only one marriage at a time would be recognized when it came to benefits such as this--but that all partners involved should have property division rights, unless otherwise arranged. What I'm really against is how law enforcement is going after these men (usually, old-school Mormons who continue to believe that it's God's will for a man to be married to more than one wife) and giving them long prison sentences. What, exactly, is the crime being committed here, anyway? When spouses cheat on each other, they don't go to prison, so why should jail space that could be used on more dangerous members of society be used to lock away peaceful people who aren't lying to anyone about anything? Another part of life that marriage brings to mind is where it's used to mean merged or dedicated--such as the "marriage" between two companies or being "married" to your career. Then, there's the scripture about the church being the bride of Jesus. In the Catholic church, there is actually a ceremony where nuns recite their wedding vows to Jesus and are given wedding bands to wear. This signifies total service to Jesus over worldly possessions as well as having a husband and kids of their own. What thoughts or reactions do you have to these two pictures? (all completely safe for work, home, etc.) 1. http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/03/10/ba_knight01.jpg The first picture is obviously two men getting married, and it's sweet how they look at each other. The minister performing the ceremony is pleasant and sensitive-looking. 2. http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg The second picture doesn't even look like two women getting married. We see a couple of old ladies hugging each other and crying. There's another woman standing back from them who is also crying. Knowing what I know, I would say that this is definitely a picture of a wedding, and all of those tears are tears of joy. Had I not known this, I would see a couple of little old ladies hugging each other and crying--and, seeing the other woman crying in the background, I might be inclined to think that this is right after a funeral of someone they both know. If I saw them as crying for joy, I would suspect that it might be the joy of some sort of reunion where they hadn't seen each other in awhile (perhaps, had been separated as young girls when the county came in and removed them from their home, and they had been apart until now). How does one of Christian faith reconcile these two pictures? Is one “right” and one “wrong”? What reactions do you have to seeing these signs? 1. http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/boston_common_031104/dscn1373.jpg The first picture is definitely wrong. It's judgmental and hateful. The people carrying the signs look like the type of personality who would, if there wasn't this ax to grind, would soon find another one. 2. http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/boston_common_031104/dscn1419.JPG This picture is a nice reminder that what we do to others is like doing it to Jesus--and they aren't talking about having sex. They're talking more generally that being kind to people is like being kind to Jesus and being cruel to people is like being cruel to Jesus. Why do you think the topic of homosexuality is so polarizing in religious communities? Because the majority of people have strong feelings about this issue one way or another, and religious communities are one place where people are known to express strong feelings. Then, there's the idea that those who, for instance, strongly oppose gay marriage feel threatened by the views of fellow church members who are for it, fearing that these views will change the church the all attend in a way they see as negative. For those who are in favor of gay marriage, they might see those who oppose it as holding back the church from growing and killing it by making it stagnant and not relevant to the times we now live in. In my opinion, a church body shows its strength when it doesn't just change when the wind blows, no matter what the issue might be--yet, also, knows when change is warranted and isn't afraid to consider making changes. Sometimes, it takes many years to come to a conclusion about an issue one way or the other. Should the government be in the business of defining marriage? Why or why not? As I mentioned earlier, there are times when it has to be, because issues such as retirement pensions, social security, and what an employer might be required to do depends on it. But there's a difference between recognizing one spouse at a time when it comes to benefits and going after people and arresting them for unofficially having more than one spouse. There are personal issues and choices in which the government has no business getting involved--among them, how many people you're sleeping with, whether a person's sexual relationship is also a business deal, and whether you sleep with the opposite sex or the same sex. That is, they have no business getting involved when it comes to fining people, arresting them, etc. But it does have the right to not pay benefits to a group of widows because they consider themselves to be married to the same man. Would you support the legalization of gay marriage? Yes, because this is a government matter and doesn't force clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies against their beliefs. I both fight for the right for two people of the same gender to marry and for the right of a clergy member not to perform the ceremony. And I will remain against the extra marriages of a polygamist to be recognized to the point that employers are forced to pay out extra benefits--but I'll also recognize the love in these marriages and people's right to engage in this kind of union. If you answered no, what are your fears behind its legalization? If you answered yes, what are your fears behind it remaining illegal? The only fear I would have about making it legal would be if clergy started getting sued and otherwise harassed for refusing to perform same-sex ceremonies. The fear I have about its remaining illegal is that this could even mean that people could be arrested for what goes on in the privacy of their own homes, though it isn't likely. What IS likely, however, is that a surviving partner might be put out of the home that he/she shared with a loved one when next-of-kin has rights over the partner when it comes to inheritance issues. Would you support government-sanctioned civil unions between homosexual couples? I support anything that would keep a surviving soulmate from being put out onto the street. And soulmates aren't always sexual partners, either--such as in the case of these two men with the tigers out in Las Vegas who are in a loving and dedicated friendship that isn't a gay union. Even without being united in a sexual way, they're still united in a way that says that nobody in the world is more important to each of them than the other. They're like twin brothers who are related to each other by choice instead of blood, so I'm sure that they feel like each other's next-of-kin. Along with actual cases of gay people wanting to spend their lives together, this kind of civil law would take care of cases such as that of the tiger men. Do you see any way of bridging this current divide in our country over "wedge issues" like gay marriage or abortion? Or should we even be trying? I think that there will, at least for now, always be opposing viewpoints, so we just have to settle things in the best way possible. For example, when it comes to abortion-on-demand, have a time-limit of the first trimester for this to be done within while always having abortion available even after that for lifesaving measures. After the first trimester, the fetus is just too close to being viable to destroy on a whim. When it comes to relationships between consenting adults, there is no baby/fetus being destroyed, and nobody is being raped. The Mormon church doesn't allow its members to drink coffee and cola, and the Seventh Day Adventist church doesn't allow its members to eat pork--but legislation shouldn't be passed prohibiting the rest of us from consuming caffeinated drinks and eating pork. We need to decide when we are legislating rules that are important to apply to all and when we were merely legislating the morality of a select set of religious beliefs. If we don't do that, we might end up having our own right to worship as we please taken from us should atheists, pagans, or satanists get control of our government. What do you see America's view of homosexuality and gay marriage being in 100 years from today? What will those future Americans think of us in 2005, as they look back? I have no idea. A lot of that depends on the decisions we make now. Hopefully, future Americans will see us as a people who have experienced positive growth--a growth that can discern between "anything goes" and knowing what to let go of and what to keep. Final thoughts or ideas: Happy Fourth Of July!!! Let freedom ring!!!  |
| Read all comments (6)|Write your own comment |
