The Gay: A Progressive Approach To Instructing The Conservative Mind

I must say that I am getting both simultaneously softer and harder, accepting and rejecting, in my old age.  Softer and accepting in the sense I really love people of all different varieties yet harder in the sense of catching a serious case of the TOFTS (must read that blog if you have not) as in, “Too Old For This Shit.”

 

This soft/hard dichotomy was never more evident than just a few days ago while teaching an online course for a private University. Each year I teach this persuasion course (which I have done for many years), within the first five online minutes, many conservative students will voice his or her strong aversion to homosexuality. Did I ask for their opinion on this matter? No. Did I bring up the subject at all? No. Do I ever talk about any sexual issues of any kind in the course? Believe it or not, no.

 

I strongly suspect it may be a case of “thou protesteth too much.” But what do I know? I do know anti-gayness seems to be, no, IS, the rallying crowd favorite issue in many conservative religious circles.

 

I have seen this trend for many years yet for some reason this year I have had enough of this crazed, obsessive, homophobic slander.  At first, I just wanted to log-off, send in my resignation and say “sayonara” to some mean-spirited, gay haters–-yet that was the TOFTS side of me thinking as I do not have any more time in my life for narrow minded ignorance.

 antirainbow

However, that softer and sensitive side of me realized that ignorance does not necessarily imply mean-spirited nor that those who might disagree with my take come from a place of meanness, even if it does result in oppressing a large group of people. So I guess I did what any decent educator should try to do: Educate. Share some ideas and understanding.

 

Today I want to share with you my attempt to educate conservative religious students on the issue of homosexuality in America. Look, I know some think it is sinful behavior and all, yet this is America and we all retain the right to engage in legally protected sins, thank God; outlawing all sin would have a devastating effect on the economy, not to mention my personal life.

 

So this is a letter I included in my lecture last week. Keep in mind these are are extremely intelligent students, most of whom are professionals and older than the Community College crowd. They have good hearts and intentions…I think.

 

Hello All…
I must say that each year I teach this course the issue of homosexuality gets brought up within the first few strokes of the keyboard, like clockwork, and I ask myself why? I never bring up the subject. It is not provoked. Why it is always homosexuality first and foremost served up as the primary example of corruption in American Society?  It would seem like we are quite selective in the “sins” we want to rail against and the “sins” we do not. Why do we not first and foremost rail against the corrupt Wall Street investors who steal billions of dollars of people’s hard earned retirement money? Or the sleazes that engage in underage sex trafficking? Or even the bully politician who shuts down a bridge for corrupt political payback while making stressed thousands late for work? What about the pimps who mistreat women?  The murderers and thieves? Why are not some these groups first and foremost? No, it is the gay.
I am so pleased to hear a few of you bring up the idea of love. I am a person who believes in love first and foremost. As one who has family members who are gay and have seen the discrimination up close and personal, the last thing I would want to do is hurt or marginalize any minority community, whether I personally agree with them or not. If one is against homosexuality then do not practice homosexuality; it is that simple. I am far more interested in railing against those who would steal from me, hurt me or exploit the weak than those with a different sexual orientation than my own.
It is important to keep in mind that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society that is built on free speech and tolerance of diverse groups and opinions. It sounds to me like some of you are claiming—and dreading—that we are evolving into a closed, intolerant society as you simultaneously speak out against the rights of the homosexual community. Can we see the irony here? If we fight for the rights of some and not the rights of others, are we not part of the democratic problem instead of the solution? Again, we live in a democracy (of sorts) not a theocracy. When do we realize that homosexuals have as much right to their lives (democratically) as anyone else? It sounds to me like it is THIS thinking that is promoting a closed and intolerant society. So society should/can discriminate against the homosexual but absolutely cannot discriminate against the Christian? What is the logic behind this?
It was written in a response, “As  a result the bakers were placed in a very precarious position since to agree to bake a cake for this homosexual couple would be to support and facilitate the mockery of true of true biblical marriage.” We must remember that many in our country are not interested in “true biblical marriage” and they have every right not to be interested in true biblical marriage. As a US citizen, this is their constitutional right.  In addition, I fail to see how baking a cake for anyone supports anything except the flour and sugar industry, and eventually Jenny Craig, even perhaps the insulin makers–but the gay community? The baker’s job is to bake a cake, not take a moral stand for or against anything. One could even argue the baker and his cake is far morally worse for society as it serves to fatten us and clog our arteries leading to obesity and heart disease. The gay is, well, just gay.
As this is a course in persuasion, we must get to the heart of the persuasive process in American society. Persuasion is all about enacting change in others towards our purpose and objective. As a critical thinker, one has to look at the strategies engaged thus far concerning homosexual rights and have an honest self-reflective dialogue on the results. As more and more states legalize gay marriage, we must consider if these anti-gay strategies –such as California’s Prop 8 in 2008, the overall vehement anti-gay dialogue, and situations like the baker refusing to bake a gay couple a cake, have been effective.
I think most us would agree they have not.  Homosexual rights are only the rise.  
Gays do not flock to Christ because they are refused a baked good.
Therefore, what is a good persuader to do? It seems to me we have several options: First, reexamine the strategies we have been using and seek more effective ones; secondly, keep doing what we have been doing yet likely only to yield the same results; or finally, reexamine the overall nature of the objective in the first place. What is the great threat of gay community? If the objective is to “win” all people to Christ, how does denying a group their rights assist in that process?  It would seem intuitively to me to have the opposite effect.
I certainly do not expect everyone in this course to agree with me; in fact, I would hope not. Disagreement and having different understandings of people, concepts, ideas and issues are what make this country great. Engaging and being open-minded to different ideas are the foundation of critical thinking skills.  The important thing is that we stand up for the rights of these concepts, ideas and issues to be expressed and heard. If we want the right, we must fight for the right for all.
Sincerely,
Prof

jimmysintension

19 Comments

  1. Ive always maintained that the eating of shellfish is the source of moral decay in america. How can we expect people to turn away from sin, when red lobster makes a mockery of biblical law.
    This nation is doomed unless we take a serious look at the shell fish industry. Homosexuals are only a symptom of mixed fabrics and shellfish. May good have mercy on us all. For the sake of your souls, NO MORE SHRIMP AND LOBSTERS. Love the sinner, hate the shellfish..

    • I love you Odos!! Very funny and spot on. You are still my favorite “bullshit” student EVER! No one can ever top your take on bullshit. Ever.

  2. As you know, I am something like the quintessential Christian Evangelical Conservative Republican, and I am not at all ashamed of this. As such, I generally disagree with a fair amount of what you write, but that never bothers me because I don’t mind disagreeing with people as long as they have well reasoned arguments. That being said, I am rather surprised at the mischaracterization of the conservative evangelical position. I’d like to make a few points.

    First, after saying you feel you have had enough “crazed, obsessive, homophobic slander,” you relent and concede that “ignorance does not necessarily imply mean-spirited nor that those who might disagree with my take come from a place of meanness.” This is all well and good, but the implication is that anyone who disagrees must either be filled with hatred and meanness, or they must be simply too ignorant to know how wicked their views are. Perhaps we ought to start off by admitting that there may be well reasoned arguments to both sides? Perhaps not all conservatives are crazy, self-deceived, hate-mongering religious fanatics? Despite the popular portrayal in the media, we actually have hearts. And souls.

    Next, you say that we are selective with the sins we criticize. I have heard the same criticism leveled by liberal Christians, always as a way of saying we should stop criticizing homosexuality. You list a few, such as corruption, human trafficing, robbery, and murder, which we should perhaps be more concerned about. Now, I certainly agree with you, and so would every Christian and Conservative worth his salt. But that’s just the point: EVERYONE agrees that murder, corruption, and the sex trade are absolutely horrible! The people who do these things simply to not care that they are evil. These things certainly must be stopped, and you will find that Christians and Conservatives are at the forefront, fighting these very injustices and doing much good. The difference is that homosexuality is a very contentious issue. People disagree on whether or not it is wrong, and the media and the political left are working very hard to marginalize the Christian position that homosexual acts are sinful. It is “the rallying crowd favorite” because it is controversial. I agree with you that this should not be. The go to issue for Christians and for Conservatives should be the ongoing genocide of the unborn. However, the fact that homosexuality is an often mentioned issue does not imply that Christian conservative evangelicals simply have an unnatural hatred for gay people. Which brings me to my next point.

    Christians are supposed to by motivated by love. Unfortunately, many seem to believe that to be loving means to be tolerant and inoffensive. And the view that homosexual acts are sinful is seen as intolerant, mean-spirited, hateful, and offensive.

    However, any rudimentary knowledge of the Christian faith would demonstrate that Christians believe that EVERYONE is a sinner. I am a sinner. I need Christ for precisely that reason. So if I say that a gay person sins, I am not saying anything which could not be said of me, though we sin in different ways. Furthermore, if one believes in Christianity, then he believes that unrepentant sin leads to eternal damnation. Which is more loving, to assure someone he is fine while he is on his way to hell, or to warn him that he needs to change his ways? Anyone is free to disagree with the premises of Christianity, but one must understand that Christians are motivated by a serious and loving desire to save people from damnation. If I see a man texting on his self-phone and obliviously walking towards the edge of a bridge, the loving response is to warn him to look about and see where he is headed so that he can avoid a terrible fate. The unloving thing is to say nothing and watch him plunge to his doom. One may choose to believe that Christians are delusional in their beliefs, but this has no bearing on the nature of their intentions. People have, of course, accused me of being hateful for my views. I always answer with the same retort: All of my hate is reserved for fascist dictators and people who stick gum underneath tables. I have no hate for gays.

    On to my final contention. You state, quite correctly, that we do not outlaw sin in this country. You ask your students, “When do we realize that homosexuals have as much right to their lives (democratically) as anyone else?” But this is not actually the point. No one is attempting to argue that homosexuality should be outlawed and that gays should be stripped of their constitutional rights. This is a perfect example of a straw-man argument. The issue at hand is whether or not laws should be changed to grant gays additional rights. As it stands, the law treats everyone equally: Anyone, gay or straight, is free to have a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone, whether they be of the same sex or not. The government does not interfere. And anyone, gay or straight, may marry anyone of the opposite sex. The fact that homosexuals do not want to marry someone of a different sex is beside the point. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

    You make another good point when you say, “It is important to keep in mind that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society that is built on free speech and tolerance of diverse groups and opinions.” I think it would be fantastic if we could express those opinions without being branded as hate mongers. The political left, and more than one gay rights organization, work relentlessly to demonize Christian values and to silence any opposition. They call it hate speech. Activists have even tried to prevent Christian pastors from speaking at events because they hold to a biblical view of marriage. (See )

    Tolerance is a grand thing, and I certainly not believe gays should be discriminated against. Tolerance means we put up with views we do not necessarily agree with, but it does not mean that we have to embrace them. It means that my religious and political views should be tolerated (as I side note, I believe that homosexual behavior is sinful based on my faith, but I disagree with gay marriage based mostly on secular grounds) just as I tolerate the fact that some people are gay. It does not mean we agree each other, only that we do not discriminate against each other.

    • Damn son, you are not even doing this for extra credit! Very nice. To show proper respect toward your detailed and EXCELLENT reply, please give me some time to do it proper justice. Do not want to be flippant.

    • Again, thank you so much for your response Neils. I now find I have some time to respond. I realize you do not know a lot about me, so to let you know where I am coming from I was once a white (well I guess I still am) conservative evangelical who believed homosexuality was a sin. I know I was not hateful nor meant any harm to any group and neither did a great many of those around me. So I GET where you are coming from…totally. Yet, just like the fish who finally finds himself out of water and can look at things a bit more objectively, I realized that many of those around me (I was never a homosexual basher nor supported any legislation that would deny gays any rights…yet I was the minority) did promote an anti-gay agenda and became activists who chose to exclusively to rail against this “sin.” One day I realized that whether these people were hate mongers or great nice loving people with wonderful souls, was frankly, irrelevant. If you are going to deny me my rights I care little as to the reasons why. All I know is you do not support me…whether out of love OR hate.

      I am pleased you agree with me that homosexuality should not be the “crowd favorite.” Do I think Christians have an unnatural hatred for gay people? I do not recall using the word unnatural and I hope I made it clear in my “stream of consciousness” style of writing -which I like to do because I believe people enjoy hearing about the process- my initial assessment of hate was toned down as I realized more fully where these people were coming from. Though, again, maybe you can tell me why this issue gets brought up over and over and over and over again, even though completely unprovoked. Something deeper is going on…perhaps it is not hate, but it is something and it is not right.

      In regards to the “everyone is sinner” theory thus the homosexual sin is just different from your own, hence we are all in the same sin love boat together (that sounds kinda fun), is a gospel I used to preach and I know it well. Yet don’t you think it is just a wee presumptuous, condescending and just rude to judge one a sinner just because that is your belief? I don’t label or judge you in this way Neils. I think you are a great guy. You can inwardly believe anything about someone you want though please do not be surprised when someone might just take offense to it.

      When you take the approach and the idea that you are lovingly saving people from damnation, therefore it is motivated out of love, why would a gay person give a shit? You are denying one their rights because you are motivated out of love? Damn, what if you were motivated out of hate…what would that look like? You are free to believe any gospel you wish Neils, though when that gospel produces intolerance and oppression of a minority group, in the words of the late great Malcolm X, “to hell with that gospel.” Believe what you want to believe though know most of the world does not believe it your way. I am not going to argue the merits of Christian theology and damnation, again, believe what you wish. Though most people have a right not to believe it and have a right not to be harassed by your ilk cause you choose to believe it; and unless you want a theocracy, that’s just the way it is. The fact that you ever hate to utter the words “I have no hate for gays” causes me pause. I have never had to ever say “I do not beat up women,” as nothing about my life would ever suggest that I do. Your heart may not hate, but if your actions spew venom in the form of denying two people who love each other to marry, who really cares about your heart? This is the lesson I have come to learn.

      Outside of gay marriage (which is a HUGE issue) you are correct in stating that homosexuals have constitutional rights and are largely accepted and tolerated today (my words and I believe your sentiment). However this is relatively new and recent phenomena in American history as gays have been persecuted and unjustly treated for many, many years. Our society has become more tolerant and accepting IN SPITE of the christian church, certainly not because of it. The gay bashing that has taken place in our country was directly motivated out of the bible which spread a culture of fear and intolerance toward a “man who would lay down with another man.” You are a smart guy Neils, certainly you can understand why people would perceive you as hateful when what you represent what has been the source of hate and oppression for centuries, right? It was a billy club in their right hand and a bible in their left hand as they pummeled the poor homosexual into the ground.

      Of course you contend that you hold certainly more evolved views and are not the person who would cause harm to another person in this way. And, of course, it wasn’t you. But it was your team, my man. Your team. Guilt by association? Hell yeah. If I were the christian church, first thing I would do is hire a new PR person and call for an entirely new strategy. Maybe a strategy based in love and sound reason. Based in confidence, not in fear. You don’t want someone to go to hell? Love the shit out of them.

      But, hey, I guess that is your PR problem Neils, not mine. I have a blog to write and an awesome and exciting life to lead. And if you and your beliefs ever get in my way? You might want to step aside. I really appreciate the dialogue and the time you have taken to contribute to the blog experience. I meant it when I said you are a great guy Neils…you are awesome. It excites me that two people with opposing views can passionately and assertively engage. And I promise to stop calling you intolerant if you promise to stop calling me a sinner. 😉 I am sure others will chip in very soon.

      • Wow. What a rush to read! All this back and forth! I definitely think the “PR stance” is an interesting one. If Neils (what an awesome name!) has to regularly state that he, “has no hate for gays,” maybe it really is just a sort of PR problem. And if Christians constantly have to justify themselves in this way, should they not be making a point to change the way they are coming across? Of course, that does not mean they need to change their stance on homosexuality, but perhaps they need to find better means of outreach that does not come in the form of denying civil liberties. Now, I don’t know how Christians should go about it -it’s not my bag- but I think it is something worthy of consideration.

        At first, it was a matter of Neils clarifying that generally Christians hold no ill-will towards gays. That’s all fine and dandy; it’s a PR issue. And feeling such, it is his and every Christian’s responsibility to reiterate this in their actions and in their outreach.

        In my opinion, this is where I see Neils response go awry:

        “No one is attempting to argue that… gays should be stripped of their constitutional rights…The issue at hand is whether or not laws should be changed to grant gays additional rights. As it stands, the law treats everyone equally: Anyone, gay or straight, is free to have a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone, whether they be of the same sex or not. The government does not interfere. And anyone, gay or straight, may marry anyone of the opposite sex. The fact that homosexuals do not want to marry someone of a different sex is beside the point. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else.”

        Neils is technically correct. Gay people are not being stripped of any right in the constitution. The key word here is “stripped.” They do have same the constitutional rights as everyone else. Correct again! So, it comes down to granting gay people “additional” rights. But wouldn’t legalizing gay marriage grant everyone additional rights. Everyone can have the right to “gay marry!”

        The fact that heterosexuals do not want to marry someone of the same sex is beside the point. They have the sames rights.

        Subtract the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex and I assume a lot of people, including Neils, would be peeved. But they, and he, would have the same rights as everyone else, so it doesn’t matter who they want to marry. No one would be stripped of any rights.

        Does that even sound right? I hope not.

        This is where government interferes. They are denying liberty and so the pursuit of happiness. How so?

        Well first we have to understand liberty. Here are a few definitions via Merriam-Webster:
        “: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely: the power to do or choose what you want to: the power to do as one pleases: the power of choice”

        Marriage is not religious, nor bound to any one religion, by default. And as the American government, as well as many others, cannot declare a national religion, so should they not declare a certain people unable to wed because others regularly choose to do so within a particular religion. Thus denying people liberty, the power of choice, to have the marriage of their choice, is unconstitutional. This leaves a lot of people unable to pursue their happiness.

        So, why is this important? Cause it’s in the damn Declaration of Independence! Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The foundation for the Constitution.

        The fact the gay people don’t wanna marry the opposite sex IS the point. Having the choice to marry whom you wish should not be considered an additional right. And currently in many states, no one has the right to marry who they want to marry. That includes Neils. He only has the right to marry people of the opposite gender. Equally, so does everyone else. Conveniently, that is something I assume he would prefer to do if he chooses or if he hasn’t already. Thus, gay people have equality but not liberty. What a shame.

        Neils, by all means, keep your worldview. You’re right. Everyone is treated equally.

        • I never thought of that Natalie. I may wake up one day and say, “Hey…I feel like marrying a man today,” but would not be able to. Some really creative insight. What if heterosexual marriage was banned? Perhaps we all would have a far different take on marriage equality.

  3. Ughh I feel like this can be an episode of “You know what really grinds my gears.” Being a man of God I cant stand when these so called Christians think they have the right to dismember a persons integrity and value. Where people get off thinking they hold a higher status in life is beyond me. It is true many people may want to be married, but not under biblical preferences. As a personal belief the act of that biblical principle is sacred between a man and a women…..but come on, tell me that everyone is getting married for those reasons and not for financial gains would be a lie. I can list at least twenty military couples that shacked up just because their benefits would be better. So they may not be getting married to someone of the same sex, but they sure as hell aren’t doing it for “the right reasons.” So how about we all tell the baker to turn off his opinions and get to baking, that’s what hes paid to do.

  4. Thanks for that Nicholas. The “man of God” title is a wee bit pretentious but you are good man my friend. Perhaps you can dialogue with your compadre in Christ, Neils, above. I have yet to get to it. I have an accreditation report to write. And they don’t pay me full time to write a blog, dammit.

  5. So, that’s what an EXTRA CREDIT argument looks like…
    I can’t wait to see your reply.

  6. I have to say it is fantastic that Neils spoke out, so to speak. Sadly it confirms much of my perspectives of those who participate in religion. I’ve learned I don’t have the energy or desire to debate an issue like this because it’s not productive. We are all made from star dust and are organisms that inhabit this planet. That’s all. We are all a piece within the quilt of the universe and should focus our energy on loving one another. Neils has a different opinion then I do yet I don’t see him as a sinner or hater but my fellow human being that is connected to me by species. Laws, rules, government, etc.. should be fundamentally connected to the enlightenment of the human species. Distractions like laws that allow some to enter into a legal contract while others may not is a distraction from the larger concerns. Jimmy the dialog within your blog is thought provoking and engaging. I look forward to reading the commentary of these well spoken people whether I share their opinion or not. It is so great to see engaged people simply talking about this life and this world we all share.

    • We are made from star dust and are organisms? I prefer to think we are just “deffocating pieces of meat.” Thank you so much for the reply Shanagolden. If this were anything but my blog, I would not have debated the issue either. I have some very intelligent gay friends who I asked to chime in and they declined, believing a debate to be completely futile. I agree.

  7. Jimmy I absolutely understand your response and why you must respond. Yes we are made from star dust and are in fact organisms. You know why? Because I said so 😉 and just like some can believe in the fairytales written by man I will believe in my own, from your fellow “living breathing piece of defecating meat”.

    • I thought you might not have an opinion on the subject Dominick. You really need to speak your mind .:)

      • COM174 STUDENT: I really appreciated your thoughts and arguments concerning my comments that everyone is currently treated equally. And you are perfectly correct in saying that any hypothetical additional rights would also include everyone. This leads to a discussion on the merits of gay marriage in general, which I currently have neither the time nor interested to discuss in detail. My only aim was to point out that it is a blatant mischaracterization to say that gays have had their rights removed, or that their rights are not equal. One is then free to discuss the pros and cons of changing current laws, but I have not delved into that. I do not intend to.

        Remember, also, that while the Declaration of Independence is a very important document, it is not law like the constitution. Moreover, the “pursuit of happiness” argument can be used to justify absolutely anything. Do you think the founders who wrote the Declaration intended this to include gay marriage? I doubt it.

        Jimmy, I enjoyed reading your reply, and while I still do not agree (as I’m sure you could have predicted) I always find your thoughts interesting.

        You made an interesting point when you said “When you take the approach and the idea that you are lovingly saving people from damnation, therefore it is motivated out of love, why would a gay person give a shit? You are denying one their rights because you are motivated out of love?”

        Regarding the first part, I have often made much the same point: I really don’t expect anyone to care what I think is a sin, which is why I am always to surprised when they do! For instance, a Muslim may consider me sinful because I do not fast during Ramadan. This does not bother me in the least, because I am not a Muslim. And while I sincerely wish everyone were Christian, I do not expect who is not a Christian to care about Christian definitions of sin.

        As for your remark, “You are denying one their rights because you are motivated by love,” the comments you are referring to are in the context of the Christian perspective on what is and is not sinful. I was not commenting on opposition to gay marriage, which is a separate issue. I do not believe that preventing gays from marrying saves them from damnation.

        I think my words regarding my “no hate for gays” comment have been highly misconstrued by many of the comments replying to my post. I do not believe that I have ever done anything to give the impression that I hate gays. However, as I have discussed gay marriage before, I have automatically been accused of this. Demonization of the opposition is, in my experience, a rather standard tactic of the left.

        “Yet don’t you think it is just a wee presumptuous, condescending and just rude to judge one a sinner just because that is your belief?”

        I don’t, because I think truth is objective, not subjective. I believe my views are true, and very real, and if I didn’t, then . . . I wouldn’t believe them. I do not think it is rude to warn someone not to walk of a bridge, and in the same way I do not think it is rude to warn someone not to walk into hell. It would be presumptuous if I made up the rules, but I didn’t.

        Galileo was not presumptuous to say that the earth rotated around the sun. He told it like he saw it, and I will do the same. Everyone is more than free to disagree with me, but the issue is equally real. Either there is a God a heaven and a hell, or there is not. One of those realities is completely real. But I digress, as I know that no one here is interested in a theological discussion.

        Sorry for the delay in responding! I have had to focus on midterms for the last week or so. I doubt that any of us will change our minds, but I have found the discussion interesting and stimulating nonetheless! I think its fantastic that we can all be passionate yet respectful in articulating our ideas!

  8. I really do want to say so many things about this subject but I know that at this moment I lack the ability to get it from my mind to words that everyone will understand, but I will try my best.

    Last week at my work place a coworker brought up religion. I usually always try to stay out of those types of conversations because of how dangerous they can get (from personal experiences and observations) she made the comment that “if you don’t believe then you are going to hell.”

    I have to agree with Neilsj when he said that “I really don’t expect anyone to care what I think is a sin, which is why I am always to surprised when they do! For instance, a Muslim may consider me sinful because I do not fast during Ramadan. This does not bother me in the least, because I am not a Muslim. And while I sincerely wish everyone were Christian, I do not expect who is not a Christian to care about Christian definitions of sin.”

    Let me say that I respect people who stick to their convictions. It takes guts to be able to tough it out in environments that aren’t familiar. It’s so easy to agree with the crowd even if it’s not what you actually think.

    That being said, I don’t believe in her religion, so she thinks that I am going to hell. I don’t care. I’m going to hell according to a lot of people. But if I cared about what everyone thought then what kind of life would I end up living? I would most likely be terrified to have opinions that differed from the norm and that would suck majorly.

    I wish that people wouldn’t see my orientation as a sin and judge me based on it but i cant control or change that. And I respect that. I wouldn’t want to change my beliefs based on things that can’t technically be proven so why would I expect them to?

    We are all raised differently and with different morals/communities/beliefs/experiences. It’s what makes us an interesting species. If everyone was the same then it would be a boring world. And also we wouldn’t be able to learn through life either.

  9. Being less direct towards the comments, I want to provide some personal experience about my perception towards people who judge the LGBTQ community. It is a lot easier to judge a concept or community over an individual person, isn’t it? I am a Catholic, 18 year old Mexican born male who happens to be gay. Coincidentally, I have fallen under various minority categories ranging from the ‘negatives’ such as unlawful immigration to the positives like pursuing an engineering degree as a Hispanic at a great University. The different types of judgements made against the identity of my life have actually made me more confident about myself and have allowed me to understand what truly is right or wrong from a personal human stance. As a young adult, I have slowly put the pieces together of the homosexual life I live and allow no one to tell me that who I am is impure.

    I knew I was gay before my teenage years. Unfortunately, I was vulnerable and gullible to what the society of Mexico and the U.S. had to say. As one who had a strong faith and strong connection with God, I would pray to him every night asking him to change me. Nothing did change. My parents and siblings continued to make homophobic comments against gays who they saw as unnatural and evil. I was constantly put under pressure and made ashamed of who I was. No one actually knew that I had a natural attraction to males over females. No one knew that I was gay and it was hell that everyone apparently knew my destiny.

    Eventually, I started to question the points made by others instead of questioning myself. I came to a point in life where the comments made by homophobic people made no sense. I simply did not meet the ‘evil’ standards that everyone judged me for. When it came to my senior year in high school, I had decided that as a virgin male who had done mostly good in life, being gay was not wrong but actually natural. I just knew it. There was never a genuine reason or sense that I lived life unrightfully.

    In regards to the letter from the blog, I support the idea that as people, we have other crap to worry about. I am just an innocent gay guy who wants to help the world develop better technology. People are making a big deal over what others find attractive. I mean, so what? The bible is meant to be interpreted and I believe that many human interpretations about the nature of homosexuality are not justified. Again, things don’t add up when it comes to innocent people being classified as sinful and mischievous beings. Nature vs intention is something we must distinguish as humans. I simply find the judgements made by conservative, homophobic people as funny and inapplicable to all LGBTQ lives.

Leave a Reply to Nicholas Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *