I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free - to not marry a man should I ever fall in love.
And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me - except the gay ones who are forced to hide who they really are for fear of being kicked out of the military.
I've been thinking a lot about that song "Proud to be an American" today. Actually, the first moment the lyrics popped into my head today was right after I found out that the republicans (aka, the party of no) led by the Grand Old Flip Flopper John McCain (who said during his campaign for the presidency in 2008 that he would gladly review the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell should military leaders come forward with their support for a repeal) did in fact block the efforts today to repeal that 17-year-old stain on America's history.
Of course, as I sang the lyrics to myself, they were laced with sarcasm. I must be completely honest: right now, I really am not proud to be an American. I'm not saying that I want to move to Canada or anything, and I fully appreciate the freedom that I take advantage of (often taking it for granted) on a daily basis.
Yet, as a gay man, I don't exactly have all the freedoms of everyone else, do I? If I was lucky enough to be dating a guy and falling in love with him, there really would be no hope on the immediate horizon that I could publicly declare my love for him in a marriage ceremony. When you are being treated like a second-class citizen, it is sometimes difficult to think of yourself as a citizen at all.
As I have thought about the vote that was made today, I think back on all the stories I have heard lately about the gay soldiers forced to leave the military because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In many of those cases, they were asked, or someone told on them. How exactly does that follow the not-so-apparent guidelines?
Today, I am really not proud to be an American. I am saddened by the state of America and by the political players who are so full of hate, homophobia and lies (and bullshit) that they will do everything they can to make lives miserable for 10% of the Americans they are supposed to be working for.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Interpretation
Last week was the first week of school and as the morning portion of my route wasn't running yet, I had the opportunity to cover the morning portion of a sick driver's route. Towards the middle of the week, they had a new driver ride along with me because he will be driving the route next week, and they wanted to give him an idea about how the route works.
Anyway, there was a portion of the route where we had about 45 minutes of downtime and we did a little bit of chatting. I had told him that I am gay in conversation (no, it wasn't something I just threw out there, hoping he is, too). He told me that he is a very religious person and he believes that being gay is wrong and his argument, as is so often the case, was that in Romans it says "And I quote" (he actually said that) "that a man shall not lie with another man and a woman shall not lie with another woman." Unfortunately, I didn't have a Bible with me so I couldn't prove him wrong, but I told him "Actually it doesn't say that." He didn't believe me, but I looked it up later and I was right.
Here is what it does say in Romans 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Now, it doesn't take a Biblical expert to see that nowhere in those verses does it say what that new driver claimed. As I read it, I just see a description of what was done and an assertion that such actions are shameful. Any guy who has ever masturbated (and maybe some women, too) will tell you that they felt ashamed after doing it. Does that make it wrong?
I have a feeling that when people call being gay "unnatural" they are probably referring to these verses. The word "natural" appears three times, twice in a positive way and once as a negative. But there are documented cases in nature where animals have gay sex - and let's be honest, there are some instances where gay sex often looks like a couple of animals going at it... But I digress...
It doesn't even say that the women had sex with other women! It just says they gave up "natural relations" for "unnatural relations" but it doesn't specifically say that the latter ones were with other women. Maybe they fell in love with unicorns. And then all the people went out and slaughtered them and that's why we don't have unicorns any more.
Now I will admit that the case of gay men in the passage appears pretty damning. It calls what they did "indecent" but frankly, isn't that just a judgment call? It doesn't even say in there that God was pissed they were doing it. It just says that what they were doing was indecent, shameful and unnatural. But those three words are human concepts. Those are human emotions, written by a human; specifically written by a man. I'm sure many women out there would agree with me that men make mistakes.
I also find it interesting that there is a footnote in the Bible where I found this passage. The Bible I used is the NIV study Bible that I got in college. 3/4 of the page is actual Biblical text and the other 1/4 is filled with interpretations by the publishers.
Here is what the publishers say about those two verses: "Homosexual practice is sinful in God's eyes. The Old Testament also condemns the practice (see Leviticus 18:22)." I'm not even going to go into the whole Leviticus debate because it's been done over and over. We've all heard the verses that condemn touching pigskin (so no football), wearing clothing of mixed fabric (so no cotton/polyester blends) and shellfish (NO MORE SHRIMP!) many times over. Aside from that, Christians believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he was throwing away those Old Testament laws (except for the 10 commandments) which is why the rules of Leviticus don't apply to Christians (except, I guess, for the practice of homosexuality).
But I take issue with the footnote interpretation that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God. They claim that these verses prove that God hates fags, but I just don't see the evidence! It doesn't say that in the text. It doesn't even say that in the verses that follow. Oddly, it says in the beginning that God gave them over to shameful lusts, which might be proof that God actually made us gay... I'm just saying.
Those footnotes are an interpretation and nothing more! They are the views the the publishers of the NIV study Bible came away with while reading the texts. Does that make them right? Does that make them gospel truth?
Do you remember the movie Goonies? I am probably the only person in the world who will ever compare the Bible to the movie Goonies, but yeah, what the hell; I'm going there. At the beginning of the movie, Mikey's mom comes home with that Hispanic woman and tells the kids that she is going to help them pack up. Then she asks Mouth (the Corey Feldman character) to interpret her instructions in Spanish for the Hispanic woman. As they goes through the house, Mouth misinterprets the instructions for his own shits and giggles. None of the other characters even know he is doing it - just the audience is in on the joke thanks to the humorous subtitles.
My point is that Mouth had an agenda and he purposely misinterpreted what was said for the Hispanic woman and that poor woman came away with some very frightening perceptions of what went on in that household.
I think the same thing is true with the Bible. Certain people interpret the texts and put their texts right there on the page, quite possibly in an attempt to fool people into thinking that those interpretations are also the words of God when in reality they are the product of an agenda. It's the same thing that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin always do - they throw out their interpretations of social issues in a way that makes it look like what they are saying is the Fundamental Truth. Don't believe me? Glenn Beck has the balls to claim that he is the voice of God. I kid you not! He actually claims to be the vessel through which God apparently wants to voice ignorance and hatred and fear.
I just wish that we could have subtitles when people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are speaking, just so that the people who actually listen to them would be able to see what they are really saying.
Anyway, there was a portion of the route where we had about 45 minutes of downtime and we did a little bit of chatting. I had told him that I am gay in conversation (no, it wasn't something I just threw out there, hoping he is, too). He told me that he is a very religious person and he believes that being gay is wrong and his argument, as is so often the case, was that in Romans it says "And I quote" (he actually said that) "that a man shall not lie with another man and a woman shall not lie with another woman." Unfortunately, I didn't have a Bible with me so I couldn't prove him wrong, but I told him "Actually it doesn't say that." He didn't believe me, but I looked it up later and I was right.
Here is what it does say in Romans 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Now, it doesn't take a Biblical expert to see that nowhere in those verses does it say what that new driver claimed. As I read it, I just see a description of what was done and an assertion that such actions are shameful. Any guy who has ever masturbated (and maybe some women, too) will tell you that they felt ashamed after doing it. Does that make it wrong?
I have a feeling that when people call being gay "unnatural" they are probably referring to these verses. The word "natural" appears three times, twice in a positive way and once as a negative. But there are documented cases in nature where animals have gay sex - and let's be honest, there are some instances where gay sex often looks like a couple of animals going at it... But I digress...
It doesn't even say that the women had sex with other women! It just says they gave up "natural relations" for "unnatural relations" but it doesn't specifically say that the latter ones were with other women. Maybe they fell in love with unicorns. And then all the people went out and slaughtered them and that's why we don't have unicorns any more.
Now I will admit that the case of gay men in the passage appears pretty damning. It calls what they did "indecent" but frankly, isn't that just a judgment call? It doesn't even say in there that God was pissed they were doing it. It just says that what they were doing was indecent, shameful and unnatural. But those three words are human concepts. Those are human emotions, written by a human; specifically written by a man. I'm sure many women out there would agree with me that men make mistakes.
I also find it interesting that there is a footnote in the Bible where I found this passage. The Bible I used is the NIV study Bible that I got in college. 3/4 of the page is actual Biblical text and the other 1/4 is filled with interpretations by the publishers.
Here is what the publishers say about those two verses: "Homosexual practice is sinful in God's eyes. The Old Testament also condemns the practice (see Leviticus 18:22)." I'm not even going to go into the whole Leviticus debate because it's been done over and over. We've all heard the verses that condemn touching pigskin (so no football), wearing clothing of mixed fabric (so no cotton/polyester blends) and shellfish (NO MORE SHRIMP!) many times over. Aside from that, Christians believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he was throwing away those Old Testament laws (except for the 10 commandments) which is why the rules of Leviticus don't apply to Christians (except, I guess, for the practice of homosexuality).
But I take issue with the footnote interpretation that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God. They claim that these verses prove that God hates fags, but I just don't see the evidence! It doesn't say that in the text. It doesn't even say that in the verses that follow. Oddly, it says in the beginning that God gave them over to shameful lusts, which might be proof that God actually made us gay... I'm just saying.
Those footnotes are an interpretation and nothing more! They are the views the the publishers of the NIV study Bible came away with while reading the texts. Does that make them right? Does that make them gospel truth?
Do you remember the movie Goonies? I am probably the only person in the world who will ever compare the Bible to the movie Goonies, but yeah, what the hell; I'm going there. At the beginning of the movie, Mikey's mom comes home with that Hispanic woman and tells the kids that she is going to help them pack up. Then she asks Mouth (the Corey Feldman character) to interpret her instructions in Spanish for the Hispanic woman. As they goes through the house, Mouth misinterprets the instructions for his own shits and giggles. None of the other characters even know he is doing it - just the audience is in on the joke thanks to the humorous subtitles.
My point is that Mouth had an agenda and he purposely misinterpreted what was said for the Hispanic woman and that poor woman came away with some very frightening perceptions of what went on in that household.
I think the same thing is true with the Bible. Certain people interpret the texts and put their texts right there on the page, quite possibly in an attempt to fool people into thinking that those interpretations are also the words of God when in reality they are the product of an agenda. It's the same thing that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin always do - they throw out their interpretations of social issues in a way that makes it look like what they are saying is the Fundamental Truth. Don't believe me? Glenn Beck has the balls to claim that he is the voice of God. I kid you not! He actually claims to be the vessel through which God apparently wants to voice ignorance and hatred and fear.
I just wish that we could have subtitles when people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are speaking, just so that the people who actually listen to them would be able to see what they are really saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)