It's been ages since I wrote on this thing. That's basically because, I had a lot of distractions in my life for the past 9 months, and they seemed rather personal to put on a blog! Vague- yes, true- yes!
The thing that woke me from my blog retirement today, or the thing that made me think "man I'd like to write more than a 2 sentence Facebook status" was, ironically, fried chicken sandwiches. The Chick-Fil-A thing: owner says things about gay marriage, people realize the company profits have gone to anti-gay groups, people boycott, people support, people get angry.
I think it's overblown. I think it's kind of silly. There are so many times and places one who cares about any issue should and would have to consider where their money goes that it becomes sort of impossible-- (I already spend a fair amount of energy worrying whether I am funding child slavery and sweat shops when I buy chocolate or clothes, now I've got marriage equality to factor into my eating habits too!). But then again, we are a capitalistic society, and money speaks volumes and carries power. It's a difficult but not a worthless endeavor.
I don't want to stir up trouble, but considering I have many Christian friends, and many friends with differing political views from all over the country (and world!), I think it could be useful to hear another perspective which might be different from those people you usually talk to. I for one am a liberal Christian, and usually surrounded by liberals, liberal Christians, gays, and (yes) gay Christians when I talk about this, so maybe talking across the culture divide will be useful for me too. (For the record, I'm also pretty removed from this debate, there are no Chick-fil-A's anywhere near me, so my personal "boycott" would simply not be felt, haha.)
Conservative Christians probably feel they are supporting traditional family values, the structure of the family unit. That they are defending their religious beliefs, which are under attack. That supporting a company that supports their beliefs is a good way to make their voices heard. Maybe they honestly feel the stakes are very high because if they don't voice their support for traditional marriage it will go the way of people marrying dogs or their siblings, traditional families will fall apart, and nontraditional families are very damaging. Maybe they haven't thought much about it and just like waffle fries.
I can see that point of view and I respectfully disagree, here's why:
For starters, gay people's rights should just not be that threatening to conservative christians' rights. It's currently 3-5% of the population that is openly gay, according to the latest census. Certainly a somewhat larger percentage of the population would start coming out of the closet if things were more comfortable for them (some estimate like 1 in 10 have a serious same sex attraction of some sort), and that would be a good thing-- happier people! But orientation isn't contagious, it's not spreading. There is a limit to how large the gay population is ever going to be in this country or world, and they'll probably choose to congregate in liberal/accepting states and cities for a while, etc. This is just not a slippery slope thing which is going to start anything like the majority of our society being gay, stopping procreating, ending family structure as we know it. It's not possible. If you don't believe me, try acting against your sexual orientation sometime. It's uncomfortable, doesn't really work. Genetics, environment, and/or some random variation-- it is what it is-- and most people are straight. Straight people make babies together. I recognize it feels scary and like a slippery slope, but progress always seems new and scary, and in this case I assure you, it's not going to cause the downfall of society. No one wants bestiality or incest to be legal. It won't spread to gay people's kids either-- both orientations come from heterosexual parents and both orientations come from gay parents. Gays have significantly less biological kids than straight people anyway, so whether by nature or nurture you think there would be extra gay people, it would always be of diminishing importance and wouldn't multiply.
If you're a person who is traditional on this sort of thing then you probably don't have many gay friends to talk to about it. You probably don't see their relationships, hear their thoughts and feelings, realize what sort of people they are. Outsider groups and unknowns can be scary. But that also makes you not a very good judge of whether that population are capable and worthy of building marriages, being parents, making families. Maybe find ways to get to know some of them and then make up your mind. In the meantime, maybe you should abstain from voting or working actively against their rights, or give the gays the benefit of the doubt that they're good people and just support them.
Marriage is sort of a religious, sort of a legal matter. It's a multifaceted grey area. But to the extent that it is a legal matter, there can't be any justification based on "defending your religious beliefs" that gives you a right to deny rights to another group. That's not how this country works, the Bible won't be held up in a court of law (except I guess to swear oath). To the extent that marriage is a religious matter, it's fine to defend your interpretation of the Bible in your churches and denominations. Churches don't have to conduct gay marriages. To the extent that it is a legal matter, it is (and will eventually be widely seen as) discriminatory to not extend legal rights to a group of people. Maybe we as a society can agree to a fully available civil union, not defined as marriage, which extends absolutely all of the same rights to the other group? Maybe. But "separate and equal" was proven to be "separate" but rarely "equal" during the civil rights movement. It usually means "separate and second-class." Can't we just have a nondiscriminatory set of laws that protects everyone's rights but doesn't always agree with everyone's individual religious beliefs? Because separation of church and state suggests that's a good thing. You don't have to like gay relationships or enter into a legal gay union / marriage, but sooner or later you'll have to come up with a good legal reason for why others can't!
Think about it, this debate also has little to do with protecting traditional family values. Gay people are allowed to form families. Single people, gay people, are allowed to adopt kids or have surrogate kids. That's not illegal. The number of "gay families" may not even really change as a result of this debate. Certainly the number of traditional healthy straight families is very unlikely to change based on rights you've given to 5% of the population. If there were a few closeted gay people who now may be making fewer traditional families, believe me they would not be the healthiest parents to have around while lying to themselves anyway. If more openly gay people who currently have little motivation to form lifelong ties change from lifelong gay bachelorhood to lifelong commitment with a gay partner as a result, to each their own, but you also can't tell me that's a bad thing.
What the debate is about is legal rights. Gay families form now anyway, couples that form lifelong bonds, including bonds with children. The difference between these families and traditional families right now is how they have no legal protections. If one partner dies, the other partner is treated like a stranger by the government. One gay partner usually has to take out a big life insurance policy to protect the other, rather than the assumption by the government that assets are shared. That's just the start of it: the IRS, immigration, child custody rights, health insurance-- there are many many legal/financial advantages for being real married to a partner, that gay people are denied access to even with a civil union. It wouldn't be a big deal if it was just about wedding dresses and ceremonies.
The debate is also about more than legal rights. What got people so upset, once the Chick-fil-A founder pointed it out with his little quote, was that Chick-fil-A corporate profits (not just the owner's private wealth) have gone to some activities that are pretty discriminatory towards gay people. Groups that lobby the government to limit gay people's rights across the board, as if it's a culture war and gays are taking over. Groups that include funding gay conversion therapy. Why is that bad? Imagine having someone try to psychologically/physiologically condition you to change your orientation. I watched a documentary recently where conversion therapies used electrical shocks or chemicals that make you nauseous in contrast with images of attractive-to-you people. Horrifying. It's the plot of A Clockwork Orange in your own bedroom. Not every conversion therapy is so extreme or unethical, but they have been shown to have pretty damaging psychological effects across the board. That's why gay people / liberals feel extra angry towards Chick-fil-A, the corporate profits have gone to groups that hurt them or others. It makes sense to boycott a group that hurts you and others. You can also feel free to support them because of their agreement with your values, but be sure to think about it, realize what you are doing.
One final point-- this is an especially sensitive topic for gay people. It's personal. If you think you're saying "well I still come down on the traditional side of the debate, no offense," just be aware that it still feels fairly offensive to gay people because it limits their rights in society. It's not a fair debate-- one side has the rights and legal protections and it doesn't affect their marriages or lives or livelihoods at all, they just feel funny about changing a definition and it doesn't fit well in their worldview and religious beliefs and they're afraid. The other side doesn't have any of those rights and the course of their lives is drastically changed by the outcome. And the other side will always be a small minority, that can't just grow their numbers for support. And the other side has always been discriminated against throughout history because of the fact that they are a small group who doesn't have the same rights and can get ignored and marginalized. And few people really understand their point of view because relatively few people have really been in the position of having a different orientation from everyone else and facing a world that is completely stacked against them.
Ok! If you read to the end-- congratulations! Thanks a lot for listening to my perspective. You now have my permission to go out and enjoy some chicken, whichever brand you choose! Really :-)
I'm hungry now,
-Stephen
No comments:
Post a Comment