A gay man's story amind the chik-a-fil madness

[Artemis]

One of my fb friends is a gay man living in America now and this is his post today. :cona:

Last night I thought about suicide. I thought about what it means, how it totally destroys families, how it wastes precious lives, how endemic it is in the Gay Community, and how much of America unwittingly promotes it.

When I was about five or six years old, there was a young fellow who came to my father's church. He worked in the local grocery stocking vegetables. He had a lisp and people made fun of him. "He probably squats to pee." "He's such a sissy he wouldn't know what to do with a girl." "Such an embarrassment to his family." I heard all of these comments and wondered why people would say them. Raymond was always nice to me and my parents. He smiled. He helped find things that we wanted like a really ripe watermelon or some tomatoes that would ripen perfectly by the day we needed them. He smiled a lot and had two or three girls at the church who always sat with him and thought he was funny.

I remember seeing Raymond and his girl friends at a carnival having fun on a ride called The Scrambler. They were whooping and hollering. Some tough looking high school boys went past and pointed at them saying, "Look at the queer scream!"

One day I came home from school and my aunt told me Raymond had shot himself in the head. "Poor tormented soul," she called him. I asked why he would do that. She said, "Probably because he didn't like girls." I thought that was odd, because he DID like girls. He had more fun with them at the carnival than those stupid high school boys ever had.

I guess Dad performed the funeral. Maybe there wasn't one. I don't really know. No one ever spoke of Raymond again, except once two or three years later when I asked about him. I think it was my Dad who said, "You don't want to be like Raymond. He couldn't bear his sin. He did things he was sorry for and could never take back and he just could not bear to live with that. You don't ever want to do anything wrong like Raymond did because it will eat at you and destroy your life."

One day in Junior High I realized what it meant to be someone that didn't like girls. I realized that I was being called a sissy. I realized that I must be like Raymond and if I didn't do something about it, I would be a sinner and have to kill myself. I realized that I would be reviled, talked about in whispers, mocked by mean guys, and once I committed suicide, I would be forgotten; too wretched to be even a shameful memory. So I got down on my knees and prayed like I had never prayed in my life. It wasn't a little child's prayer like "Now I lay me down to sleep..." It was a real prayer from my heart. I begged and pleaded with God to not let me be like Raymond, to keep me from being so sinful that I had to kill myself. I prayed and I prayed. I prayed like that for years. I never changed.

This year I will turn 60. In the intervening years, I came to terms with my sexuality (it was a long and painful struggle) and resolved to try to live peaceably with my Fundamentalist family and their community. That community came out in the millions this past week to tell me yet again that I am not worthy to live. They proudly, in the name of Christ, told me that they viewed Dan Cathy's spouting of bigotry to the press to be an act of righteous courage and that my expression of distaste was the same as being a member of the Nazi Party (yes, that was said in a conversation I had on the issue). They gave millions of dollars to Dan Cathy and he, in turn, will spend a good portion of the money supporting organizations that claim to be Christian, but are advocating the criminalization of me not liking girls, that advocate the internment of all gay people in concentration camps and prisons, that advocate the execution in Uganda of the entire gay population. The message that I get from all of this is that millions of Americans want to see me dead.

I know that many of them would protest this last statement. But what is it that they DO want, if not for gay people to be eradicated from the nation? Perhaps they just don't understand what their words and actions mean.

When they say, "Gay people picked this fight", they say that it is alright for Dan Cathy to espousing bigotry and pay to have gay people's rights abridged but that my right to free speech is somehow different and it infringes on freedom of their religion. When they say, "I'm not going to let a good Christian man be harmed by the gay community" they are saying that they happily embrace the hatred that Dan Cathy promotes and hold me accountable for his financial well being (in other words, they expect me to pay for my own death). And when they say, "I'm not getting into this fight, I don't care that you are gay, but I'm still going to eat Chik fil A" they are saying that my life is worth less than a chicken sandwich.

When a 60 year old man hears talk like that, he knows what to do with it. Yes, it hurts and it hurts deeply, but I've weathered those kinds of attitudes for years and things are better for me now then they were when I was in Junior High. However, for people like Raymond, for that lonely gay teen sitting in a Fundamentalist church with a bunch of girls, for the quiet kid in the back of the school room too afraid to say he likes boys, for the high school girl who cannot tell her parents that she is in love with another girl, for all of those kids like Tyler Clementi, the message is clear: "Kill yourself or we will do it for you or make your life hell. You are not welcome in our churches, unless you change and change radically or unless you lie about yourself. You cannot marry. You cannot tell anyone about your sexual orientation. If we get a sense that you are gay, we will fire your ass from your job. If we really know about you, we will see that you do not live in our buildings. If we are bored and have nothing to do but go around and beat up queers and carve scars onto their bodies or perhaps stomp them into a pulp or even kill you. And we have millions, MILLIONS, of people who will stand up for us and you have only a pitiful few who will stand up for you. And by the way, you are going to hell."

So I expect in the coming months we will be seeing more suicides in our younger population. I thought about what that means last night. I thought about the despair and the hopelessness young gay people will feel after the big display by "Christians" eating Chik fil A. I thought about the money that will be used to promote these suicides. I thought about Raymond. And I cried.

[guysmiley]

Hate is a sad horrid thing. Hope, we can pick away at it.

[Larry B.]

Very sad indeed. Tell you friend that a Chilean gay-rights-advocate sends him a hug

A couple of months ago I was discussing the issue of same sex marriage in Chile (which is forbidden). I'm for it, he's completely against it. His stronger argument was "that's the way it has been since always, why would we change it now?"

After we ended the discussion and before leaving the restaurant, he looks at me and says "dude, between you and me... being a faggot is a deviation..."

I actually felt like punching him. I don't think I ever could, though.

[Matz]

that's a very well spoken friend you've got there Artemis. Terribly sad to hear it's actually that bad, didn't really know that. I guess it's worse in the US than it is here, Denmark is isn't home of too many bible bumpers. And those that are keep pretty quiet

[chaos]

Your friend's reflection is very moving.

About seven years ago I attended the wedding of a colleague whose parents knew he was gay but would not acknowledge it. They refused to go to his wedding. He took it in stride but he was terribly hurt. His father died a few years later; nothing was resolved.

It is hard to believe the mindset of some people in the 21st century.

[mockbee]

I think Jon Stewart put it best when he said something to the effect: This whole chik-fil-a crap is really sad...but if the trade off is that we get gay-marriage - *because it is going to happen here, that's why these bigots are so pissed* - and they get a chicken sandwich.....things could definitely be worse..............


I am just so thankful that I grew up in a place where I was not aware of these disgusting bigots and I live in a place now where I would be really hard pressed to find someone who spouts these bigoted views or takes these ridiculous actions....... I could definitely find you an asshole where I live, but not a bigot.......

I actually still find it really hard to believe that such people even exist........

[blackcoffee]

Sad to hear. The Chik-fil-A guy made headlines, and his voice is briefly louder than the prevailing voice of reason, justice, and human rights because it makes a good story.

I hope your friend can recognize that. Being 6o, though, I bet he's seen his share of discrimination, though, and it's got to weigh on you.

Tell me there are a bunch of Jane's fans willing to give him a cyber hug....

[Romeo]

that was really moving. Thanks for sharing that. He should submit that to a LGBT website

[Juana]

that was a great post, and yeah the level of hate for gay people is upsetting.

[crater]

Your friends sad, but incredible story has spread to another place I visit

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... qus_thread

[Artemis]

Your friends sad, but incredible story has spread to another place I visit

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... qus_thread

WOW!

On the original post there's about 60 or so comments and practically everybody asked if they could repost. Then the friends of the friends reposted and so on..


Great comments everybody. I too was really moved when I read the post and felt compelled to share it. I was also angered and saddened that so called "Christians" could be so hateful. Not surprised though.. Then, in the Saturday paper here there was a story about a woman who refused to rent her basement apartment to a gay couple. She's a Seventh Day Adventist and claims that renting to a homosexuals violates her religious beliefs. The couple is going to file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I think the owner of that rental unit will be in trouble.

"The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s chief commissioner, Barbara Hall says that, generally speaking, issues such as the religion of a person offering a service determining who they’ll do business with has been found to “not be a competing right’’ in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario judgments. In other words, when you go into business and put out services or products, you have to deal with whoever comes forward, regardless of religion, race or sexual orientation."

[Hokahey]

Marriage should be a contract between any adults that choose to enter in to the contract. Problem solved. The government shouldn't be defining who can or cannot enter in to a contract and have certain rights. What if three people want to be married? Why should this be frowned upon? No more government definitions.

And yes, it was a very moving post.

[creep]

i'm starting to think that hoka believes in less government.

[chaos]

[krakle]

Good thread. But, no one speaks out against gay marriage over here. In all fairness, I'd like to hear some other opinions because I'm pretty sure ANR is not (/can't be) unanimous on this.

Perhaps it's too late in this thread, but I do would like to hear some other opinions. Maybe later?

The only deviating opinion I've heard so far is hokahey's "no more government definitions" concerning gender & number of people who want to get married. Hokahey, should people be allowed to marry their pet? Because there's a definition right there: limiting the right of marriage to people only.
And also, do you personally know a group of people (>2) who would like to get married? Just curious...

I'm still figuring out this marriage thing (but not too much), cuz sometimes to me it seems like it's more & more a traditional symbolic ritual. If this marriage thing would have no legal or fiscal consequences, I might just be perfectly okay with idiots marrying their pet. (I think the pets should be left alone, though.)

Where I live there are several types of marriage: legal marriage, religious marriage (christian & muslim), ceremonial marriage and gay marriage (the latter falls under the category of legal marriage.) As I support the separation between state & church, I fully support the separation between legal and religious marriage.
I don't know the legal situation of the US but I think it would make sense if you would have (start with) a similar kind of separation between legal and religious marriage, where gay marriage is legally allowed but not religiously. Is it an option?

More thoughts please...

[mockbee]

Good thread. But, no one speaks out against gay marriage over here. In all fairness, I'd like to hear some other opinions because I'm pretty sure ANR is not (/can't be) unanimous on this.

Perhaps it's too late in this thread, but I do would like to hear some other opinions. Maybe later?

The only deviating opinion I've heard so far is hokahey's "no more government definitions" concerning gender & number of people who want to get married. Hokahey, should people be allowed to marry their pet? Because there's a definition right there: limiting the right of marriage to people only.
And also, do you personally know a group of people (>2) who would like to get married? Just curious...

I'm still figuring out this marriage thing (but not too much), cuz sometimes to me it seems like it's more & more a traditional symbolic ritual. If this marriage thing would have no legal or fiscal consequences, I might just be perfectly okay with idiots marrying their pet. (I think the pets should be left alone, though.)

Where I live there are several types of marriage: legal marriage, religious marriage (christian & muslim), ceremonial marriage and gay marriage (the latter falls under the category of legal marriage.) As I support the separation between state & church, I fully support the separation between legal and religious marriage.
I don't know the legal situation of the US but I think it would make sense if you would have (start with) a similar kind of separation between legal and religious marriage, where gay marriage is legally allowed but not religiously. Is it an option?

More thoughts please...

Actually, we do have a separation between religious and state sanctioned marriages. There are plenty of religious groups in the US that sanction gay marriage, such as Unitarians. Also there are plenty of states and cities who sanction gay marriage in the US, and call it a civil-union. The issue primarily resides with the Federal definition (or non-definition) of marriage. The Federal definition (or steadfast non-definition) is very important because it will determine if gay 'spouses' get health benefits, hospital visits/rights, child custody, rollover retirement, etc. etc. etc. I suppose the whole issue is more complex than that, because I would suppose that gays would not be honky-dory with just dreams of getting 'civil-unioned' one day....... But I suppose it really is the only issue. (as long as the state stays out of religion) There will absolutely be no convincing the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.....

It would be maybe okay to leave it up to the states, but not really, because many, many gays would be left without the right to be married, based on the state they lived in. A larger concern with leaving it up to the states is that there are always amendments and propositions that arise to define marriage as between a man and a woman when some states (and cities) do pass laws that sanction gay marriage. It's really all a big stupid mess that has absolutely nothing to do with the people who object to gay marriage most vehemently. It will be ultimately determined in the United States some day by the Supreme Court.........

The history of marriage is actually very, very fascinating ...........the government becoming involved with marriage was really mostly due to health and welfare issues. People only knew their direct cousins............people started having really strange deformed looking babies...........there was too much incest!!!!!

Societies have often placed restrictions on marriage to relatives, though the degree of prohibited relationship varies widely. With few exceptions, marriages between parents and children or between full siblings have been considered incest and forbidden. However, marriages between more distant relatives have been much more common, with one estimate being that 80% of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer.[100] This proportion has fallen dramatically, but still more than 10% of all marriages are believed to be between first and second cousins.[101] In the United States, such marriages are now highly stigmatized, and laws ban most or all first-cousin marriage in 30 states. Specifics vary: in South Korea, historically it was illegal to marry someone with the same last name.[102]

Unitarian Universalism is a theologically liberal religion characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".[1] Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the understanding that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

Historically, both Unitarianism and Universalism have roots in the Christian faith. Contemporary Unitarian Universalism espouses a pluralist approach to religious belief, whereby members may describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, deist, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, pagan, or assume no label at all. As of 2006, fewer than about 20% of Unitarian Universalists identified themselves as Christian.[2]

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) was formed in 1961, a consolidation of the American Unitarian Association, established in 1825, and the Universalist Church of America, established in 1866. It is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and serves churches mostly in the United States. The Canadian Unitarian Council became an independent body in 2002.[3]

[Hype]

[Hokahey]

The only deviating opinion I've heard so far is hokahey's "no more government definitions" concerning gender & number of people who want to get married. Hokahey, should people be allowed to marry their pet? Because there's a definition right there: limiting the right of marriage to people only.

Can animals enter in to contracts?

That's a rather ridiculous question.

Why is marriage considered anything beyond a legal partnership in the eyes of the law?

If people want their union to be religious, then have a ceremony performed in a church. Great. But the paperwork should be no different regardless.

And also, do you personally know a group of people (>2) who would like to get married? Just curious...

Currently, no. Over the years? Of course. I've had many close gay friends. And I've been a staunch proponent of marriage equality since my early teens.

I'm still figuring out this marriage thing (but not too much), cuz sometimes to me it seems like it's more & more a traditional symbolic ritual. If this marriage thing would have no legal or fiscal consequences, I might just be perfectly okay with idiots marrying their pet. (I think the pets should be left alone, though.)

Where I live there are several types of marriage: legal marriage, religious marriage (christian & muslim), ceremonial marriage and gay marriage (the latter falls under the category of legal marriage.) As I support the separation between state & church, I fully support the separation between legal and religious marriage.
I don't know the legal situation of the US but I think it would make sense if you would have (start with) a similar kind of separation between legal and religious marriage, where gay marriage is legally allowed but not religiously. Is it an option?

More thoughts please...

I've provided you the obvious and easiest solution. It's not a complicated issue until you bring religion in to it, which should not play a factor in government affairs. Most historians concur that marriage existed prior to recorded history and has taken on many forms, religious and otherwise throughout history.

[Hokahey]

It would be maybe okay to leave it up to the states, but not really, because many, many gays would be left without the right to be married, based on the state they lived in.

If not for state's being able to pass their own laws regarding gay marriage, there would never have been any traction on the issue. The public at large seeing it working without mass gay orgies in an early adopter state get more comfortable with the idea.

And it's spread as a result.

It also allows other states to see the benefit of allowing it economically and to change their own laws in order to remain competitive.

That's the beauty of the system.

A larger concern with leaving it up to the states is that there are always amendments and propositions that arise to define marriage as between a man and a woman when some states (and cities) do pass laws that sanction gay marriage.

Which can just as easily be overturned. The propositions defining marriage are symbolic at best as they're not overturning or changing anything. Just making a statement that Cletus don't like them gays.

It will be ultimately determined in the United States some day by the Supreme Court.........

Nah. It will continue as it has. One state at a time, maybe a few hold outs that take longer or maybe never come around. Great. They will eventually be looked at as backwater dumps that lose pro gay family business and lag behind more progressive states until they're bankrupt or change.

[Hype]

Is that how the other rights issues were won?

[Romeo]

If we left civil rights up to the states, MS, AL and GA would still have separate water fountains.


we need an amendment to the bill of rights, just as they did for black suffrage & women suffrage.

[Hokahey]

If we left civil rights up to the states, MS, AL and GA would still have separate water fountains.

Based on what evidence can you state this unequivocably? Also, there is a reasonable constitutional debate to be had regarding whether those states should have that right.

However, I cannot imagine you honestly believe that the voters in those states would continue to approve of segregation.

Can you imagine the lack of support amongst businesses, tourists, etc.? By the nature of needing to maintain profitability they would be forced to progress.

Forced acceptance from the federal government does not supercede personal feelings, and can often create resentment thus further derailing the more personal mission of acceptance.

we need an amendment to the bill of rights, just as they did for black suffrage & women suffrage.

Um, those were voting rights amendments.

I think you're suggesting a simple constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage.

There is much debate whether the US Congess has the right to force such an amendment as dictated by their original enumerated powers. This should be an issue of state rights, which is where any civil rights movement begins regardless.

Why is marriage a state or federal issue to begin with? Why isn't the legal partnership of individuals determined by the individual and the contract they choose regarding what rights they allow their partner in to their financial and personal affairs?

It is precisely because of too much government that we face this issue. It's amazing to me how liberals demand "more more government" to correct an issue that government has created.

On that same note, aren't most progressives anti authoritarian? Don't they generally distrust the politicians and their war machine? Don't they intend to raise their fists and resist? Against what? It's a such a muddled idealogy. Damn the man! Unless that man is passing laws I agree with and giving me free things. Oh wait, but the man now has too much power and is taking things from me. Damn imminent domain! Damn the drug laws!

How about damn the man period? How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

[Hype]

How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

Nah. More intrusion!!

[Hokahey]

How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

Nah. More intrusion!!

Oh, you support the war machine, the drug laws, imminent domain etc? You cannot pick and choose which areas the government is overreaching. Too much power is too much power and will always be abused in ways segments of the population are hurt by through legislation that inhibits civil liberties.

The abuse continues even down to the state level.

The police have become a local army, primarily because of the war on drugs, and act with impunity.

Down with government. Power to the people.

Yet the hypocrites that yell that are the first to demand the government save us from ourselves.

[Hokahey]

How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

Nah. More intrusion!!

Let's not forget the Patriot Act. Big government Liberals hate the Patriot Act. Oh the irony.