Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Over the weekend I attended a Gay Pride festival to show my support for the cause.  A friend attended and posted some pictures on Facebook, tagging me (I have no problem with this).  Another friend, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent me the following message in response to the pictures:

Hi Isaac.
Your photos with involvement at the kiss-in / Pride popped up on my page. I looked at the home page and the comment of its purpose, to which I responded with an email to [someone I don't know].  Please feel free to address it if you feel so inclined.

Your friend always,

[redacted]

—-

Hello [someone I don't know],
I would be grateful for some genuine and sincere dialog on this issue for which you support. Being LDS, and standing firm for what I believe (not in the name of hate or discrimination but quite the opposite), I have become the recipient of much hatred.

I honestly cannot understand certain terms that have been generated over the years in the promotion of same sex relations. One of those terms was used in your facebook description of the event.

You said, or endorsed:
“This event isn’t just for those who have a partner to kiss! No matter what your orientation or your relationship status, join us to hug, hold hands, and demonstrate the right to love that we all believe in and fight for every day.”

When was the term “sexual orientation” first coined? Who was the first person responsible for combining these words together and where is it documented? I try to see things correctly in the light of truth, and when I see these words combined, I honestly see (and allow me to explain why) an oxymoron. Perhaps if you could tell me, or give me an example of what sexual disorientation would be, I could better understand the intended meaning of sexual orientation. Could you do that for me?

Here is why I see the term “sexual orientation” as an oxymoron. The word “sex” or “sexual” would not exist if there were not the two genders, male and female. To suggest that one gender is orientated back to itself, then, would negate the word sex, because the counter gender is omitted.

I do not deny or negate the reality of same sex attraction, and certainly do not discriminate those who are so attracted. I do, however, wish to better understand it. When I see conflicting terms used to describe it, I only see persons who themselves do not understand it. If there really is such thing as “sexual orientation” then there must exist “sexual disorientation.” That is why I would like to know what you would consider a “disorientation,” as related to human sexuality.

Respectfully, and with love,

[redacted]

I have a lot of love and respect for the person who sent me the message, so I felt it was really important to address it.  I also have a lot of passion about the subject, so I felt it was important to address it.  Also, I don’t know why he sent an email to a person he doesn’t really know.. and why he forwarded it to me instead of just asking me the same things.

Being honest, most of what he wrote above is just a semantics game.  And I just can’t do that.  I want to share with you my response.  It’s not as cohesive or well written as I would like, but I think I’ve started to make my argument.  I’m not sharing this because I’m proud of the way I’ve made my statement, but because: a) I said it and need to stand by it and b)  I want to flush my statements out better.  In my letter, I strive to separate the political issue from the moral issue.  I feel strongly about both, but I think they are separate and distinct.  Also, in this case, when the LDS prophet says it is wrong, there’s no room for conversation and I don’t really enjoy non-dialogue that just makes people angry and doesn’t actually strive to solve the problems.

One more comment before the response:  I hate, hate, hate that I cannot seem to escape using “they,” “them” language.  At some point it can’t be avoided, but I do believe this can/may still create divides that don’t really exist or that shouldn’t exist in what we are all striving for.

I try to keep things political in nature off of my feeds because, in general, I want my voice heard in the ballot box or in areas where political discourse is requested/encouraged.  It becomes hard when I do things I wish to share that cross those lines.  I wanted to share what I was doing and I do believe in the cause enough to be vocal about it.  I am not, however, trying to make it into a battle with my friends.

I appreciate your wish for dialogue as I wish for it as well.  The backlash against the individuals for their support of Prop 8 is very sad to me.  People are taking it personal and trying to make it personal back–I don’t agree with this.  This is an emotional issue and so many people are not thinking, acting, or being mature about it.

On one hand, I can understand it.  There are people who are being told, from a social/political point of view that they are not equal.  On this level, this is an issue of rights as a free person and as a citizen in a country which has paved the way for liberty and justice for all.  Except, in this case, as they see it, it is not for all.

There is also the issue of being told, morally, that you are wrong.  I’d really like to leave this issue alone for now.  We both understand that the church and Prophets have been very clear on this point and I don’t have any interest in arguing for or against that.  But I do ask that you think about what affect this has on a person.

On the other hand, nothing is an excuse for being malicious or showing hatred.  There is already too much hatred and fear in the world, we don’t need any more of it.  Those who attack Prop 8 supports simply because they supported or because they don’t understand are undermining their own cause.

My position is not even necessarily about encouraging behavior someone believes to be socially unacceptable and morally untenable.  This is about understanding and I will say that I often find people to be lacking true, honest understanding.  Not care, not concern, not love, not goodness of heart–I am not suggesting this.  But the ability to listen and understand that a person is going through something which often they do not even comprehend–whether this is “nature,” selfish hedonism, or Satan’s temptations.

One of the large reasons the homosexual lifestyle is flamboyant and promiscuous is because family, friends, and community struggle or actively resist having acceptance (as a person) and understanding.  Individuals repress and resist their desires and end up exploding in frustration and anger.  When a person is told that the sexual contact they desire is dirty and wrong, they’ll take that and run with it.  Or they’ll just make a scene because they know it makes people uncomfortable, which is how they feel all the time.

And this isn’t just homosexuals.  So many sexual ills in our world are rooted not only in individuals and the judgments in life they make, but the way society frowns, represses, and doesn’t accept people.  I watched a documentary last night on two evangelical pastors who work to help people with pornography addiction and how much they are rejected from their own community simply because don’t want to talk about this, even if it’s from a point of trying to help and make a difference.  If we can’t even talk about it, how can we ever solve the problem?

You say that there are terms you do not understand and I say that is not the place to start the conversation.  It’s important and the conversations needs to happen.  But I think it is xenophobic and narrow thinking to reject the unknown simply because it is unknown.  If it is “us” and “them,” then there will always be a battle to fight.  The rhetoric which is used regarding homosexuals is the same rhetoric used for slaves and blacks.  This language is divisive and dehumanizing.  We need to start by accepting that we’re all in the mad world together and maybe we have more in common than we might realize.

I’m not trying to make moral case for homosexuality.  My position here is mainly a political one–I believe we, as a nation, are being hypocritical to say that man is free and liberty trumps all and then deny two consenting adults the right to express love.  Just as we do not deny people the right to drink alcohol, drink coffee, or work on Sunday.  There are potential problems and abuse with all of these things, but the best way to deal with those problems is through education and through community.  When we listen, we will be heard.  Our country is founded on the idea that man, when given the freedom to do so, will achieve great things–innocent until proven guilty–free to choose religion–free to choose love.  Even if we don’t always agree.

We are left with the images of the devastation wreaked by the terrorists and a persistent, nagging question: when will it happen again?

To answer that question, I wonder if we really need to look beyond our own border. America does have its infamous militias. These inbred, bucktoothed, self-proclaimed protectors of America (protecting what, exactly? The right to bear children with your cousin?) already have at least one building in Kansas City to their name. Unfortunately, we can no longer expect these people to be satisfied with outrunning Roscoe P. Coltrane and getting Daisy all molared up off some high-powered corn whiskey from the local still. Now they also would like to advance their political agenda and send America back to the 1950�s, or worse.

But the group that really scares the hell out of me is the right-wing extremist faction of the born-again Christians. (I�m talking specifically about the abortion-clinic bombers and doctor-killers, and not about the zealots that wander around college campuses and get into theological arguments with drunken frat boys.) These folks could be our biggest homegrown terrorist threat because they hide themselves behind religion and their Constitutional rights. When all else fails, they hold up a Bible and use it to justify their actions.

Isn�t it interesting how dissimilar these groups appears on the surface, yet how much they have in common when you look a little deeper. Think about it: they hate what America has become, they think that they are the chosen people to solve the perceived problem, and they believe the end justifies the means. The common thread is a violent reaction to the source of their hatred; namely, the rest of us.

It is also interesting how often violence is committed in the name of religion. The Middle-East terrorists hate us because of our perceived loose morals and decadent lifestyle, but really it all comes down to America�s support of the Israelis in their fight with the Palestinians over the same holy land. Like anything else, the Koran can be interpreted many ways and the fundamentalist, hard-line groups like the Taliban use it as a justification for their oppressive modus operandi.

In similar fashion, the Bible-thumpers pervert the Word of their Lord to their own foul purposes. They use the commandment, �Thou Shalt Not Kill� as justification for terrorizing and, ironically, sometimes killing abortion workers. Never mind that most people find early-term abortions to be morally acceptable. These wild-eyed maniacs do not really care about what anyone thinks� except themselves.

Frankly, having someone�s religious views pushed on you is onerous in itself. Violence certainly compounds the problem. But perhaps the worst part is all of these fanatics are really missing the point of what their religion tries to teach them in the first place. After all, isn�t religion really just a framework for how to morally better oneself in a civilized society? And at the heart of this philosophy is forgiveness and love for one�s fellow man. The violence is just a symptom; the blatant hypocrisy is the disease.