Words of Wisdom

I'd like to share a quote I saw on another web site today:

"Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians." -- Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.

Has anyone ever gotten a real answer to the question "How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten, devalue, undermine or otherwise harm the institution of marriage?"

We see all sorts of rhetoric regarding "protecting the children" from gay marriage, but isn't marriage how we protect those children?

I saw one member of Congress (or the Senate?) a few months ago commenting that, if we allowed gay marriage, more children would be born out of wedlock. HUH? I couldn't figure out the logic in that statement. If gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, then these children would not be born out of wedlock. By denying these marriages, those same children will be born out of wedlock and, denying those marriages won't prevent those children from being born anyway.

I find it pitiful that these homophobes would hide behind children -- but then again, they use "protect the children" for the emotional effect it produces, not as a matter of any real logic or rationalization.

"It's not natural" is another one of my favorite arguments. Says who? Throughout the world, homosexuality has been found in almost every living species. While the argument can be made that these are unintelligent animals without the ability to reason, it is exactly that which defeats the argument that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it?

"These people just want to indoctrinate more children into the homosexual lifestyle." Then who indoctrinated us? Our straight parents?

"These people want to redefine marriage -- they want to re-shape the tradition of marriage, something that has been defined throughout the history of man." If marriage had not been redefined, women would still be sold as chattel for a large dowery by their fathers. If marriage had not been redefined, marriages would still be "arranged" and would not be based on mutual love and respect for each other -- it'd still be a business deal based on what's best for the larger family. If marriage had not been redefined, mothers would still be in the home, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while their husbands earned the only paycheck to come into the house. They would also be subject to whatever abuse their husbands heaped upon them. If marriage were to be exactly as it originated, there would be a requirement that the wife be a virgin, or face cruel penalties.

Don't tell me that we want to "redefine" marriage -- the heterosexuals have done that throughout history in order to adapt to the times, cultures, and societal needs. Why else would it be easy to get married in a marriage-mill chapel in Las Vegas, or get a "quickie divorce" in Mexico? Why else would there be "no fault, no contest" divorces where it allows the couple to just give up on the marriage and walk away?

And what about the Gen-X'ers who now have the term "starter marriage" to describe a first marriage where they "learn" about marriage and, if it doesn't work out, they walk away?

"Marriage and family experts — psychologists, sociologists, lawyers and clergy — are beginning to look at these brief young unions, seeing in their implications a barometer of society's attitudes about marriage and divorce. Some say starter marriages signal the need for more premarital counseling."—Deborah Schupack, "'Starter' Marriages: So Early, So Brief," The New York Times, July 7, 1994

Doesn't this redefine marriage? How does two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fighting tooth and nail to make that commitment, redefine the essence of marriage? Isn't this exactly what marriage is all about? Love, respect, commitment, walking through the fires of hell for the sake of the relationship?

Then there's the "If homosexuals get married, they'll do it just for kicks and there will be more divorces for them." Just for kicks...you mean like Brittany Spears? You mean like a lot of heterosexual couples who get married for all the wrong reasons? This "We'll save them from themselves" mentality makes me want to vomit sometimes.

Do people really believe this drivel, or are they just parrotting what they hear on the television from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart?

And let's talk about these two guys here for a minute.

Jerry Falwell attacked a children's television character (Tinky Winkie) claiming that it was a symbol for homosexuality with his purple color, triangle head, and purse. In the first place, the Teletubbies are basically genderless. So how do we know it's improper for one or any of them to carry a purse? Secondly, the triangle doesn't have to represent anything, especially when another character has a circle on its head, and another has what appears to be a lightning bolt on its head. Should we infer, per Mr. Falwell, that the lightning bold signifies the darkness of Satan? Should we infer that the circle looks more like a bulls-eye to advocate less restrictive laws on gun control? Doesn't this guy have anything better to do than to attack children's television programming?

Jimmy Swaggart really messed up when he said, in front of a live audience on a program televised throughout the country, "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died." It's bad enough that Jimmy Swaggart, with that one statement, advocated violence against gays just for a LOOK and THEN HE'D LIE TO GOD ABOUT IT, but what I found more disturbing was that the audience applauded him. He later apologized, but hasn't that damage already been done? And this from a confessed pornography addict and patron of prostitutes? This from a man who is rumored to have had extramarital affairs? This from the man who described the prophet Muhammad as a pervert" and a "sex deviant?"

Why is it that these so-called "Men of God" use lies, deceit, and hatred to convince people that homosexuality is wrong? Most likely because they can't justify it in any other way -- they're not content to teach their followers to read the Bible, and pray for understanding of what the Bible means. No, they have to take it a step further and incite violence against gays, tell people that the gay community is after their children [“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildrenand turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club] and to make people AFRAID of homosexuals -- fear is the most powerful motivator known to man and you can't tell me that these men who claim to speak the word of God don't know this and use it to promote and spin their own personal brand of hate.

I'm often reminded of a line from the movie "Oh God!" Paul Sorvino plays the Reverend Willie Williams, a Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart sort of minister who is suing Jerry Landers (played by John Denver) for libel and slander after Landers, in front of a television audience, branded Williams a fraud after having conversed with God concerning the reverend. Jerry tells the minister "God says that you claim to be spreading God's words, but the problem is, you ran out of Gods words a long time ago" (not an exact quote).

I think these televangelists and the Pope have long since run out of God's words, too. They use their power and position to strike fear in the hearts of the faithful, and teach hate, intolerance, and prejudice -- values which directly contradict those taught in the Bible.

Perhaps these guys need to open their Bibles and read them for a change?