After reading "The Ultimate Brokeback Daily Sheet" which I have posted on here, it got me thinking about some of the topics mentioned, for instance, people like Tony Perkins of the fundamentalist Christian organization known as the "Family Research Council" think that "redefining " marriage to be inclusive of same-sex couples in infringing upon the civil rights of homophobic heterosexuals, if the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. For your information, Tony, marriage has been "redefined" before, it was illegal for interracial couples to marry, even to date or have sex. Now interracial marriage has thankfully been legalized. People came to their senses and have seen that a person's ethnicity, their physical appearance or cultural background has no bearing on their being a responsible partner in a loving relationship . There are fundamentalist Christians who are against interracial relationships which they believe are "sinful" , such relationships in the eyes of racist fundamentalist Christians go against their interpretation of the Bible and these people would probably consider themselves to be "true Christians" just as much as you do. In fact, the fundamentalist Christians who oppose interracial marriages and relationships would probably consider themselves to be the " one and only true group of Christians who best represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Those fundamentalist Christians who oppose interracial relationships aren't any better than the homophobic Christians who look down on same-sex couples in my eyes.
Religious institutions don't have to marry anyone that they don't want to, but religious organizations have no right to make a secular society base laws that are supposed to benefit everyone based on any interpretation of any religion. Apparently, it's okay for prejudiced people like Tony Perkins, to enforce their religiously-based bigotry on people through secular laws because they believe that their so-called "loving" deity commands them to. Why is it that such people are quick to quote from the "Book of Leviticus" about sexual relationships between men being an "abomination" which is a "crime" worthy of the death penalty, but they don't lobby for laws that require heterosexual adulteresses to ingest poison to determine whether they have cheated on their husbands or not?
The Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistles that men who have sex with other men will not be a part of Yahweh's kingdom just like effeminate men can't, but apparently misogynistic and homophobic bigots can. What kind of sense does that make? I wouldn't want to live forever with people like Paul. That would be hell if you ask me. Of course, Paul doesn't have any verifiable, conclusive or testable proof for his belief that Yahweh exists or has a "kingdom" that he is preparing for his followers after Armageddon or that sexually-active gay men in same-sex relationships are excluded from such a "kingdom".
The only thing that Paul could have done is base his opinions off of the beliefs of the early Christians who didn't have any more proof for their claims than he did. Quoting from the Bible isn't proof of anything. The passages written in the Bible have to individually be proven as true with testable and verifiable evidence first that is reliable. Scientific and medical findings have pretty much proven that Paul was wrong about homosexuality being "unnatural". I think that Paul enforcing celibacy on himself was unnatural, if he struggled with it. He felt that all heterosexual men should live that way, except if they felt that they couldn't handle it and started feeling lust in their hearts for women. Enforced celibacy is unnatural if you ask me. Not only would I call it unnatural, but I would even call it cruel. Paul was probably a closeted gay man himself and had views on sex and marriage that are just plain wrong and misguided. It's interesting that Paul insisted that the early Gentile Christians didn't have to undergo a circumcision ritual in order to be a member of the Christian religion which is based on Judaism. Oh really, Paul? Jesus was Jewish and I don't recall him telling his disciples that they no longer had to abide by the circumcision "rule" that I am quite sure the historical Jesus would have been in favor of. I'm sure that Jesus would have been circumcised since he was a rabbi and would have studied the Jewish scriptures and preached about the apocalypse which might explain why he didn't marry because he thought that the world was going to end very soon.
I wouldn't want to live in a heaven or an earthly paradise or even on a planet with my husband and numerous sister wives forever, especially with people who are homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic or misogynist. Regarding LGBT rights and sexual health, I will say that I don't know how any LGBT person would be against same-sex marriage. Why wouldn't they want the same civil rights that are already afforded to heterosexual persons like me? If you don't buy into the concept of marriage in general, then you don't have to marry, but I don't think that it is right to deny that right to people who do want that right and privilege. I will say that if the government is going to get involved with the marriage business, if the U.S. government says that people, specifically consenting adults have the right to marry the person of their choice, then I think that right should also be given to same-sex couples as well. As for polygamous marriages, personally I don't seen any significant moral problems with it, as long as the spouses of either gender were treating each other as equals, but I could see some legal complications with it, especially in regards with children, which is probably why polygamy won't be legalized anytime soon.
I think that monogamous opposite-sex and same-sex couples should be allowed to civilly marry first and then we can decide what to do about polyamorous couples. Romance and sex are things that Americans can be very hypocritical over, especially in regards to sex. Watching or reading pornographic material is something that I believe that informed adults have the right to do, even if I don't look at it. I don't think there is nothing wrong with it. Pornography is NOT supposed to educate you about sex, it is to entertain you, like films or videogames. I don't think that children or teens should be looking at it. I don't think that looking at it would severely damage their minds as some "morality" groups like to claim, but under-aged youths wouldn't be mature enough to understand why people in the sex videos are doing what they are doing. If I am correct, children who show pornographic material to other kids can be labeled as "sex offenders" and I find that terrifying. No, I don't think that underage or teens should be reading or watching pornographic material that would not be appropriate for someone of their age to watch or read. I do think that parents and legal guardians when talking about sex should tell their children why people go into the porn business and what purpose pornography is for and that the kids shouldn't base any future relationship that they are in on what they see in pornographic material once they reach adulthood.
I believe that comprehensive, scientifically and medically accurate sex education is important and something that should be afforded to all people regardless of their age throughout their lives. I will say that people who don't want to marry their partner don't have to and shouldn't feel obligated to. There are plenty of unmarried couples who live happy and fulfilling lives together. I also strongly feel that heterosexual couples and same-sex couples whether married or unmarried should have the right to adopt children or have them through artificial insemination. I especially feel that foster children deserve loving, good homes, regardless of the gender, gender identity and/or expression, sexual orientation, marital status or race of their parents are. Single people also should have the right to adopt or have children through artificial insemination as well.
I don't think that children or teenagers should be made to feel ashamed or embarrassed about their sexuality. Feeling a crush on someone is perfectly natural. Being interested in romance and sex when you reach your teen years is perfectly natural. To be interested in your own bodily development is perfectly natural, normal and healthy. Masturbation is a perfectly healthy form of sexual expression. I don't think that people should feel forced by their partner or spouse to engage in certain sexual behaviors that they might have tried and don't like in order to please their partner or spouse. A persons should feel comfortable expressing their likes or dislikes about what sexual acts that they prefer to engage in with an understanding partner or spouse.
Emotional, psychological, physical or sexual abuse from a spouse or partner is not something that anyone should have to tolerate or accept. I would strongly encourage such people to contact the police in such situations, have the courage to leave the relationships and not blame themselves for their abuse that they are facing from their spouse or partner and to seek the help of a professional and licensed therapist which might be necessary. When dealing with a cheating spouse or partner, perhaps you could seek the advice of a professional and licensed sex therapist over questions that you may have on what to do, if you are not sure of what to do. Can spouses or partners continue in a relationship with their loved one who has previously cheated on them? Sure, sometimes you can, but sometimes you can't.
One issue brought on by the "Ultimate Brokeback Daily Sheet" was a young gay man who left the religious school that he attended because it was run by the Missouri Synod which is a fundamentalist branch of the Lutheran denomination which views homosexuality as being "intrinsically sinful". He disagreed with that view and the school was not very happy with the YouTube videos that he made which promoted positivity amongst the LGBT community. I think that he made the right choice. He felt the school didn't want him as a student anyways and he wasn't willing to pretend to be something that he is not in order to satisfy the prejudices of other people. I most certainly agree with him on that. Another issue on the "Ultimate Brokeback Forum Daily Sheet" involved a same-sex male parented family who wanted their kids to attend a religiously-based academy, but since homosexuality goes against what the academy's views of what is an "acceptable lifestyle", the parents decided to look elsewhere and didn't want to start any trouble by bringing about a lawsuit. I think that was a good decision to make, if they had boycotted the academy, I would be able to understand why the two fathers would have chosen to do that, but technically the school which is a private religious institution has the right to discriminate, even though their reasons for doing so may be objectionable.
These are just a few of my thoughts. What do you think?
Sincerely,
B.W.
No comments:
Post a Comment