In which I post some very personal views.

[matrixrefugee]

I've been somewhat AWOL from this journal, and for decidedly personal reasons. I'm going to express them here, but first, I feel the need to post a bit of a disclaimer.

The views expressed herein are extremely personal, and of a very sensitive nature, since they are expressed by a very sensitive person. People are free to disagree with them; I only ask for a certain level of respect and politeness toward them. If you feel the need to comment on something therein which displeases you, please stop for a moment and think about what you are planning to say. Please step away from the keyboard, if necessary, and get yourself a glass of iced tea or chocolate milk or your beverage of choice to refresh yourself. One thing that is not allowed here on this LiveJournal, are keyboard smash disagreements. It makes the poster look like an angry gorilla, and it makes me feel like a bad person for upsetting the poster and I start to question if I belong in this world.

Okay, that said...

On the question of gay marriage, I am on the fence. As Papa Midnite puts it in "Constantine", "I am Switzerland". And in my case, it's staying that way. If someone is bashing a married gay couple for being gay and being married, I would defend then as two human beings who have the right to be respected as human beings and treated with dignity and politeness and charity. I may have personal issues with the contract they entered, but I'm not going to tell it to their faces. I veer toward being against gay marriage, partly for religious reasons (though mind you, I'm not going to jump up and down and scream that any married gay couple is going to hell, that it's going to destroy society, blah-blah-blah; I just go with the Church's stance that it's not something that we allow within our belief system and within our rites since we have a strict moral code. Personally, I think Christians are getting waaaaay too political and we need to step back and get more holistically charitable.), but mostly for very personal reasons outside of that.

A few years back, I had this really nice, polite, well-groomed, well-dressed young guy in his late twenties or so (we'll call him Jay -- which is not his real name) who used to come through my lane at work. I'd started chatting with him and even commented on his appearance: "We need to clone you so we'll have more sharp-dressed men in this world", which he found amusing, and even quoted that ZZ Top song "Sharp-Dressed Man". He wasn't over-the-top good looking, but he made up for that in personality and personal maintenance. That and there were no visible rings on certain fingers, other than what I took for a chastity promise ring, which were popular at the time in certain circles. (Sidenote: I think they're a good idea, if a person can commit to it; it isn't the fault of the concept if some people are unable to hold steady with it. It just means the person needs to do a little more soul-searching and a little more growing, but then again, spiritual growth, however one defines it, is a lifetime process and there's going to be some bumps along the way, including the occasional pothole big enough to swallow a person. The problem isn't falling into it, the problem is getting out of it or having trouble getting out. And faulting a person in that situation is Kicking Them When They're Down, which no compassionate person of any belief system should do.).

I'd started to like Jay, and I got to the point when I was going to ask him out for tea or something, when I didn't see him for a week or so (and mind you, I saw him almost every day I worked; I figured he worked in one of the office-technological parks on the Tewksbury/Andover town lines and since he always showed up shortly after five, he was obviously picking up a few groceries before he went home). I started to worry about him, when he showed up again, but he wasn't alone: he was with a somewhat older gent (mid-to-late forties, also very nicely groomed), and I was tempted to ask if he'd brought along his dad to introduce us, when I noticed they were wearing matching wedding-band type rings, and these were not little thin bands: they were thick gold bands with intricate engravings. And I got a vibe of love and tenderness between them, which my senses just couldn't deny. I think I sputtered something to the cashier and excused myself; but I know I came back to myself huddled in a corner of the ladies' washroom, crying my eyes out. I remember wishing, "Why? Why not me? I don't look that feminine, at least till I peel, and even then he could always take me from behind so he doesn't have to look at my girl bits."

That was a few years back, when gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts: I still haven't gotten over Jay and his husband. I don't hate them, but I am deeply hurt and upset. I've pretty much gotten to the point where I stopped looking for someone to marry, but I have my days when I can't help thinking it might be nice to have someone to at least give me some economic stability, and who loves me for my intellect and my personality (Okay, yes, I've discovered that boy bits really give me the creeps and I really don't cotton to the idea of "things going into things", we'll call it.). But then I realize that the playing field got that much narrower, that I've got more to compete with than the busty blondes that most men supposedly like, that the bisexual ones could always opt for their own kind.

I'm also tired of hearing about the gay marriage debate. It's worse than movie hype that Won't Die Down. That and discussing it hits an emotional wound that's taking a long time to heal. This is why I carefully steer clear of debates of any kind on the topic. Any exposure just picks at the edges of that wound and any progress I've made toward healing just seems to get undone.

I'm not telling anyone to not discuss it. I only ask that people are balanced, rational and polite in their engagements. I don't like seeing anyone on either side of the issue get into froth at the mouth levels of anger about it for any reason. I cringe at the name-calling and the pointed-finger accusations that go on: it's childish at best, and at worst, it hurts the speaker's(s') credibility. It's just trigger-inducing for me, and that's why I generally scurry past people's posts on the topic without commenting on them. (If it's something about a couple being discriminated against, I'll pause to say a prayer for everyone involved, but I try not to go beyond reading the headlines, otherwise I get upset; that and some news writers tend to editorialize in ways that start getting triggery.).

I hope I haven't bored people or offended anyone. I know my views are not popular, and I accept that (hey, I'm in a fandom that's anything but popular, and one TV mini-series take on the main canon tends more or less to get routinely trashed by the Keepers of the Main Canon.). If people want to defriend me because of these views, I won't beg them not to: it's their choice and I respect it. I may be hurt by it, but I'd rather that they came to a compromise which they were comfortable with.

EDITED TO ADD: The above statement was in no way meant to imply that GLBT people are in any way, shape, or form, evil or sinful or anything of that nature. Since I'm bisexual myself, I'd have to imply that I'm evil (probably not, though I RP evil :: Laughs::), or a sinner (which I'd be the first to agree to being, and not just in small ways relating to sexuality, however I chose to express it: I could probably cut down on writing/reading slash fanfic, but that's more a venial sin of overdoing it on a good thing than anything else). I mentioned my religious views on the matter as a way to frame my point of reference. It was not intended to imply that Christianity is greater than any other religion, it was meant to show where I'm coming from in the matter. Nor was it meant to imply that moral codes of any one religion should be invoked in framing laws in this country. And if I say that I am overdosed hearing about a certain subject, it means What It Says On The Tin: I'm overdosed hearing about a subject; it is not telling anyone to sit down and shut up.

EDITED AGAIN: Comments have been locked (not disabled: I forgot those words apply to two different functions >.<) to defuse a tense discussion.

Comments

[elaryn.livejournal.com]

Your views are your views. Here, of all places, you have the right to express them. *hugs*

We do not agree on gay marriage, but that's okay. I still love you, and I respect your views and will defend your right to express them. ^_^

[matrixrefugee.livejournal.com]

As I've said elsewhere, in the words of Dean Winchester in the first episode of "Supernatural", "Driver picks the tunes, shotgun shuts their cakehole". And reading this LJ is riding shotgun with a person who may have some strange tunes on the playlist: I may even do the equivalent of trying to sing along with a Kraftwerk instrumental. I'm honored to have you ridin' shotgun with me. :: Smiles::

[veilofveronica.livejournal.com]

Matrix, I applaud and admire you for being able to express yourself so openly and respectfully. This is your journal and your place to discuss whatever you like, and I'm honoured that you allow us "in" to share with you. ((hugs)).

I feel blessed to know you, and it might sound cliched, but if we all thought alike, it would be a dull world indeed.

[matrixrefugee.livejournal.com]

:: Hugs:: It wasn't easy to post this, and I put a lot of thought, concern, worry, planning, praying and weighing of words into it. I hope I was as clear as I could be on the matter, as it's something that, as my mother put it, can be "as clear as mud", especially how a lot of dirt and dust can get tracked into the waters as we all try to muddle our way through to some semblance of resolution.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how anyone could oppose legalizing gay marriage based on religious reasons. Well, actually I do. It's based on the idea that Christianity is somehow more important than any other religion. I'm Wiccan. My religion has no problem with gay marriage. Why should your religion be given more weight than mine? In fact, I could say that my freedom of religion is being impeded by gay marriage not being legal. Of course, that would be crazy, but Christians have said that hate crime laws (which deal with violence not speech) are discriminatory against Christians, so crazier things have been said.

Of course, the most obvious and plainest fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what my religion says, and it doesn't matter what your religion says. It doesn't matter because we (thankfully) don't live in a theocracy where a religion in power gets to force everybody to live according to its dogma. Marriage is a civil and legal right. You go the court house and fill out a form. You file taxes jointly. You live together for a certain amount of time. None of these things has the slightest bit to do with religion. People can get married in church, but they're not any less married if they don't. And no priest would be forced to marry a gay couple in his Church. Because the laws concerning gay marriage only concern civil marriage.

And, um, am I misunderstanding you or do some of your issues with gay marriage come from having a crush on a married gay guy? He would still have been gay even if he and his partner had been denied their civil rights.

[matrixrefugee.livejournal.com]

I am not saying that Christianity is more important than any other religion. It is the faith that I follow and it is my belief system. This is why I choose not to engage in any discussion on the matter, since it tends to devolve into hair-splitting and that can get irritating.

Marriage to me is more than just a civil contract: within the Church it is also a spiritual commitment and a sacrament, which can be ratified only with the right form (ie. the marriage vows and the blessing of the priest/deacon acting as the official witness of the Church) and the right substance (ie. a man and a woman of sound mind who are fully aware of the level of responsibility that married life entails). Beyond that, I am generally not going to say anything about civil unions, etc.; given recent events, I felt the need to get certain matters off my chest that have been sitting there for some time.

My pain resulting from seeing a man I was getting interested in marry another man has nothing to do with civil rights or denying them to anyone. It has to do with a personal wound that is taking a while to heal, and unfortunately, a certain subject just reminds me of said wound, which then starts to hurt again. It may seem like a shallow reason, but for me, the one with that pain, it is a very valid reason to avoid discussing the subject at all, since it makes me feel like I'm even more outnumbered in trying to find a potential mate. I don't ask you or anyone else to agree with me or even affirm my thoughts and feelings on this matter. I only ask for a certain amount of respect and acceptance. I'm not the one on the street corner waving the anti-gay marriage signs, I'm the one quietly praying for a peaceful resolution to this matter and trying not to cry because the subject is so painful to even think about.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

Marriage to me is more than just a civil contract: within the Church it is also a spiritual commitment and a sacrament, which can be ratified only with the right form (ie. the marriage vows and the blessing of the priest/deacon acting as the official witness of the Church) and the right substance (ie. a man and a woman of sound mind who are fully aware of the level of responsibility that married life entails)

That's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with United States law. I really don't care if the Catholic Church thinks I'm an icky sinner and won't let get married in the Church. I want my basic civil and legals rights, which in any country that is not a theocracy should never be affected by anyone's spiritual views. It shouldn't be a part of the issue.

[anivad.livejournal.com]

Sure, a non-theocratic state should not be allowed to pass laws based on religious views, but as long as freedom of religion exists, an individual is entitled to hold certain views that are influenced by their personal religious beliefs.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

But these beliefs should have no bearing on civil law. As I said, I'm Wiccan. Part of the Wiccan Crede that I follow forbids the burning of the elder tree. (Why? Because it the Lady's tree. It makes no less sense than hating gays.) How would I look if I started campaign to make a law against burning elder wood? I'd look stupid and entitled. Because I would be stupid and entitled. The only person who should be affected by my religious beliefs is me. If I try to force that on others, I've started to advocate prejudice.

[anivad.livejournal.com]

Yes, they shouldn't, but nobody is completely free of their own beliefs, religious or otherwise - it's unrealistic to expect so - and these will come into play when voting for civil matters, or when considering what issues matter to them. It's not ideal, but it can't be helped short of letting the people have no say at all.

If you lived in a place with a large Wiccan population, and decided to pass a law against burning elder wood, it probably would become a valid issue and might get passed; because in a democracy, that's just how things work. It's a downside of the system because it basically supports the majority view, and sometimes religion does come unavoidably into play.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

because in a democracy, that's just how things work

Oh my god so much no. That's called the tyranny of the majority. It's not a good thing. Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mills and James Madison wrote on it. In fact, to quote Madison, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

That is not "just how things work" in fact, Judge Walker ruled the way he did on Prop 8 in order to prevent this.

Oh, and just so you know, I would never try to pass a tree burning law, and if one did come to vote, I would vote against it. Because doing otherwise would be a really shitty thing to do.

[luna-glass-wall.livejournal.com]

Let me get this out of the way: I'm a religious studies minor and next year will be going to the New Seminary. I adore the shit out of religion. I have nothing against you as a Catholic, and your religion has no bearing on this reply.

since we have a strict moral code
Wow. Wow, that...that hurts. That really fucking hurt. You know, I've yet to see how Penis + Vagina is in any way more "moral" than any other combination of genitalia in a relationship. Isn't morality more along the lines of giving when you are asked to give, loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, etc? What bearing does genitalia have on a person's moral code? How does the fact that I have a girlfriend make me less "moral" than anyone else? I can accept that heterosexuality is more "normal", or hell, more "conducive to the survival of the species". But I have yet to see how attraction to the same sex makes you more or less "moral".

I still haven't gotten over Jay and his husband. I don't hate them, but I am deeply hurt and upset.
Why? You two had no commitment to each other. He broke no promises, he didn't intentionally string you along. Would you be less hurt if it turned out that he was marrying another woman? Why is his homosexuality the upsetting part?

"Why? Why not me? I don't look that feminine, at least till I peel, and even then he could always take me from behind so he doesn't have to look at my girl bits."
It had nothing to do with you, how you look, or the fact that you would accept anal sex. Here's something I cannot stress enough to heterosexual people: homosexuality is not about you. People are born with their sexual orientation. It is not due to your failure that Jay was not attracted to you. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. You have nothing to resent yourself or Jay for, because none of it was in your or Jay's control. Holding on to this hurt, and especially harping on the fact that he was gay, is irrational and totally unhelpful to anyone. At the risk of sounding callous: so you got burned. It happens to everyone, no matter what their sexual orientation. You grieve for what might have been, and you move on. And I say this as someone who left an emotionally abusive relationship, so I know what it means to be devastated by someone you love.

PS Jay might not be even into anal sex. It's not in The Rules that gay men must love to take it up the butt.

the bisexual ones could always opt for their own kind.
Bisexuality does not work that way. Sexual attraction is not something that can be consciously controlled. A bisexual person can't just say, "My last few relationships with women didn't work out, so I'll only be attracted to men from now on." Bisexuality means you have the capacity to be attracted to men AND women, not that you can choose/i> to be attracted to men OR women, or more pertinently, WHO you can be attracted to.

To sum: Sexual orientation and sexual attraction are out of a person's conscious control. The only thing that can be consciously controlled is sexual behavior.

I'm also tired of hearing about the gay marriage debate.
I'm tired of hearing that we need to shut up and sit down, when we are being trampled on by the government and the public both. You have the privilege of not being affected one way or the other, but I, my sister and her wife, my girlfriend, and many of my friends do not.

Again, at the risk of sounding callous...if we lived 50 years ago, the analogy would be you saying "I'm tired of hearing about the civil rights debate" because you had a crush on a black guy who wasn't into you and because you belonged to one of the churches that said God had cursed black people to slavery. Your hurt that Jay wasn't attracted to you, even the faith you were raised in, CANNOT be the deciding factor in what civil rights you think should be conferred on a whole group of people.

As for the friends list...well, I say it again. This really hurt. Now I know how you feel about me...not because of anything I did, but because of how I was born. I'm not particularly inclined to stay on the flist of someone who'd deem my relationship with my girlfriend "immoral", but I'm going to wait to see your reply to this before I make a decision.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

I love this comment a lot.

[anivad.livejournal.com]

From what I've known of her, I really don't think that matrixrefugee meant to imply in any way that she thinks homosexuality is less moral (going by colloquial definitions of moral) than heterosexuality, because she's always been awesome about GLBT matters; but that according to the Catholic Church, their moral code states that it is, and as a Catholic, she is therefore obliged to follow that moral code. Personal opinion does not always come into play here.

Similarly, adherents to a strict Muslim moral code would say that a woman exposing, say, an ankle is being immoral. And according to their code, it would be. This would say nothing of the people who follow that code because it's their religion. They may personally disagree that it's immoral, but if they want to be Muslim and want to be moral under Muslim standards, they would follow it.

I'm not sure if you get I'm saying here; but basically it's not a personal judgement, and I think a lot of the problem is due to different definitions of the word 'moral', which has a slightly different meaning in a religious context as opposed to a secular context, and it's the religious context being evoked here, where considering something immoral is not the same as personally finding something to be wrong or evil. If I were an ancient Israelite Jew living in Biblical times, eating shellfish would be immoral, and I would agree. This does not mean I think eating shellfish is something that is evil.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

And what of the example that luna_glass_wall brought up, that of civil rights and slavery? Once it was believed that the mark of Cain was in fact black skin, or that Blacks were the descendants of Ham and thus deserved to be slaves. It was a religious belief, argued with all passion that homophobia is argued now. Was that moral too?

[matrixrefugee.livejournal.com]

Might I make a request? Could the three of you please take this discussion to PMs? I really don't like having people arguing on my LiveJournal. It leaves a bad feeling in the air and I feel uncomfortable on my corner of the Internet. I don't ask for much, aside from people being civil to one another, but I feel like it's starting to get a bit hot in here. I'm also disabling comments on this post for that reason.