There is an article by Steve Satterwhite in the Texas Observer allowing “some of the more vociferous amendment proponents” a chance to put in their own word the reasons they are supporting an amendment to the Texas state constitution that would limit marriage to a man and woman. Not surprisingly, their objections to gay marriage were primarily objections to homosexuality and had nothing to do with marriage, sanctity, or really anything other than anti-gay bias.
As you read this you realize that these people are sincere and (though it’s hard to fathom) they believe what they say.
Mary Ann Markarian shared these “facts” with the reporter:
Ninety-two percent of all gay males engage in rimming, the process of licking the rim of the anus and ingesting various amounts of fecal matter. Forty-seven percent of all males engage in fisting, the act of placing their fist in their partner’s rectum for sexual pleasure. Twenty-nine percent of all homosexual males engage in golden showers—the practice of lying on the floor, typically nude, and allowing their partner to urinate on them.
as well as:
The median age of homosexual men dying with AIDS is thirty-nine years old; that’s wrong, not natural. The median age of all other homosexual men dying from other causes is forty-two. Do you consider forty-two young? I consider it extremely young since I’m one year away from it. The median age of death for lesbians is forty-five years old—of lesbians. That compares to seventy-five years old for heterosexual men and seventy-nine for heterosexual women. Only one percent of homosexuals die of old age; only three percent ever live to age fifty-five.
Mary Ann actually has memorized all of these lovely figures provided by Paul Cameron. The fact that they have no relationship to the truth whatsoever doesn’t stop her from repeating them with confidence.
Alan Ward had this to share about ex-gays:
We had a homosexual in my family, a young man. During high school, he learned to be gay; he wasn’t before that. Was that different for my family? You bet it was, because we are a family of heterosexuals who really believe in being heterosexual. About two years ago, that young man learned not to be homosexual, and he has a girlfriend now. Right in the midst of all this social controversy, he learned to be gay, and then he learned not to be. I’ve seen him changed, and I’ve seen two or three or four changed.
I was initially really amused by the concept of a family “that really believes in being heterosexual”. Then I realized what he was saying – and had amazing pity for the poor gay kid in this family. In the same family, I’m sure I would “learn not to be homosexual” and would “have a girlfriend now”. I like my teeth where they are.
As for using the government to control the private sex lives of people, Alan had this to say:
Logically, [policing sexual behavior] is out of the reach of the government, but I’m not saying that I believe it should be. There is not enough manpower—not enough people working for the government—to go into every home of every professing homosexual to put eyes on them and watch to see that they do not commit homosexual acts. That’s not possible. There is not enough manpower.
Yes, his sole objection to a scenario best described in Orwell’s 1984 is a lack of manpower. It never occurs to Alan that he would be shocked and horrified if anyone proposed going into his home and putting eyes on him and watching what he did.
Without irony, Alan then proclaims:
Sarah and I can both say with a clear conscience, “We do not hate the [gay] person.” We are against the lifestyle, not the person.
In thinking about this statement it occurred to me that those like the ones interviewed for this article have created for themselves a definition of “person” that is entirely divorced from any aspect of the person. Any activism against gay rights or equality or freedom or even existence doesn’t impact “people”, in their mind, only lifestyles.
They are the sort who could take away your employment, your health insurance, your right to visit whom you love in the hospital, your right to private sexual expression, or even take your life without any “people” being harmed. No, it’s the lifestyle, you see.
It doesn’t matter that a person is now unemployed, sick, penniless, imprisoned, or dead to them. That would just be further evidence of the “dangerous lifestyle”.
It’s sadly similar to a man whose wife “makes him” beat her.