Regardless of Anything

Another thought question:

"Why is it not OK for two people REGARDLESS of ANYTHING who love each other to be in a legally binding marriage?"

I was interested in how this particular question would pan out at our recent election. According to the press I read and some of the GBLT sites I read, Oregon was considered the best shot at getting legalized same-gender marriages as a possibility.

I also read the Voter Pamphlet's "for" and "against" ramblings. Everyone of them. The overall theme for the people who wanted to amend our [state] constitution was "it's morally wrong for same genders to marry", while the overall theme for those who didn't want the constitution amended was more "state constitutions shouldn't include biased language", although there were a few pull-at-your-conscience stories about same-gender couples not being given the same treatment with regard to hospital visits, children, etc.

This attitude about same-gender relationships being morally wrong is the single biggest struggle I'm up against when I considered re-joining my childhood church, and when I consider leaving said church.

We got a proclamation from the church heads that homosexual relations are "sinful" (along with any sexual contact outside of marriage). One of the heads goes on to say:

"Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim 'I was born that way' does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal."

So - "I was born that way" is something to overcome, in their way of thinking. This same official even refutes scientific claims of gender-preference determination by citing two scientists as

"It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic."

and concluding

"This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition."

Wow that turned into a rather long tirade. All I meant to say is that I personally believe it is okay, regardless of anything, for two people who love each other to be married. I don't believe, as some vocally claim, that "allowing" same-gender couples to marry degrades the institution of marriage. I also don't believe that the goal of a marriage is to reproduce children in a family environment. If that were true, no married couple would choose to not have children. And why would couples over 50 bother getting married? Marriage, in my way of thinking, is the public expression of a private devotion. Simplisticly speaking.

In my opinion, people who choose to condemn same-gender relationships, and therefore marriages, as morally wrong are allowing their personal biases (whether directed by religion or some other source) to dictate acceptable morality. And are trying to enforce their views on everybody else.

I'm going to end this with a personal anecdote. I have a friend in Tucson [Arizona] named Jane*. I would guess she was about 40-ish when we met. When I first met her, she spoke of her "spouse", but never said husband, nor used a "him" or a "her" when referring to her spouse. Once she got to know me better and could trust me, she told me that her spouse was a transgendered female. She married a man, but she stayed with him through his operation to make him female. Jane and Katy* were best friends, and still married.

Jane and Katy had appeared on several talk shows together, and defended their relationship when people started asking the inevitable"why did you stay with him" questions. The simple answer was that they were still in love with each other. Love can withstand many things.

Now comes the however. Jane is most-assuredly heterosexual. She still loved her spouse, but craved the intimacy of a man/woman relationship to fulfill her. She and Katy remained married, but with the understanding that they would divorce once Jane found another man to marry. Jane did not have affairs. She and Katy remained married for several years before Jane found someone else to share her life with.

Incidental to the story, I met Katy. She and I became friends as well. I admire her for the things she went through when making her change.

Anyhow, I give all that background so I can tell this part. Jane and Katy sat for portraits, and I had a wallet-size one. Another friend and I (he's staunchly religious) were driving somewhere on the freeway when I showed him the picture. When I told him that one of the women was transgendered, he dropped the picture and went into a tirade about how "sick" that was and that people shouldn't be able to act like that. I quickly pulled over to the side of the freeway and told him that if he was going to react that way to get out of the car. Those were my friends and I wasn't going to listen to him put them down. People have the right to behave as they choose, provided they harm nobody by doing so. Basically I laid into him. I didn't even know I felt that way until he challenged me about it. So anyway, he apologized for upsetting me and I didn't leave him stranded. I did, however, limit my exposure to him in the future, and he was very very careful about that particular subject.

In retrospect I suppose I overreacted. I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion as I do, but I do expect differences of opinion to be handled with maturity and not as a personal attack, whether against me or any other person. Is that too much to expect?

*Names changed to protect anonymity

Colored Dots

So I was watching this movie from Netflix this evening. It's a "gay cinema" film, called "Latter Days". It was quite capricious -sophomoric and campy one moment, emotionally poignant and touching the next. But anyway, there was a line in there - actually a recurring theme - about colored dots.

There was a "provide comfort to the sobbing woman" scene, where the main character was trying to soothe the woman's heart. He related a story about taking the comics from the Sunday paper when he was younger, and holding it up close to his nose. How all he could see up close like that was colored dots. But, when viewed from above, all the dots were connected.

Have you ever thought about that - all the dots being connected? I don't know if that's yet another salve on the collective consciousness. Or maybe something, for those of us who need it, to grab hold of to ensure one's immortality.

I think about being a colored dot. Compress everything I am and everything I will be down into a two-dimensional colored dot. What color would I want to be? Red comes to mind. I feel like a red sometimes. Vibrant, bold. Maybe blue. I think of blue as mellow, bland, blah. But no matter the color, there are often several colors that not only enhance them, but can be symbiotic as well.

Pay to Play the Game

I was asked (rhetorically, but I chose to consider these "thought questions"):

• Why do teachers make an average of 35-40K a year and a mediocre salesman can make over 60K?
  
• Why do we have to implement more gambling (which is a tool to keep impoverished people poor) just to pay for police protection?
  
• Why do rapists convicted multiple times of rape and escape get placed in a minimum security facility only to escape and terrorize again?

These three are related. And very "NOW". Matter of fact, there will be much controversy over these things as the [Oregon] state legislature tries to hammer out yet another budget without sufficient money.

In the last two elections, there were questions on the ballot to increase taxes. Both failed by overwhelming numbers.

Tell me - if people are unwilling to pay increased or new taxes, where will money for higher teacher salaries and additional police or corrections officers protection come from? Lottery dollars are the one option available to lawmakers when other avenues have been shot down.

The popular rhetoric is that "the state needs to tighten its belt and live within its means". This could be done, *IF* voter-supported initiatives came with funding sources. But they don't. Recent example - the property value initiative. In a budget that's already so tight that state workers haven't had a raise in two years, plus have had future wages stripped, and one where teacher salaries have stagnated, school years have shrunk, and police forces, corrections officers, and social programs have diminished - where is this reimbursement money going to magically appear from? The initiative forces the state (or city, county, etc.) to reimburse property ownersfor devalued property - but provides no money to do so. So it must come from general funding, which is supported by taxes and lottery dollars. No tax increase - no money for the initiative - have to take it away from existing programs. Simple math. There are other examples, but that one illustrates one problem.

There is no free ride if you choose to live in society. One can either pay to play the game, or relinquish all rights, privileges, and obligations associated with community living and find a cave to live in solitude.

Where do I think America's going and why?

That was a "thought question" posed to me. Here was my response:

Well here's the thing. I think America is putting its nose in places it doesn't belong. I've long thought that we need to take care of our own ills before solving everybody else's problems.

But I also understand the need to flex muscles once in a while so the bullies don't pick on us.

I guess I'm conflicted. I mean, 9/11 scared the hell out of me - and I was on the opposite coast. I go along in my safe little world, caring little about what doesn't directly affect me when WHAM! the whole world as I know it gets picked up, shaken around, and left for dead.

Now suddenly I listen to NPR in the car so I'm always up on the latest news (can't stand watching TV newscasts - don't even get me started on the spin they put on things). A coworker's daughter gets shipped off to Kuwait so now we're all on edge every time we hear about the latest round of deaths. And my idyllic little world is gone forever.

Our president is making decisions that will radically affect diplomatic realtions for centuries, and he seems to be doing it carte blanche. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Can you say Boogey Man?

Meanwhile our nation's economy is only beginning to smell the faintest aroma of recovery, but still we send billions of dollars to foreign countries so we can buy a reputation - and it's not even a popular rep!

America - we used to be the Land of Opportunity. People die trying to make it here from all over the world, just to step foot on the "promised land". Lady Liberty says we're a melting pot for the poor and oppressed. Not any more. We've melted so much that we no longer have any distinction. We're not a Land of Opportunity anymore. We're a Land of Mediocrity. The only people left who value America as the Land of the Free are those who come from other places, and those who choose to defend our land - though they get little thanks for it.

Who says democracy is the be-all and end-all of governmental choices? And who are we to make others play our game? Dang, I rarely examine these things so closely. I didn't know I was so passionate about all this. And Mad! And sad, too. This should be the greatest place in the world, but it has degraded into somewhere that's laughed at - and a nationality to be afraid to claim when travelling abroad.

It's scary out there in the Real World.