Where I Stand: Marriage Equality

As I'm sure everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 2 of the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) this week.  Section 2 prevented same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized by the state in which they live from receiving the same federal protections and benefits as heterosexual married couples.  Unfortunately, Section 3--the section that allows state governments to make same-sex marriage illegal AND to not legally recognize such marriages performed in states that have legalized same-sex marriage--still stands.

Unfortunately? you may ask.  Yes, unfortunately.  I am completely, whole-heartedly, and enthusiastically in favor of gay marriage, or as I feel is the more accurate term, marriage equality.  After discussing this topic extensively with friends and family, I've compiled a list of the more common objections I have heard, along with my responses to those objections.  I'll start with what I deem the most common objections, give my response, and move on from there.

OBJECTION 1:  The Bible declares homosexuality to be a sin and immoral; therefore, homosexuals shouldn't be legally allowed to marry.

MY RESPONSE

Yes, Leviticus 20:13 condemns homosexuality.  That said, the Bible condemns a lot of things regarding marriage and sexual behavior that are legal and accepted today. To flesh out one example, Jesus condemns divorce--"that which God has joined together let noone put asunder" (MARK 10:8) and goes on to say that remarriage is the equivalent of adultery (MARK 10:11-12). The Old Testament condemns adultery and the punishment is death (LEVITICUS 20:10). Heck, even if you leave the New Testament definitions that Jesus himself gave out of it, regular old adultery is still punishable by death. So, going by Biblical definitions and principles, anyone who has had/participated in an affair, or who has divorced and remarried, should be executed.  However, in our society, adultery, divorce and remarriage are perfectly legal. Why? Because our legal system was not created to be a religious legal system. It's purpose is to maintain the functionality of our society, create equality between all of our citizens and protect our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You have every right to disagree with the lifestyles and choices of others based on your religious morality, and to live according to your religious beliefs; however, no one has the right to force others to live by their personal religious code. That's the problem I see with the current moral arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage--the arguments against it are ALL based on the religious belief that being gay is wrong. Laws should not uphold the religious beliefs of one group at the expense of the rights of another.

Another point that bothers me about this objection is that it is primarily Christians bringing up Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.  As far as the Bible goes, the verses that specifically condemn homosexuality are found in the Old Testament as part of the Levitical Law under the covenant between God and the people of Israel.  As I've mentioned, this same law condemned many practices that are legal today--divorce, adultery, men cutting their hair, eating pork, etc.  The problem with employing Old Testament law as a Christian is that the old covenant was theologically done away with by the establishment of the New Covenant, which was salvation through grace rather than adherence to the law.  Furthermore, the only commandments given by Jesus in the New Testament are to 1) Love your God with all your heart and soul, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.  If someone claims to be a Christian, then there is a fundamental theological and logical flaw in trying to deny their fellow man/woman the same rights that he or she expects to receive themselves.  

OBJECTION 2:  Across religions and cultures, the historical definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and we should keep it that way.

MY RESPONSE:

Ummm....no.  Lol.  Our current definition of marriage is, historically and anthropologically, extremely new.  The definition in the U.S. is one man, one woman who both consent to enter into the union willingly.  It hasn't even been 200 years since polygamy was outlawed in the United States.  Also, it wasn't that long ago that a father could marry his daughter off to whomever he pleased...and this still goes on in other cultures, India for example. And the fact that polygamy is outlawed really only applies to western cultures! In many muslim countries, polygamy still legally exists today. Buddhism, Islam and Judaism are some current religions that allow polygamy. The only reason Judaism no long practices is because of the Western cultures in which most adherents live. Heck, even in Hong Kong...which is about as "western" as China gets...didn't ban polygamy until the 1970s. The general polygamy ban in most countries had nothing to do with religious or ethical definitions, and everything to do with 1) sucking up to western powers and, most importantly, 2) allowing the governments to not have to financially support families with multiple wives and the resulting kiddos.  The definition of marriage changes with the era and situation in society, and always has.

OBJECTION 3:  Homosexuality is either a 1) a choice or 2) a choice that is similar to profession--genetic tendencies brought out by environmental factors (i.e., upbringing), and because it's a choice, it shouldn't get legal recognition or protection.

MY RESPONSE:

  In response to the claim that homosexuality is a choice, I offer this:  if individuals choose to be homosexual, then being heterosexual must also be a choice.  In other words, Bob made the choice to be sexually attracted to his wife Sally, as opposed to his friend Bill.  If this is true, and Bob receives legal protection and rights for choosing to be attracted to Sally, why shouldn't those same protections and rights be applied had he chosen Bill?  This smacks of legal favoritism, not legal equality.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the latest research and studies show that homosexuality (and sexuality in general) is indeed genetically influenced.  That said, the genetic argument is a dangerous one to employ, mostly because we know so very, very little about genetic predisposition and it's interaction with nurture. For example, I was genetically predisposed to RA. We have no idea why it manifested in me, only that it did.  So, should my employer or insurance carrier be able to deny me benefits because something in my environment that was beyond my control triggered my genetic predisposition? That's basically what the second argument states--that something happened in the lives of homosexuals that they had no control over, and because this something triggered their genetic predisposition, we should deny them the same rights and privileges under the law as a heterosexual person, who, by the way, had just as little control over their orientation.  Again, this is playing legal favoritism, not pursing legal equality. 

 (Disclaimer: I'm not equating homosexuality to a disease, merely extending the genetic predisposition-trigger argument).

On a side note, the comparison between having genetic predisposition to a talent and then choosing a career based on that talent, and the genetic predisposition towards sexuality is categorically flawed.  Having a predisposition to a talent does not, in fact, mean you'll be at all good at it. That relies on nurturing that talent. For example, my mom is great at math and I suck lol. Am I genetically predisposed? Absolutely. But I didn't nurture the talent. And no one knows where my language abilities came from, but because I nurtured that talent, I pick up languages fairly easily with time and studying. Speaking of time and studying, to enter a profession, you have to be systematically educated and develop specific skills over a period of years to become an engineer. Or a musician. Or a teacher. All things left equal, you would not enter any profession at all, but sexual desire and attraction is not a voluntary response that is the product of years of study and education--it is an complex, mostly unconscious response when the change of puberty starts.

OBJECTION 4:  We already have legal definitions for marriage and changing them for "special interest" groups is a slippery slope.  We have to draw a line somewhere--if we legalize gay marriage, what's next?  Animals? Machines?

MY RESPONSE: 

We've already changed the definition of marriage to include groups that were previously excluded, specifically interracial couples. And while there are some civic protections that come along with marriage, the majority of the legality surrounding marriage actually deals with legal benefits and advantages that the government allows married people. Also, we've already changed laws to apply to special interest groups--like disabled individuals--and adapted laws for others--the opt out of the birth control mandate for religious organizations--so why is this different? Not to mention all of the legal changes made in favor of civil rights!  If we didn't allow the law to change when we find it lacking, we would stagnate and rot as a society, and I would still be unable to vote, drive, or get a college education.

The second part of this objection always makes me chuckle in disbelief. "If we allow the gays to marry what next? People marrying their pets?"  I guess people are just oblivious to the fact that they are comparing an consensual relationship between two committed, rational human beings to a man/woman screwing a non-rational critter, right? Marrying animals and inanimate objects is illegal for the same reason as child brides in this country. There has to be a level of rational and informed consent when entering into the legal state of marriage. Animals and toasters are neither rational nor capable of being informed, nor capable of giving consent, so this argument is just a silly attempt at fear-mongering.

OBJECTION 5:  Legalizing same-sex marriage opens us up to all sorts of fraud, and will bankrupt the country.

MY RESPONSE:

The risk for fraud already exists in our current system. This objection assumes that a male and female who are friends/coworkers/etc. wouldn't get married just for the benefits. Or, heck, that there aren't homosexual men marrying homosexual women strictly for the legal benefits now. Any governmental institution is going to be at risk for fraud. Allowing homosexual marriage allows for an honest union between two committed adults of the same sex, and allows them access to the legal protections and benefits that such a committed union deserves. And I don't for a minute buy that homosexuals receiving marriage benefits would bankrupt the country--they pay into pensions, healthcare, social security, medicare, insurance, and everything else just like heterosexuals do. At this point, they are paying in but then being denied access to the very institutions their money funds. It's one thing for people who choose to remain single to not reap the legal benefits of marriage; it's another thing entirely to deny people who want to get married the benefits that their money supports that come along with marriage.

So, that's pretty much where I stand on marriage equality and a good bit of why.  The rest of the why involves my friends from high school and college who are homosexual.  They want the same thing I wanted from a relationship--to find the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, get married, and possibly start a family.  Because I am heterosexual, I was able to fulfill that desire and marry the love of my life with whom I am raising a wonderful little girl.  My friends deserve no less than the legal opportunity to do the same.  I have high hopes that the day is quickly approaching that we recognize that we cannot continue to claim to be a country based on principles of justice and equality while denying legal rights to a portion of our population.  It's way past time for equality under the law.

Where I Stand: Forgiveness

I was reading a random post earlier today. The person was worrying over their inability to "forgive and forget". They were linking it to a Christian belief structure which, in their interpretation, requires that "good Christians" (what does that even mean anyway?) completely forgive those who have wronged them and to put the deeds against them out of mind. In other words forgive and forget. I honestly think that's a load of malarky.

First, to deal with the forgiveness part. I do believe that humans can truly forgive one another. That said, I think that there are two "main" types of forgiveness: forgiveness after repentance, and repentance-less forgiveness. Now the first type is by far the easier of the two. When the person(s) who wronged us truly feels bad AND tries to make amends (remember, repentance is as much an ACTION as a frame of mind), then it is easier to forgive. It can still take a lot of time, and a lot of soul searching, but knowing that the other party truly regrets their actions/the hurt they caused you, helps. The second kind of forgiveness is a much more difficult and self-oriented thing. If the person(s) doing the harming don't repent--or even acknowledge that they did things to/that hurt you--it become much more difficult to feel forgiving towards them. I think this type of forgiving takes a lot longer, and is done more for a personal benefit than for any other reason. Not forgiving someone who hurt you means those hurt and angry feelings stay...which eventually will hurt your life and growth as a person. So at that point forgiveness is much more a self-oriented thing than an outward expression.

Now to my issues with "forgive and forget". Don't get me wrong. Christianity does put a great emphasis on forgiving others' "trespasses against us" as Christ/God forgive us for ours. But the only place in the Bible that I (in my admittedly non-extensive Biblical knowledge) remember dealing with trespasses (aka sins, wrongs) and memory is where it talks about God putting our sins as far as east is from west once we truly repent. I can only think that this is where people get the "forgive and forget" stuff from. And a bit understandably, because let's face it, East from West is just about as far a distance as you can get in the world of metaphor and conceptualized distances. However, nowhere in all of that is "forgetting" mentioned.

So, here's my issue with the expectation of "forgive and forget" as expressed by certain interpretation of Christian doctrine, argued from the point of view of one who is an atypical Christian. God is the ultimate, perfect being. And (according to the Bible) we were created in His image. Humans have memory, albeit imperfect. We do forget things...but generally not in the purposeful way. So, if we are imperfect mirrors of God, then it stands to reason that God is the perfect image we reflect. So, take our imperfect memory--presumably, God has a perfect memory (which He'd have to to accomplish a variety of other actions attributed to Him and His abilities). Which means, that He CANNOT forget. Even with the whole East from West thing, nowhere does it say "God accepts your repentance, forgives you, and forgets about it." He just puts it far away.

So transpose that onto humanity. God, with His infinite mind, has the ability to mentally push things as far as East is from West. Yeah, humans, we ain't got that (:-P). Which means, for the really big hurts and wrongs, we won't ever truly be able to forget them. We can not dwell on them, we can not think about the often, etc. But they never truly go away. Big hurts leave marks on our soul, pysche, heart, etc. They are a huge part of the process that makes us who we are (of course a bigger part of that process is how we react to those hurts, but that discussion is for another time). Which means that while we might be able to forgive the person(s) who cause these wrongs and hurts, we'll never forget that they hurt us.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why "forgive and forget" is such a load of crap. Forgive, definitely. Don't expect it to be an overnight process, and don't beat yourself up if it takes time. But forget? Don't expect to forget about the big hurts and don't beat yourself up about not being able to. Especially since no one is actually asking it of you.

Anyways, I was just thinking :-).

Questioning

One of the graduate classes I'm in right now is a philosophy course. It's focus is philosophy of education, but my professor (who I've had before and LOVE) is never content to stay only within the focus. He challenges us to explore all aspects of our class. With this in mind, our first book this semester--Sophie's World--was an introductory philosophy text couched within a fictional story. It was amazing, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in philosophy, loves to read fiction, and doesn't want to take a philosophy class.

In this class, we discuss books after reading them via an online discussion board. The two books that followed--Nel Noddings' Philosophy of Education and Dr. Slattery's Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era--were equally engaging, if more academic than the first.

One statement that I made apparently kicked off a side discussion. In my essay, I emphasized the questioning part of the philosophical process, and how that aspect can be applied to every aspect of our lives. My position was that questioning can only strengthen things in our lives, and aide in our pursuit of self-knowledge, which to me is one of the most important things to achieve.

Well, did that generate some feedback! I had questions asking what it was ok to question, what it was appropriate/useful to question, what I was questioning currently, etc. All of these questions I answered, clarifying my position.

In regards to what it is ok to question: EVERYTHING. From personal perception, to relationships, to religion, nothing should be held above being questioned. Too many times, the hesitancy to question comes from a fear that finding what we believe is either wrong, or built upon misconceptions. This only serves to perpetuate a lack of self-knowledge. Questioning things reveals inconsistencies and fallacies, and once those are revealed, they can be confronted and corrected. I'm not saying it's a comfortable or easy process...but it is a very worthwhile and rewarding one to go through.

In regards to what is appropriate/profitable to question: This is a bit more complicated. I'll deal with appropriate first. To answer a question with a question: Who defines what is appropriate? Society? Our background? How we were raised? I don't think it is ok to allow any of that to determine whether or not we question something. What is appropriate to question is whatever the individual feels needs to be questioned. Allowing other influences to determine what is appropriate is allowing other people to dictate the direction of your life journey, which I feel is a dangerous thing to allow to happen. As far as what is profitable, again, who determines that? My answer is the same...that choice is up to the individual.

Yes, I realize that saying it is up to the individual that it opens the door to people choosing not to question anything, ever. Or to conform to society's expectations in regards in what to question. But that's the right of the individual to choose. That said, I do wish more people would undertake the challenge to challenge their beliefs about their lives.

Another note about questioning that one of my classmates brought up: the motive behind questioning. This point made me pause, because for me, questioning has always had the purpose of strengthening. He pointed out that some people use questioning to destroy or to create division and bad feelings. I honestly hadn't considered that. That motivation turns questioning into something harmful. Basically, questioning is a tool and a process...and as such, can be used for the aforementioned negative reasons or for good and healthy reasons--growth, strengthening, self-knowledge. It's also important to figure out the right questions to ask in a given situation.

As for the question as to what I'm questioning now, I didn't answer that on the discussion board. Partly because I think the person meant as far as my educational philosophy, and since that's in a constant state of flux, I didn't really have an answer. In regards to what I'm questioning personally, I didn't feel like sharing that with my philosophy class! Lol. But this, this is a good forum for it.

I'll start with what I'm NOT questioning. Who I am. Who my friends are. My relationship with my wonderful, loving husband. My family relationships. Basically, my relationships with the people in my life, and with myself, are sound and strong. :-)

What I AM questioning: my religion. Ok, be careful with how you read that! I am NOT questioning my FAITH--I am a Christian. I believe in God, and that Jesus died for my sins. That said, I'm questioning quite a bit about how Christianity is practiced today. I haven't been able to find a church home for several years, either because the preacher does not meet my expectation (I like preachers that put things in historical context and delve into the original meanings of words) or the general atmosphere does not encourage any questioning or deviation from the group mindset. If this post tells you anything about me, it's that I don't like environments that stifle questions or insist on blind acceptance.
I was also a Religious Studies minor in college, and learned a great deal about the history of Christianity. I know that many things that churches claim are "Biblical doctrine" are actually tradition that formed because of the choices made at the First Council of Nicea. Which isn't a bad thing at all...it just makes me wary of accepting "doctrine" blindly. And it also makes me question how much of that is applicable to today. That said, I do believe in the Bible...I just believe that it was a product of man, inspired by God, and as such is not infallible. (See what I mean? My questions can get me into trouble!) I do think that what I call the "red text"...that is the words of Jesus/God...are the core of instruction on faith and how a Christian should live. Not that I'm perfect and always manage that, but hey, the only one who ever did was the Son of God...so I'm ok with not being perfect.
I also really like certain Eastern religious traditions and philosophies. Taoism has aspects that I really enjoy, in particular. So, I'm in the process of trying to reconcile my faith with my religious questions and inclinations, and trying to find a church home where I can be a part of a community who is open to new ideas and to questions.
Should be easy, right? :-P

Well, that's about it for tonight I think. I'm going to go finish laundry, make sure the dogs are good to go for the night, and spend some time with my hubby before we crawl into bed! I do hope, if anyone's reading this, that you won't be afraid to question things in your life as you feel the need.

Anyways, I was just thinking.

Girls, Guys, and Friendship

The past couple of days, I keep getting questions regarding whether or not guys and girls can be just friends. At first, I just ignored it as one of those questions that inevitably pops up from time to time. After all, I can't count how many times my mom and I have had this conversation since I was literally in junior high. So, when the first instance arose, I passed over it as just another occurrence in the line of occurrences of this question. But then the question came up again today. And I started thinking about how my answer to it has progressed over the years.

As I attempt to formulate my answer, I would like to be clear: when I say "relationship" I mean a committed relationship, not a casual dating relationship.

Originally, I thought that girls and guys could be friends without any problem. That train of thought lasted up until college. By that time I started realizing that they guy-girl friendship dynamic was way more complicated than I had imagined. At least, it is when one or both of the people in question are in a relationship. When a single guy and a single girl are friends, then there aren't any complicating factors, other than potential feelings that might develop...but then both of them are free to pursue those if they choose. And after all, the best relationships start out as friendships.

However, when a romantic relationship exists on the part of one or both outside of the friendship, there is the potential for problems. Some may ask, why? I mean, presumably if the individuals in question are in a relationship, then they are committed to that relationship and won't let a friendship interfere. That's what I used to think. Now I know it's nowhere near that simple.

What could I possibly mean? Well, let's set up a scenario. John and Mary are in a relationship. John has a friend, Marcy, with whom he hangs out fairly often. Now, to examine the potential problems. Mary and John are in a fight/rough spot/long distance relationship/whatever. John talks with Marcy about the situation. Marcy gives John advice. John leaves this exchange feeling better. Not a problem at first glance. However, it happens a second time. And then a third. Gradually, Marcy becomes John's sounding board...a position that should by Mary's. In a relationship, it is important for the people to communicate their frustrations and feelings to one another, to keep that connection there. What John has done is take that connection elsewhere...to Marcy. This makes him feel even more distant from Mary, and Mary probably senses this. If Mary is aware of Marcy, and knows that John is investing more time in their friendship than in Mary and his relationship, feelings of jealousy and hurt may surface. That can damage John and Mary's relationship more, and if left unresolved, can turn the whole thing into a downward spiral.

Another situation, same cast. John and Mary have a great relationship, but do not share many interests. Marcy and John share quite a few interests. So, Marcy and John pursue these interests together, leaving Mary to do her thing. The shared interests create a bond between Marcy and John that John and Mary do not have. They spend a great deal of time together pursuing these interests, and Mary spends more time alone. This can lead to John and starting to enjoy Marcy's company more than Mary's, and lead to him feeling more of a connection with Marcy. Mary can feel left out, hurt and resentful that John shares this bond with another girl instead of her. Either way, a sense of distance may once again enter into the relationship between Mary and John.

To be clear, John could easily be a Jill, Mary a Mark, and Marcy a Matt. I simply chose the cast I did because, in my experience with this question, it seems that it is more often the friendship between a girl and a guy that causes issues in the relationship between said guy and his girlfriend rather than vice versa.

Basically, the problem with having friends of the opposite sex when you're in a relationship is the potential for your significant other to take the back seat to those friends (not just once or twice, but repeatedly and often), both emotionally and in time spent. When you're in a relationship your significant other should be your relational priority when compared to your friendships (obviously, I'm not talking about familial relationships here...just friendships).

In a guy-girl friendship, the person in the relationship needs to be extremely careful not to cross the emotional intimacy line with the friend (or the physical...but that should go without saying) and to be very aware of the feelings of that friend. If you're in a relationship and your friend of the opposite sex starts developing feelings for you, you need to be paying attention in order to be aware of that. And then, for the sake of your relationship, you need to back off of that friendship. Also, if the person is a true friend, they will watch themselves as well, and give the advice of a true friend when asked about relationship issues: you should talk to your significant other about this.

If they don't give this advice, they are probably not as good a friend as they pretend to be. Members of both genders are sometimes only out for what they want, and have no issues with interfering with someone else's relationship in order to attain their desires. Personally, I think this character trait is much more common in girls than guys, and the guys I've talked to don't seem to realize that girls can be so devious.

All that said, issues of all kinds arise in relationships, both from the inside and the outside. Those arising from the inside can be just as dangerous--lack of communication, lack of listening, etc.--as outside factors. Issues are normal...every relationship deals with them. The big thing to remember is that issues need to be talked about in order to find resolution. Not every relationship is meant to last, but good issue resolution can help give relationships their best shot, and can help those relationships that are meant to be to stay healthy and happy.

Now, I don't intend for all of this to imply that I don't think guy-girl friendships can exist and be healthy. I have guy friends, and my husband has friends that are girls. The whole point of my thought-ramble is that these friendships can be more complicated than they first appear, and can endanger a couple's relationship if care is not taken.

Anyways, I was just thinking.