Why not gay marriage?

Oh, great; another blog about being gay. What is this guy? Some kind of queer? As long as questions keep coming up in my mind about the confusing anti-gay defenses, the more I'm going to need to blog about it to help me better understand how and why these anti-gay activists think the way they do.

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 8, continuing the ban on gay marriage in that state. A friend of mine said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. Back in November the people voted for it and it passed. It wouldn't make sense for the court to overturn a voter-approved proposition, wrong though it may be, because to do so would make people think that democracy doesn't work. I can see what he's saying, but at the same time, I'm saddened; not because of today's ruling, but because this issue went to the voters in the first place.

I have really tried to understand the anti-gay marriage defense. I have tried to find logic in their protests, their Bible verses, their actions. The more I look, the less logic I see. Instead, I see hypocrisy and double talk.

When I heard the news about Prop 8 in California, I started thinking, yet again, about this whole idea of the Bible's definition of marriage. Is it so clearly defined as people argue? I got out my NIV study Bible that I had in college and started looking up verses pertaining to marriage. One thing did become clear as I looked up the verses. Every single one of them were NOT official definitions. Not one! Instead, what I found were examples of marriage.

For one thing, all of the verses tended to start with one word: IF. "If a man marries a woman...", "If a man has recently married..." One verse actually said "For example..." (Romans 7:2-3). Are examples clear definitions as argued by the anti-gay marriage campaign? If I were to look up marriage in the Webster's Dictionary, would it say "For example, a man and a woman joining in union?" Actually, here's a fun fact! I did look up the word marriage on the Webster's online dictionary. Take a look at what I found.

As I looked at the "official" definition of marriage, I noticed that those were examples. So maybe an official definition is an example? Maybe those references in the Bible are "official definitions". If that is the case, then how do the people of today, who hold up these definitions of marriage in the Bible get around passages like

Romans 7:2-3 – For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adultress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adultress even though she marries another man.

Woah! Does this mean that a woman who gets a divorce is a slut if she marries another man and her ex-husband is still alive?

Here's another verse I found interesting:

Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


Nowhere in that verse does it say "Marriage between a man and a woman." It just says the word marriage with no "clear definition" of what that word means. Now it does say "sexually immoral" and I know that many would jump on that phrase and say "Right there! That's the case against homosexuality right there because the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as 'immoral'!" Okay, fine, even if you adopt that narrow view, I would still have to argue that it doesn't specifically say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. All it says is that "marriage should be honored by all." Interesting. Honored by ALL. Should ALL marriage also be honored? Just wondering.


I went to Google and typed in the words "gay marriage Bible". I was hoping to find websites that would tell me exactly how and where the Bible speaks against gay marriage. Here is the first website that popped up.


I thought this essay was very interesting. Not surprisingly, the author turns to the story of Sodom found in Genesis. Two angels of the Lord went to Sodom to find Lot and the men of the city followed them. They knocked on Lot's door and demanded that the two angels be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Instead, Lot opted to send out his two virgin daughters and the men of Sodom had sex with them instead.


Okay, so here are my issues with this story and the defenses of the author of that website. First, how shitty is it that Lot sent his poor daughters out as replacements? This was the most holy man in all the city? This was the man that God sent His angels there to save? YIKES! Second, the men had sex with the woman. Well, if that's the case....they are they gay? I can tell you as a gay man, I have never had a desire to sleep with a woman. It just doesn't appeal to me. If I find a guy attractive and he sends out a woman and says, "Here, give this a try..." I'm going to walk away saying, "No thanks." So if those men of Sodom were such evil homosexual men, why were their sexual lusts satisfied by a couple of virgin chicks? They sound like creepy straight guys to me. Come to think of it, have you ever seen any pictures of angels? They look kind of....feminine, don't they? Could it be that these two pretty boys walked into the city and were mistaken as women? Just a thought.


So given all of that, is this as valid an example AGAINST gay marriage as the author of the website claims? In the summary, the author of the website lists this story under examples of the Bible "clearly" teaching that same sex marriage is wrong. But is this as "clear" an example as the author would like to believe? I find that hard to believe, myself.


To further discredit the list of Bible verses, under that same heading of the Bible clearly teaching against gay marriage, the author lists Judges 19:14. In my Bible, this is what the verse says: "So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin." Wow! That is very damning evidence against gay marriage there. I mean how can one argue against that? Clearly, that verse from the Bible is teaching that gay marriage is wrong! Right?


The author lists verses from Leviticus where, in another blog, I also pointed out other "sins and abominations" that Leviticus that today aren't considered sins.


Another verse listed under that same section as defense against gay marriage is Deuteronomy 23:17 - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." And the hard evidence against gay marriage is.....?


Another listed verse, 1 Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations of the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."


No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7

These are the verses from that section. I took that directly from the website. NOT ONE of them specifically talks about gay marriage! Some of them, don't even talk about homosexuality! Do you get the feeling that maybe at some point the author got bored and wanted to pad the arguement a little by throwing in arbitrary verses?


There are other verses listed on the website, but as I look at them, they do not specifically address same sex marriage or the Bible "clearly" speaking out against it, as these people love to claim. I just don't see the validity of their argument. I can't find a single passage in the Bible that specifically forbids a man being able to marry a man or a woman being able to marry a woman.

There are, however, plenty of verses talking specifically about divorce and what an abomination that is. Yet there is a practice that is readily accepted in today's society. Gays getting married doesn't protect the sanctity of marriage, but it's okay for two people to get a divorce? Well, the Bible clearly states otherwise. Why is it that one is okay but not the other, especially when the other (gay marriage) is NOT clearly stated in the Bible as claimed?

The idea of Civil Unions has started coming up. In Washington State, gays have finally been given what we are calling "Everything but..." Gays in this state now have all the rights of heterosexual couples in marriage, we just can't call it marriage. While many see this as a victory for gay people in our state, I still can't help but see that they still want to see us as second class citizens. Fine! Go ahead and have your union, but you still can't call it marriage! Oh, but you will have to pay your taxes and your civil service just like every other citizen.

I am thankful to the people in our government who pushed for the recent legislation granting rights to gay people here. They have worked hard to get us that. It may not be exactly the same as marriage, but it is darn close. It's "everything but..."

Is it important that gays get the word "marriage?" I honestly don't think that it does. Sure, I just ranted in this blog about the semantics of the word. I guess in the end, what really matters is how the two men or the two women feel about each other. If their love is genuine, that's all that matters, isn't it? Do they have to call it marriage? I don't think it really matters.

My point in all this was to question the "logic" of anti-gay people. They throw out these verses from the Bible as damnable proof for their cause, but when you go and look at them, you find holes in the theory. More questions are raised than outright proof. Yet time and time again these verses are thrown into the argument as law. Those verses are held up as testament to the validity of the Bible while those other verses, the ones that speak against other things in practice today are ignored. That's selectiveness. They're just taking the verses that they think support their cause and "forgetting" about the other ones.

There is a word for that. It's called hypocrisy.

The Confusing Right

Today I received an email from an aunt describing a campaign going around that seeks to ban the reading of the Gospel on radio airwaves. The email calls for every Christian to step up and be heard, and of course please sign the petition on the email as they are praying for at least 1 million signatures.

Okay, first of all, I am not against the Gospel being heard on the radio. I'm all for the Gospel of Jesus being shared. I think it's a good message and one that shouldn't be banned from anything. According the the email, they also want to take Christmas carols out of public schools. Again, I'm against stuff like that.

To prove this, I'll quickly recount a story that happened in my own school district. Several students at a school in the richer part of town put up a Christmas tree in the school office with ornaments containing the names of kids from a school in the poorer part of town. The idea was that the rich kids would by a gift for poorer kids. Someone complained that the "tree" was a Christian symbol, so the "Giving Tree" was reduced to the "Giving Counter". As I did then, I still believe that this was a terrible thing that happened. An Incredible idea, launched by some amazing children, was ruined by closed-minded thinking.

So, let's be clear: I am NOT against the Gospel of Jesus being shared of the radio waves. I would never sign such a petition or participate in any events with that as the mission.

Here, though, is what came to my mind as I read the email. These are the same people who fought to get Howard Stern fined countless times for his radio show. These are the same people who lobby and fight hard to keep gays from getting married. These are the same people who demand that film makers censor themselves. These are the same people who supported Sarah Palin's groundless attacks on Barack Obama.

Am I missing something here? Is it okay for these people to do all those things I mentioned above, but not for people who may not believe in the Bible to question that? Is this not a double standard?

It's this kind of thinking that really bothers me. "I'm sorry, we just can't allow you express yourselves the way you feel you should, but please don't trample on our rights to it." I think this falls under the category of "We're right and you're wrong!"

This tends to be the unfortunate MO of the Christian right. They, having the moral high ground, have the right to do and say whatever they want and question the opinions and views of everyone who disagrees with them. Yet when their opinions and views are questioned, an all out war is launched with "That's not fair!" as the battle cry.

How can they not see the similarities? Well, I guess it's because they are so closed minded to the truth.

I hope one day there will be an understand in all of this. Until then, I guess I'll just continue to be confused by the Christian Right.

LieMAX?

I must admit, I was one of the many who flooded to the theaters on the opening weekend of Star Trek, helping to boost opening weekend ticket sales. You're welcome, Mr. Abrams. Unfortunately, my extensive Darth Maul outfit was not as widely accepted by the folks in line as I had hoped...

Since Star Trek was going to be a big movie, I decided to see it see it in IMAX. Imagine my surprise when I saw that a theater right here in town had just opened up an IMAX theater! That was VERY convenient, especially since I no longer have a car.

I walked for 30 minutes to the theater and when I got there, was very upset to discover that the online ticket I purchased two days ago was not registering in the system. Oh, they had charged my card, but they weren't offering me a ticket. Thankfully, the management staff at the theater were very kind. They managed to find record of the purchase in their computers and allowed me access without a ticket.

When I finally got into the theater, I was blown away by the size of the IMAX screen! Oh wow! It was beyond words. Well, one word did come to mind.....small. You know how IMAX screens are 72 feet tall? This one was barely larger than a regular screen.

Okay, so this topic has been discussed all over the Internet since the release of the new Star Trek movie. Many people were as shocked to discover the deception as I was. The very first thing I did after leaving the theater was send a text to my best friend Neil who had yet to see the movie: "The movie was good, but I'm not convinced that IMAX in local theaters is worth the extra $5"

I still feel that way, and apparently I'm not alone. An actor who has been showing up on NBC sitcoms like Scrubs and the new Parks and Recreation got downright angry at his theater, causing a scene the likes of which would make Russell Crowe blush. Check out his story on his blog here. Also, in his blog is a link to an explanation about this new fake IMAX campaign.

Now, I wasn't as angry as Aziz was after I saw the movie. After all, the film was fantastic! But I did feel as though I had wasted $5. Actually, I felt as though I had wasted $6 since they charged me a $1 "convenience fee" to buy the ticket online.

I think what upsets me about this new trend is that it is an outright lie. The official title for what I saw that Sunday morning was "Star Trek: The IMAX ezperience". Here's the problem, though. IMAX is in the scope of 72 feet high, towering over you. That's not even close to what I "experienced" when I saw Star Trek.

To me, this is like some guy in Arizona advertising views of the Grand Canyon from his backyard and then taking paying customers into his backyard to take pictures of his swimming pool. We have a word for that: rip off. Okay, that's two words. Here are two more: sue me.

Do Hollywood producers REALLY wonder why movie piracy is on the rise? Are they honestly scratching their heads wondering why people would rather spend and afternoon downloading an illegal movie torrent onto their computer instead of going to the movie theater? Don't get me started on the re-release and re-re-release of "Specialer" editions of DVDs. That trend is so rediculous it makes Michael Eisner's direct-to-video sequels of classic Disney movies seem like masterpieces.

Essentially, what these theaters are doing is luring in people they don't think will know any better. And most people don't. So, they happily collect their ill-gotten $5 extra per ticket, laughing all the way to the bank. If only the Joker would steal THEIR money!

Now, I did see Dark Knight in IMAX and it was the "real" IMAX. It was amazing! They shot in the IMAX format so that the bank robbery at the beginning (among many other scenes and shots in the movie) were in the 72 foot IMAX format. Imagine seeing that in the dinky LieMax versions now being offered by local theaters. I thought I heard somewhere that the next Harry Potter movie had scenes filmed in the IMAX format, meaning intended to be blown up to the full potential. I just don't see these cheap knockoffs being able to provide such an amazing experience as what I had when I saw Dark Knight.

Did I hate the movie Star Trek? Far from it. I enjoyed the movie very much. But I think I would have enjoyed it just as much on a regular-priced screen and maybe applied the saved $5 toward over-priced popcorn. Or, maybe spent the same amount of money and seen in on an actual IMAX screen.

I don't plan on giving money toward these new LieMAX experiences. They just aren't the real deal.

Is it a sin?

I am currently reading a fantastic book right now. Usually, when I blog about something like that, I like to have finished the book before I discuss it. But I just finished reading a section that has really got me thinking and when I am thinking about something in this way, I have to write about it. It's just how I roll!

So first, let me explain about the book, then I'll get into what I just read...and thus, why I feel the need to write about it.

Thinking Straight is the second novel by Robin Reardon. I haven't read the first one yet, but I definitely plan to soon. Thinking Straight is about a gay teen named Taylor who, soon after finding the perfect boyfriend in another teen named Will, comes out to his parents. Naturally, his devoutly religious parents panic and send him to a Christian program called Straight to God. Taylor is told that he'll be forced to stay there until he is able to change his gay feelings.

When he first arrives at Straight to God, he is understandably angry. They thrust him into this invironment by calling his gay feelings sins from which he must be purged. To start the program, he is given a yellow sticker and told that for the first several days he'll be in "SafeZone" meaning that he cannot talk. The sticker will tell everyone else that he's in SafeZone so they won't try to make him talk.

Though it is clear that many people at Straight to God favor the belief that homosexuality is a sin from which the sinners must be purged, Taylor soon meets people within the program who have a different perspective.

Okay, I need to stop here because I'll start giving too much away and, frankly, if you're reading this, then I want you to consider reading Thinking Straight. I'll now talk about the segment of the book that has prompted me to start writing and hopefully give nothing more of the plot away.

There is discussion in the book about homosexuality as a sin. As a homosexual myself, I have struggled with the concept. My brother, who is a strong supporter of who I am, believes that being gay is not a sin, however acting on my sexual desires IS a sin. Even so, everyone is a sinner, so even though I may end up having sex with another man, I'm not any worse than a person who, for example, lies.

The people most vehemently against sexuality would argue that if I "choose" to be in a relationship with another man, and therefore have sex with him, then I am "choosing" to live in sin. That word "choose" is another one of those hot topics. Obviously, I don't choose to be gay. Trust me on this. Ellen Degeneres once asked Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would someone choose the persecution and hatred of people? Why indeed? Believe me, had I actually had the choice, I would have had a thing for women so I could marry a nice girl and provide my parents with some awesome grandchildren.

This wasn't my choice, though. I am sexually attracted to men. Since I can't speak for straight people, I have to wonder if their attraction to the opposite sex is a choice. Did they choose to find it difficult to speak when around a member of the opposite sex? Did they find themselves choosing to have those natural desires about that person?

Ah, there's another word: "natural". You see, being gay is "unnatural", or so say the people against it. Another word is "normal". Personally, I have come to believe that normal is merely a setting on the washing machine. Anyway, what is "normal" exactly? Brown hair? Blond hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Straight? Gay?

But I'm getting off topic, here, and that's just too easy a thing to do in this debate on homosexuality.

The thing I really want to talk about is homosexuality as a sin. Let's get back to the book. In the book several characters discuss the concept of sin. As a group, they come to the conclusion that sin is anything that takes us away from love. Love is what brings us to God, so anything that causes us to stray from love is a sin because it diverts us from that path to God.

Maybe that is too simplistic a summary of the discussion within the book. That's why I want to encourage you to read it and draw your own conclusions. But I really like this view of sin that the author makes. It makes sense to me that a sin would be something that takes a person away from love and, therefore, takes a person off the path to God.

So, by that definition of sin, is having sex with a member of the same sex a sin? If two men, for example, are deeply in love and having sex... are they removing themselves from the path to God? If you accept the above-mentioned view of love, then no, they are not. As with a male/female couple, the two men are expressing their love for each other. So how can that be a sin?

Let's look at the Bible - which they do in the book. In the Bible, homosexuality is called a sin. Why? Well, in Thinking Straight, the characters talk about when the Bible was written. Think about it... at that time, there wasn't security like retirement plans or savings accounts. Okay, in this day and age of a terrible economy, it would seem we are losing that, but for the sake of arguement, let's pretend that isn't happening!

Back in the days of the Bible, if someone didn't have kids who would care for them when they were older, then someone else, the community perhaps, would have to. They would essentially become a burden to the community. That might, in theory, cause people to depart from love. Maybe they'd be angry about the situation. Today, though, that wouldn't really be a problem. Today, homosexuals, though they don't have kids, can pretty much take care of themselves and aren't a burden on society (not counting the fact that so many people are still burdened by the concept of homosexuality).

So the theory is presented in the book that maybe back then, because homosexuality caused people to depart from love and therefore stray from that path to God, that it was a sin. It WAS a sin. Maybe it isn't a sin today because homosexualty doesn't affect people in that same way today.

Can something that was considered a sin back then, lose that status over time? Say, for example... Eating pig (Leviticus 11:7)? Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:14)? Playing football (Levitivus 11:24-28)? Planting tulips with daffodiles (Leviticus 19:19)? Wearing a cotton-blend shirt (Leviticus 19:19)? Trimming your beard and side burns (Leviticus 19:27)? Getting a tatoo (Leviticus 19:28)? Working on Sunday, or whatever day you consider the Sabbath (Leviticus 19:30)? Standing up when an elderly person enters the room (Leviticus 19:32)? How about those sins that back then, required the sinner to be put to death: a son or daughter showing anger toward their parents - watch out teenagers (Leviticus 20:9), adultery (Leviticus 20:10)...

Today, many of those things wouldn't be considered sins. I mean who reading this loves to eat ham? Who reading this prefers to not have Elvis sideburns? Pastor...must you work on Sunday? So if these things aren't considered sins, why is homosexuality?

This is just what's on my mind right now. I really don't believe that expression of the love that one man has for another through sex is a sin. Granted, there are a lot of gay men out there who love to sleep around. I guess you could say there are a lot of gay men who love the freedom of multiple sex partners. But isn't that frowned upon as far as straight people go? If a gay couple is in a committed relationship, could their sexual activity be considered "making love?" If it IS "making love" then isn't it in keeping with the idea that they are still on that path of love to God?

Notice how I'm doing my best to not mention the fact that many people yell out "Oh God!" during sex? Really, I think that shows maturity!

So what do you think? Is this a sound arguement that maybe homosexuality isn't quite the sin that people still want to make it? Is it possible that, God willing, when I finally meet a guy who loves me and we enter into a relationship and we have sex out of love for each other, that we we won't be damning each other to hell because of it? I sure hope so.

I believe I was born gay. I believe that God made me gay. I believe that He's going to be okay with me having sex with a man with whom I am in love.

Now if only I could find that guy!

A New Crush

I've done it again and I really blame my friend Neil for sending me the link to the following video. It's over 9 minutes long, but it's worth it.



So, yeah, I have an unhealthy crush on Seth MacFarlane, now. I've been a huge fan of Family Guy and have always found him attractive whenever I've seen him interviewed. But hearing Seth say the things he did about gay rights and marriage..... Yeah, I'm completely smitten!

Here is an interview I found in The Advocate. Man, I love this guy!

Invasion of the rats!

I haven't been blogging lately. You may have noticed.

I went to a couple of the SMC rehearsals and decided that I wasn't going to sing in the next concert. A lot of it had to do with the music. First off, I didn't hate the music. In fact, I think the concert is going to sound amazing. But the music is very difficult to sing. If I had been having more fun with the music, it probably would have been worth the long bus rides to and from rehearsal, but I just decided against singing. I'll probably regret the decision, but there you go.

I have decided that since I won't be singing this concert, I'm going to devote the time I would have been rehearsing to writing. We'll see how that goes.

The only other thing in my life are the new additions to the household. Last week I bought two rats. I'm not allowed a cat or a dog in this apartment, but rats are okay. Actually, I only bought one at first, but then I started visiting websites with pet rat advice (surprisingly, there are many) and they all said the same thing: rats live better in pairs. It's just healthier for them to have a buddy. The next day, I went back to the store and bought a 2nd rat.

Slowly, I've been trying to get them used to me. So far, they just seem to be scared to death of me. I keep reading that eventually they'll start to trust me, not cower in the corner and look at me like I'm Satan. On Saturday, I decided to try holding them. Both of them freaked out and jumped from my hands. The first one jumped back into the cage. The second one jumped onto the floor and ran under the nearest furniture item: the coffee table.

For two hours, I crawled around on the floor trying to get the rat. TWO HOURS! Eventually I caught him, but not before literally chasing him all over the living room. By the end of it, he was more scared of me than ever.

Now, he just stares at me, watching my every move. If I sneeze, he panics. The other one is getting a little more trusting. He'll take a cheerio from my hand, but he quickly scampers away as though I'm going to bitch slap him for taking the food.

All the advice I've gotten agrees that I need to talk to them often, so I do. It will help them get used to hearing my voice. Frankly, the one that escaped on Saturday heard a LOT of my voice (and some choice sailor words). I was also advised that whenever they hear my voice I should put food near them so they'll associate my voice with a provider. Thankfully I have one more large box of cheerios.

Yesterday, I bought some strawberry yogurt and baby food. Some of the websites advised putting a little bit on a spoon and holding it near the rats to eat. So far, it hasn't worked. Maybe they just don't dig strawberries? They do like the cheerios, though, so I'm putting a few in whenever I talk to them.

I just hope that these rats start trusting me. I read that they are very smart and can be trained. Did you know that you can teach a rat to come when you call it's name? That would have been helpful Saturday morning.

Speaking of names, I went back and forth on what to call them. Originally the plan was to call them Adam and Steve. Get it? hehehe. Yes, they are both males, by the way. I also considered Chip and Dale, Bert and Ernie, Frick and Frack and finally Rat and Fink.

Yesterday morning, however, I hit inspiration. Though I have yet to determine which is which (they won't let me close enough to really tell them apart) I have decided I'm going to name them after two characters from my one of favorite shows, Scrubs. Their names are JD and Turk. I figure those two have a healthy bromance going on, so my original idea with Adam and Steve still figures in.

I'll keep updates posted on how the boys are doing and, eventually, I'll post pics if they'll stop hiding from me