What would Jesus do, indeed.
I comment a lot all over the place on many subjects. The gay thing seems to ever present. Everywhere. And so I comment on that. Why there is this wide ranging “debate” I don’t know. The reality seems to be “we’re here.” Many people are still debating the reality it seems. And when you debate whether reality exists while it’s talking to you as a person, well, then, that is interesting. Still, dealing with reality is a hallmark of a rational government and Republic of free men. Indeed, reality must be dealt with, or things will get out of hand: witness the deficit. Alas, the nation seems to be quite in denial that there’s such a thing as gay folks, and gay couples, and the loves and lives of us are quite disparaged and often said to just be a figment of our imagination, and that if only we find our true lady-lovin’ selves it will all be much better. However, we keep telling you – no, this is not true. Many still don’t seem to want to believe we’re real and so go lalalala as if it will all just not be. I guess. I don’t know.
Anyway, one, (actually, apparently, many,) of my comments at a rather prestigious Republican-leaning journal caught the attention of a young lady working at that journal. So she contacted me, with extra care given to say she does so unofficially. So I guess you could say I have my first anonymous source. Maybe. And so we’ve exchanged a few emails, to discuss this issue. And it comes to be that this journal is having an internal debate, and there’s people pro and con, and apparently my two cents too. I mean, how can one avoid it when I comment so much on it, eh? Perhaps I’m spurring the debate along, and changing a few minds, which is what I aim to do. Nice to know there are still people against me, whatever that means, right? People whom must be against reality, and how can one be against reality? And a reality that is ethereal, for it’s always spoken of in the abstract: “homosexuality.”
Yes, Virginia, there’s this amorphous thing called “homosexuality.” There also happens to be a few million gay folks. And we’re never much talked about in the concrete, as you know, citizens, individuals, homeowners, job holders, happiness pursuers. Never anything like that – for bizarrely, to talk about one of us, is to of course talk about all of us. As if where some huge conglomeration of one mind melded together to do this or that, all in lockstep to some nefarious goal, it is often said, of … well, there’s many theories on what exactly our goals are. Some claim that we are in a criminal conspiracy to molest every single boy into the gay lifestyle. This salacious charge is disgusting. And is in fact criminal – to accuse gay men of molesting boys as a group – that is, “homosexuals” prey on young boys – it’s said so often if they were rocks you might cross a wide stream on them. But this is a false criminal complaint, which is often illegal. You can’t go up to a policeman and say – “that man molested every boy in the neighborhood” without some proof. So why does anyone think it right or legal to say it about us as a group? For we are supposedly all doing this, it’s said.
I often evoke Jesus in my comments, mostly along the lines of “Treat others as you wish to be treated.” I do so. Though I can throw a tantrum like anyone else, perhaps a bit more. And can get quite crude and nasty. That’s easy to do, it’s called “Acting.” I’m quite the thespian when I need to be. So the young lady commented to me:
“Your comment about Jesus was timely to me because I came across this discussion thread on the web today: http://goop.com/newsletter/134/?utm_source=Goop+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8d9bc21fa4-Goop134_06_09_2011&utm_medium=email
- I forwarded that page to my brother and my best friend (both of whom happen to be gay) with the following comments:”
And I did not look at the site – for I know the arguments. I’ve heard every blessed point on this confounded “debate” of reality that has ever been uttered. There is nothing new under the sun, or under the Son, either. After 35 years of hearing it I’m well versed in it; why should I listen to more? How can such a simple subject as gay folks, so few of us, possibly take 35 of my years to be resolved, and still not yet, and no end in site. You heterosexuals need to come to a conclusion about us; we’re just living lives while you debate our existence. We are essentially powerless other than an appeal to a higher power. And He seems to be rather protective of us of late. Even if He has sent despotic demons amongst you to rile up a ferocious hate against us, your fellow citizens. But more to the point, the young lady has two people close to her whom are gay. And so how does one deal with working for a journal that is essentially out to get us as a group, and still be friends with some of us individually?
And the journal is, in a sense, out to make us change. They want me to find the girl of their dreams so they can get back to more important things, like oh, the economy. Meanwhile, they see fit to hound me. Though not me, Jim, no, they hound me as a member of a rather special group of people. They give many inches and much bandwidth to the “debate” – except, well, they’re not really having a “debate.” What it is is a slug fest with, as near as I can figure – me slugging it out with the official position and the vast legions of supporters thereof at this journal. They seem to be debating at what point I should surrender and get a girl pregnant or something. The whole tone is one of condemnation and disdain, and one of being quite insistent that I find their version of Jesus. Indeed, unlike their commentary on any other issue under the sun – on this they seem certain that I will follow their religious beliefs or face their wrath, and they say this is for liberty for all, too. That the nation cannot move forward, and might even move backwards, if the simple reality of my existence and refusal to submit is admitted. As I also often say, my answer to the demand for my surrender in the culture war against me is “Nuts!”
Then the damsels adds this:
“I am all about the love your neighbor principle ruling all and am in favor of accepting people for who they are, but it does get hairier for me when the rubber hits the road about marriage specifically. The last excerpt she includes is from a more conservative author who argues that Jesus specifically endorses heterosexual marriage as a divine institution. I’m all about the new testament trumping the old so the good news is that Jesus didn’t just preach tolerance but LOVE and that the people to judge (aka the pharisees) are some of the worst sinners on this earth, but Jesus does explicitly endorse the heterosexual marriage.”
And indeed Jesus “endorsed” heterosexual marriage. So go get married already. But what does this have to do with us? We’re not heterosexuals. We keep telling you this. Many don’t seem to believe it yet. Anything and all you say about heterosexual marriage is true for all I care; and I do care. Indeed, let no man tear asunder the holy vows. Outlaw divorce, right? Isn’t that what Jesus would do? But I hear no such calls. There’s a commandment against adultery, so don’t do it. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife or maidservant – that’s another commandment – and let me tell you – I do not. I have never coveted a wife or maidservant in my life. Few of my friends ever have either. Clearly, we are not heterosexuals, and have nothing to do with what you all do. If Jesus if for heterosexuals getting married, then go get married and some gay florist will provide the flowers, I’m sure. And be called a threat to the institution because he’s a “homosexual” in the abstract, but be quite the fine fellow as he puts up the gardenia and lilies and perhaps another fine gay guy is baking the cake, and has no intention whatsoever of wrecking the holy moment because he’s making a living servicing what Jesus wanted heterosexuals to do – get married.
The logical disconnect is this – how can a “fine man,” as Cardinal George of Chicago calls his nephew, who I don’t know the guy’s job, but I’ll play here, provide delicious cake and gorgeous flowers for all to enjoy on a very special, happy and blessed day, and then be called a “threat” to it when he seeks his own nuptial? How can a gay guy be both a “threat” and “fine”? Or in the Cardinal’s Church’s official position “intrinsically evil.” To be both evil and fine at the same moment, as a gay man must be, is a logical leap of extraordinary proportions. Way beyond my feeble grasp, and into a sort of Einstein-like quantum physics of thought. That’s the question this esteemed journal and this lady must ask. Not whether Jesus endorses heterosexual marriage. Like I said – go get married. We’re gay. We will not do heterosexual marriage. So what are we do to?
And the lady asks herself:
“Where does that leave me when I have so many loved ones who happen to be homosexual? I definitely support gay marriage politically. Not only is it not a ‘threat’ to society, but I think that lauding monogamous relationships between any two people has positive externalities for society. I’ve told you both this before – promiscuity is not emotionally or physically healthy whether you are gay or straight. So I support gay marriage politically, but I’ll admit to you, my brother and best friend, that I’m not sure Jesus would endorse it. But I don’t think he would reject it either. Does a lack of endorsement mean I think Jesus doesn’t accept you or you and your partner if you choose to join together? no. I think Jesus loves all sinners equally! I think there are a lot of different ways to skin a cat, to live your life, and to find love. Jesus is definitely in favor of love. And just because heterosexual marriage is ‘divine’ doesn’t preclude the possibility of you finding love outside that divine/ordained method. There ya go.”
She says she’s not sure Jesus would endorse gay marriages – which means Jesus would what? Not endorse gay couples? Ergo, not endorse gays? What does Jesus say about gays? Jesus says nothing about us specifically. Therefore, any supposition about what Jesus would do is just that – it’s your faith in what you think and believe Jesus would say. And my way of looking at it is He says – gays should get married. But like Solomon He might want to call it a different name. But that’s not what other followers of Jesus contend. And on the public hustings they’re quite sure that Jesus says “kill the gays” or some variant, so long as we’re gone somehow, they don’t seem to care. And Jesus was not a violent fellow, only once getting physical, and throwing the money changers out of the temple. Well, banking had a bad rep for 1800 years or so after that, until the industrial revolution put an end to that. Nothing like a little capitalism to cure your ills, I assure you.
Even more importantly, however, is that we have this thing called the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution too, which does not quite use the words of Jesus at all, but is quite clear in saying that all men are endowed by their creator with the pursuit of happiness and government should stay out of people’s lives. Alas, I’m pursued like a hunted fox by people whom are happy to earn a living in trying to change me to their ways. They used to use the police, even, to come bust into our lives. They want me to adhere to their religion – and where in our two documents of government does it say that one person might force a religion upon another? Where in our American traditions does it say that I must get married to some girl or believe your version of Jesus? And where does it say – “if something can’t be figured out, what would Jesus do?” and then let the biggest religion win or something. I don’t seem to be able to find it.
Jesus said “render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is His.” So if you can’t find it in your version of Jesus to have gay marriage, and gay couples exist and have to deal with the reality of home owning, kids (natural or adopted) taxes, and a myriad of other things of a very practical nature, like not having the neighbor bust your head because you’re not like him, then render it unto Caesar, and give us some inclusion in family law. The irony is that we already are “partnered” under commercial and contract law, and so the unions are recognized and legally valid, but more business like than the true love they are. And if anyone thinks that the 95% of you whom have done what you have done to marriage has anything to do with us, well, that’s just nuts. Even stranger – now the nation is in the business of a gay couple getting married, and they cross the border the legal contract just evaporates. It’s not dissolved by any legal mechanism, but it’s not recognized. Weirdly, logically, it’s recognized that the marriage is there in the very denial of recognition. To say something is nothing, is to say that the nothing is in fact, something. Just as making no decision is making a decision.
And no one can find any single example of a gay person having damaged a marriage, except perhaps if you count the few who were induced to get heterosexually married and then came to the rather startling conclusion that that did not make then heterosexuals. They were still gay, and they knew it going in. All anyone says is “homosexuality” is this danger to marriage. And how? Are you all that tenuous in your beings that you think if you say something nice, and give us a piece of paper, and respect us, that you will all go gay or do some other really horrid thing beyond what you’re already doing?
Like I said, the recognition of reality is a hallmark of a rational government. Gay couples exist, we tell you so – and the esteemed journal and everyone else knows they exist – and then everyone goes lalalala in the hope that it goes away. And endless energy is wasted on debating whether reality exists, and whether this reality shall be seen and admitted. It’s mind numbing. If you don’t want to face reality, then have at it, some loon recently foretold the end of the earth and got quite a following, have at it. It is not my thing, to be delusional. But to simply say your belief in religion somehow negates mine is not an American value.
And this will be by last post for a while, the mush is shushing.
- Posted in: Uncategorized