"Being gay is who I am, not what I do."
Kathleen Sheridan of Portland wrote an excellent letter-to-the-editor in Monday's Oregonian about discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I keep wondering how long it will take for everyone to understand that being gay is who I am, not what I do.Imagine for a moment how strange it would feel to read a headline that said, "Blue-eyed people barred from marriage." And then the article would go on to explain how certain Oregonians believe that blue-eyed people are immoral for having blue eyes and therefore are not to be granted equal rights under the law.
I am amazed by people who believe that my human credentials are up for discussion, that my life is somehow a topic to be debated among religious intellectuals and small-minded journalists. I am not an idea that needs to be approved or an applicant who needs to pass a test to be granted full membership in the human race. I am a person who demands respect because I deserve it.
I believe that soon we will look back on our social history and ask, "What were we thinking?," just as we now do with institutionalized racial discrimination. I believe that we as a people will be embarrassed at the way we treated our gay sisters, brothers, daughters and sons.
Discuss.
|
March 31, 2007
Posted in letter to the editor. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 31, '07
believe that we as a people will be embarrassed at the way we treated our gay sisters, brothers, daughters and sons.
The silence is deafening. I think a lot of us already are embarrassed. But I think a lot of people also remained frightened.
10:28 p.m.
Mar 31, '07
The problem is that those who are anti-gay typically believe it is what you do, and not who you are. They see being gay as being an action.
They complain that sexual orientation shouldn't be covered in anti-discrimination rules and laws because it's an action. But at the same time, they support protections for religion (a choice).
It all comes down to the fact that most of these people are against those who are of a different sexual orientation because they believe their religion tells them it's wrong. But they use every excuse in the book besides religion to cover for their bigotry and hope that the rest of society buys it.
10:37 p.m.
Mar 31, '07
Fully agreeing that gay people should not be defined by their sexual practices, I still have to say that I have NEVER understood why some people are so obsessed with what other people like to do in bed. There are a lot of colorful theories about that, of course. %^>
Speaking for myself personally, most of my dealings with other people are conducted when all involved are vertically oriented and fully clothed, so sexual orientation seldom seems relevant.
In another couple of generations all of this discrimination will seem quaint. It just sucks that we may have to wait that long.
Apr 1, '07
A fundamental problem with this letter is the blurred line between gay rights and gay marriage. Certainly, there are no legit reasons for discrimination based on something as insignificant, especially at the work place, as sexual orientation.
"Gay marriage" is a different deal however, largely because of varying definitions of marriage. A conservative definition could be "committment between a man and a woman" while a more liberal definition could be "committment between two humans." (There are certainly legit arguments for both definitions) From the conservative point of view, gays have the right to heterosexual marriage; just like Kathleen Sheridan's argument that blue-eyed people have the same right. To define a lifelong same-gender committment as marriage, from this perspective, would be akin to classifying "turkey" as a "fruit."
1:12 p.m.
Apr 1, '07
Anyone who claims that the Bible is universally against homosexuality hasn't read the Bible.
At least, they haven't read the First Book of Samuel, chapters 18 to 20. (And the epilogue, in Second Samuel, chapter 1.)
King David was one of the greatest figures in the Old Testament, exceeded only by Moses. Jesus Christ later was said to be of the lineage of King David.
But King David was quite clearly gay.
Apr 1, '07
i used to follow the religious line (from the catholic church i once attended that is) that "homosexuality is a sin". follow it in my head that is. however, something within me never felt ok with expousing this belief. i knew it was based on fear and nothing else. but fear of what? hmmm. so i took time to look at it and realized i had fears about my own sexuality and fears about others who were "different" than myself and fears about my own sexual thoughts, fantasies. thank the cosmos life sometimes brings us just what we need in order to work through our fears. i ended up working at a place where i was the only heterosexual female. and while taking a college course, i ended up becoming friends with a guy who i later learned was gay. in time i realized that, duh, they're just people like me. nothing to fear. it wasn't about them or their choice of sexual partners--it was about me and my fears. period.
i think we can all agree we still have puritanical values in this country when it comes to sex. cultures that embrace sexuality for what it is--a part of being a living being and not something you need to repress, deny or be ashamed of--do not have the incidence of sexual violence and teen pregnancies as we do here in the states.
i had an LMT say to me once that only around 10% of homosexuals are truly homosexual, only around 10% of hetersexuals are truly heterosexual. the rest of us can go either way if we're brutally honest with ourselves. an interesting theory at least......
as the song says--let's talk about sex, baby. openly. honestly. the moment you feel guilt or shame, know that someone else put that "rule" into your mind. for one day, if we do just that, we can truly embrace the ideals that the sexual urge is a part of us all, that to act on it is natural, erotic and beautiful in so long as it is between two (or more) consenting individuals. man to man, women to woman, women to man who cares! maybe then we can get over this hang-up over whether or not being gay is a moral crime.
Apr 1, '07
Many thanks to Kathleen Sheridan for her excellent letter. I sometimes have reflected on how exposed we all are when we come out. Heterosexual people don't have that in their lives, that knowledge that they are being dissected in somebody's political or religious treatise. It is as if we, as gay people, have no right to privacy. We don't analyze their sexuality till hell won't have it. What right does anyone have to analyze another's sexuality?
6:45 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
We are talking about LEGAL marriage (i.e. civil laws) and ending the gender discrimination therein. Marriage law has nothing to do with religion or church. The Catholic church can still refuse to marry divorcee's just as it can still refuse to marry couples with the same genital plumbing, just as any other church can refuse to perform, recognize or solemnize any marriage it wants to for whatever reason it wants to. Equal rights, protections and obligations under CIVIL law is what is currently being denied same-gender couples, and the demand to end such discrimination is what is being called for. The rest is just ignorant fear-based horse-shit.
Apr 2, '07
While I understand the point made by K Nyquist, the argument really needs to be exposed for the red herring that it is. Conservatives in years past used to get by with saying that their personal definition of marriage should rightly prohibit people of differing religions or races from being married.
The rebuttal to this point is that consenting adults should be treated equally before the law. The kinds of marriage that other people who are not party to the relationship think of the pairing is irrelevant. We as a society decided that what racists think of interracial marriage is irrelevant. People should not be barred from intimate affiliation because of the standards that others would choose for themselves.
Two adults who choose to make a legally-binding commitment based on their intimate association with each other should not be prevented from doing this based on what someone else thinks of the relationship. I have not nor should not have any expectation that I should have veto power over anybody's marriage by virtue of race, politics, gender, creed, nationality, or any other such criterion.
<h2>People who don't believe in gay marriage shouldn't have one. If they're not being asked to participate in one, then what others choose is none of their business. Their beliefs should not be tantamount to a veto over my life or my relationship. I think that's the real point.</h2>