I attended the “Join the Impact” protest of Proposition 8 at City Hall in the heart of Philadelphia, PA 
on Saturday. Getting there was a snap since I live in South Philly. I made 5 signs the night before and dragged them along on the subway, distributing all but one to the empty-handed once I arrived.
The protest was peaceful. A small police presence was there, but I suspect they were mostly there to keep the flow of traffic. Usually at our local gay events there are “Christian” counter-protesters, but I didn’t see any. City Hall consists of a large building in the center of a block, surrounded by open “public square” type space – benches, trees, stairs, and pavement. This is where we gathered. People came with many different kinds of creative signs. The crowd was diverse and included people of all different races and sexual orientations. Families brought their kids with them, showing the public a side of gay life many in the “pro-family, protect marriage” crowd willfully ignore. Chants included “Gay, straight, black, white – marriage is our equal right!” and “2-4-6-8 Separate the Church and State!” Papers were handed out with lyrics to the chants, and instructions for keeping the protest peaceful and safe:
There are likely to be homophobic counter protesters here today. Please do not engage them; part of their tactics is to antagonize and insult us, and taking their bait puts us all at risk.
After we all gathered at 1:30, we stood and chanted for a bit and waved to the passing traffic. Then the hundreds in attendance literally took to the streets, encircling City Hall in a lane of traffic that seemed to be set aside for the protest. We circled the building a couple of times before settling in the center of the square once again. Many honks of approval came from passing cars.
I took quite a few pictures and shot some video footage, some of which can be seen in this post. For the complete photo album, visit this link.
I thank everybody out there who participated in this historic international event. It was exciting for me to be a part of such history.
Emily:
Thanks for sharing that. The Yes on H8 people thought once 8 passed that we would just go back in the closet and hide. The grand pu-pa of the organization, forget his name, has been quoted saying that we should “get over it” and that it was done in a “democratic way.” But true democracies do not TAKE AWAY rights but rather ACKNOWLEDGE THE ONES ALREADY THERE. If that were not the case, we would all still be singing “G-d Save the Queen.”
What a yes to H8 did was NOT vote whether we have the civil right to marry, what it did was to DENY us the ability to practice a right we already had. And in states like where you are, it is good to see you all realize it too, that you HAVE the CIVIL RIGHT to marry, but perhaps your state government is denying you to exercise that right.
I wish I could have been there. I live in Utah and the actions of the Mormon church have been horrific. Here’s a great website. http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com.
Don’t give up!
I got to attend the demonstration and rally in Colorado Springs, CO with fellow ex-gay survivor Christine Bakke. The up side to all of these recent legal disappointments is that folks are coming out of the closet and coming to their senses in realizing that sadly lots of anti-gay sentiment exists out there.
We cannot afford to be ashamed of ourselves, but need to take it to the next level and not give people permission to treat us shamefully. Walk hand in hand with the one you love. Put that photo of your sweetheart on your desk at work. Really let folks know what you did over the weekend. Stop making it easy to straight folks to ignore us and think we do not exist.
Christine posted photos and reflections from the demonstration over at her site. I share some of my thoughts here.
Ex Gay Watch,
Dr. Michael Brown, who I know many here are well aware of, wrote an article about Prop 8 Saturday while these protests were going on that may be of interest.
Moderated: Self-serving link deleted. If you have a comment, make it. If you want to advertise, you can pay a fee.
Comments, both in agreement and disagreement are always welcome.
Marcus French
Voice of Revolution
Marcus, considering the title puts the word “marriage” in quotes when referencing gay marriage, I doubt that it would be productive for any of us here to discuss an article that in its very title treats my people so hostilely.
Let me make this so easy that even I, hypothetically, could understand it after 2 sleepless nights and a drunken outing:
Sometimes, two people of the U.S. age of consent (above 18 y/o) love eachother and want to their lives.
• They are the age of consent and therefor have the ability to consent
• they are both living and therefor have the ability to consent
• they are both humans, and therefor have the ability to consent
• they are both adults and not children and therefor have the ability to consent
• they are two people; no more and no less and therefor can enter into a two-person contract
Their love grows with the years and they grow closer during times of hardship. Their relationship only blossoms with age, like a fine wine, and so they make a committment in the form of an official union. They consider what they have a marriage, because that is what society calls it when two people in love form a lasting union. Naturally, they want the benefits of what people assign to marriage legally.
The couple is married in a ceremony held by a Unitarian Universalist Church they belong to.
18 years later, they might look something similar to this couple here.
If you paid me to, I couldn’t look in their eyes and say to them, “you are not worth as much as my own family. What you have is a “marriage” and a “family.” Your son is a “son.” Your husband is a “husband.” You both share “love.” but it isn’t real love. You only think it’s love. And it’s not healthy for two guys who are just roommates to raise a kid together. how dare you endanger his life and health.”
Let me also provide an example (thanks to my mom, who is currently an elementary school principal and was an elementary school teacher) of what happens when gay marriage is brought up in a classroom.
Teacher: “class, today we’re going to be talking about different kinds of families. Sometimes a family has a mom and a dad, a son and a daughter, and a dog and a cat. Sometimes a family has a mom and a grandmom and a baby. Sometimes the children are adopted. Sometimes a child has one parent, a mom or a dad. Sometimes they are a blended family with two parents marrying who each have children.”
Danny, Age 7: “Sometimes a family has two daddies, like my family. I have two daddies.”
Teacher: “That’s right, Danny, I’ve met your daddies! Danny’s family has two daddies.”
(maybe this causes someone else to chime in.)
Rachel, age 7 1/2: “My big brother and his wife are living with me and my mommy and daddy and big sister until they buy a house next month!”
And so on.
Note: This is happening today in states like Pennsylvania, a state that is probably no where near legalization of civil unions, let alone same sex marriage.
See, gay people exist. Period. We, exist. And even though many will call it “marriage,” we call it marriage. And as long as we exist and are unafraid to let it be known that we are married to another woman or man, and people witness us and say “hey, they go to PTA meetings and contribute to the Neighborhood Association and participate in Neighborhood Watch. I’ve never seen them try to start an orgy or have sex with their dog or even advocate for those things.” And then “gay” becomes not this abstract sexual deviancy but simply two people who spend their lives loving one another (oh and they happen to be of the same sex.)
Marcus:
I read that article you posted.
First of all, marriage has been tampered with ever since it began. As far as “historic” marriages go, they run the board. The Jewish Scriptures demonstrate a vast variety of marriage types, from one man and one woman to one man and multiple wives. Concubines are a common element in marriage as well in the Jewish Scriptures. And having sex with one’s wife’s servant is considered just in order to have male children (aka Abraham).
As to the “sacredness” of marriage, most Protestant churches when they broke from Rome saw marriage as no more than a civil institution (Luther being one of them) which prompted the Council of Trent to step up to the plate and define marriage for Catholicism. Even then, it had taken the Church a thousand years to even consider marriage one of the seven sacraments, and the main debate was how marriage could confer sanctifying grace and for what purpose. The other six sacraments enjoyed prominence since the church’s begining. Also, Catholicism had always looked at marriage as a “compromise” to following Christ in a full capacity. A “true” follower of Christ would be celebate in the eyes of the Roman Church. Marriage was there for the weak. In most accounts of the first apostles, wives are not even mentioned as if they were never married, and even though St. Peter had a wife, it is assumed he pretty much abandonded her for his “calling.”
As an Orthodox Christian, I could never call marriage “the bedrock of society” because that would make marriage the Golden Calf that is falsely worshiped. The Bedrock of Society” is the people of G-d. Marriage is one means by which society can grow and flourish, but it’s not the cat’s meow. And I could never say that a society’s survival is based soley on whether there is a solid family unit. Prussia was a country that had strong family units, do you see them anywhere on a current map of Europe? You can have the strongest family unit you want, but if your enemy has a larger army and better war equipment … And the Greek and Roman societies live on through law and philosophy and astrology and science. Their knowledge survived while they flourished and still survives in the descendent of those great societies. In fact heteroes have the Romans to thank for marriage in the first place as we based most of our ritual and rites on the Romans rather than on the Hebrews. And the Romans were a society that also had forms of same sex unions.
If these are the requirements, then what about brother/sister marriage? I’ll just go ahead and quote from the article I posted concerning this issue, since it is already written nicely:
I agree that it is the perogative of any organized religion to dictate certain beliefs to their members. Where the Mormon church stepped over the line was when they took their beliefs outside the walls of their church. They organized telephone calling campaigns to non-Mormon homes, went door to door and spread lies (namely that they would be forced to allow gays to marry in their temples and that mothers giving up their child for adoption would be forced to let gay parents adopt them.) They did this to ensure Prop 8 passed. They asked each congregation to assign 30-40 people who could donate 4 or more hours a week to “get the message out there.” You can see the full transcript of their video message on Wikipedia. It’s disgusting, hateful and full of half truths and outright lies.
I’m not Christian and find it abhorrent that any group feels I should be forced to live by a Christian moral code.
Alan,
Interesting how this “vast variety” was comprised entirely of unions between male and female. The whole polygamy question is a different topic altogether, I think. It’s interesting how in my interaction with homosexual activists on this subject, they seem to think that the core principal of marriage is not male/female union, but that there be only 2 people involved. Polygamy has much more of a historical precedent than same sex marriage does, perhaps the core is not that there be 2 people, but that it involve male/female union. (I’m not for polygamy or anything, but I’m just trying to prove a logical point).
He wasn’t talking about it being the bedrock of the Church, he was talking about it being the bedrock of society in general.
Could you let me know more about this? I’m very interested in hearing about what these unions were, and how the state recognized them.
Marcus French:
In response to your argument about a German couple that are brother and sister, you are first of all talking about a country that allows for domestic partnership of gays, so obviouslty for Germany this is not about civil rights but rather about biological issues. Marriage is about uniting two people who have no other ties to each other but who wish to be united in an official capacity. The couple mentioned are already united in an official capacity by means of being immediate blood relatives so their relationship differs from that of a martial setting. They are officially united by means of having the same biological father and mother. Although I cannot speak for the country of Germany, I am sure that they would consider their bond of common parental units overrides a marital bond.
What does “brother-sister” marriage have to do with same sex marriage? “brother-sister” marriage sounds like a heterosexual issue to me. And since all the criteria I mention apply to all adult couples of any kind, it doesn’t seem like there should be any objection legally to it. I don’t know whether or not incest between consenting adults is legal. But I do know that some of history’s greats have married first cousins (mostly to keep the money in the family).
Arguing about “brother-sister” marriage is a straw-man. It doesn’t have anything to do with me marrying another woman or Alan S marrying a man, since I know of nobody that is publicly advocating for incest rights.
There were also marriage between men, at least among the Romans, as this practice was outlawed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)
Here are some sources for you:
T., L.. “Same sex marriage in the non-European world”. Color Q World. Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
Bullough. Sexual Variance, 325-329.
Tulchin, Allan (September 2007). “Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement”. Journal of Modern History, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-acu082307.php. Retrieved on 7 August 2007.
https://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/dallas.html
I’ll never understand what people mean by one-man-one-woman marriage being “Biblical Marriage.” Jews agreed polygamous marriage was totally acceptable for thousands of years. It says so in the Bible. The Oral Torah has commentary condoning and regulating it. Probably one of the reasons that Torah Law never condemns female same-sex acts is because then it would complicate things when a husband would have sex with his multiple wives at once.
Marcus French:
I understood what he said, and I am saying it is false, at least from my perspective. Societies are based on their military strength, their economy, and their education. But as an Orthodox Christian I see a utopia where society is based on the people of G-d, doing what G-d has asked for us to do which would completely eliminate army and wealth, but keep education. But I live in the real world so I know society is based on military, economy, and education.
If society was based on marriage, then instead of hearing the latest news from Iraq, or the current economic crisis, the news media would be flooded with the latest divorce rates or the latest infidelity statistics. People would be more worried about the fate of marriage than what’s happening on Wall Street or the war on terrorism or student test scores.
Read any history book and the LAST thing you’ll read about is marriage.
Emily:
Modern Christians take the words of Christ who said, “Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” (The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 19:4-6)
But polygamy was practiced in the Church throughout its history:
Valentinian I – Roman Emperor of the 4th Century
https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wcs/wcs09.htm
Charlemagne, the eighth century King of the Franks had at least 6 wives (same reference as above).
Many Protestant Reformers practiced polygamy:
Bernhard Rothmann, or Bernard Rothmann, an early 16th century Anabaptist Reformer of the city of Münster took 9 wives.
Martin Luther wrote: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)
Peterson
When telemarketers or others call asking for Mr or Mrs “Smith”, I now explain to them that I do not appreciate their presumption that I am straight.
Marcus French
Rubbish, this is simply another lie put forth by the Religious Right – it seems there’s never a shortage of their lies. Any cultural anthropologist can tell you that same-sex marriages have existed in cultures throughout the world, throughout known history. In fact, the American Anthropological Association came down hard on Focus on the Family this past year when it made the argument that anthropologists support the so-called “traditional definition of marriage”. The anthropological evidence overwhelmingly shows that marriages and families are extremely varied, and have included same-sex ones on every habitable continent.
Emily you and I think very much alike…there is NO such thing as a “biblical position” on marriage. Love is supposed to be that which matters the most and the people interested in getting married should ask themselves if by doing so, they would be loving each other. If the answer is yes, then IMHO God says go for it. The one-man-one-woman position is another example of ignorant fundamentalists’ revisionist history. It has not always been like this and will not always be like this.
Alan S – Thanks for the sources, I wanted to do some reading on this!
Marcus French said:
Yes, and your mentor used the same Red Herring here months ago. Perhaps you should come up with some new hypotheticals.
I see no reason to improve upon what Timothy Kincaid said in reply then:
Same old flawed argument, same response. If there is nothing new on your end, I don’t see any reason to waste time with new answers for you.
thing is, I knew about that brother/sister in germany or wherever and thought about posting a “requirement” that said “both people are not related.” But I didn’t post this because 1) brother/sister is heterosexual, not homosexual 2) Even most anti-gays don’t ask about this point so I figured it was a “duh” point to make.
Seriously – do people really think I want to screw my cat and marry my brother?
News flash: gay people are attracted to other same/similar age people of the same sex. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.
Emily:
Again I wanted to thank you for sharing what you guys and gals did up in Phily. My relationship is a binational one so even if Prop 8 had been defeated it would not have had a direct impact on my life, but the many couples that attend my church have been through a lot. They are totally in limbo and now face the possibility of having their marriages null and void. It’s been real hard for them to hold their heads up and one couple told me that it was hard for them to explain to their children what Prop 8’s passing meant.
The Yesers on Prop 8 claimed to have “protecting children” as their battle cry, but they neglected the thousands of children who are being brought up in loving and caring families who have two moms or two dads. The BS that the ideal environment is for a child to be brought up in a one man one woman environment is one of the most idiotic statements of the century. I was brought up by a mom and a dad AND a grandmother and a grandfather AND aunts and uncles and cousins, AND neighbors AND teachers AND priests and nuns, etc. Gay parents also provide their children the opportunity to have others share in their children’s growth and development. And the fact that many of these kids have been adopted and put into stable and loving homes is a testimony unto itself.
I know most of the families and kids at the church I attend and the kids are so full of life and energy, and its sad to know that one day some self-righteous bigot is going to tell their kids to tell the kids of gay parents some aweful and bitter things and try to make those children feel different and insecure.
One thing as an Orthodox Christian I firmly believe is that the Church is constantly being tested to see if she truly holds true to her founder’s teachings. While there are some Christian communities that have listened and followed through with Christ’s message of “doing unto others,” that majoirty of the Christian community has failed the test miserably. What Prop 8 has done is to show each religious affiliation its true colors. Does it value souls or institutions? So far the score is INSTITUTIONS 1 SOULS 0.
correction:
that majoirty of the Christian community has failed the test miserably
should read: the majority of the Christian community has failed the test miserably.
**Alan, you say you’re an orthodox Christian, do mean with the Eastern Orthodox church? I’m sort of new here and I’m not sure who’s with who so to speak, but if you are Eastern Orthodox I would love to talk to you as I have been reading their writings a bit as I try to rediscover my faith in light of leaving conservative christianity after they betrayed me when I came out as gay. You make a lot of great points, hope to chat sometime.
Ya, I found a good place, after leaving the Conservative Christian Church in an Anglican Church. More mainstream in Canada.
Conservatives Christians, most certainly are not the most compassionate or loving sect of the Christian Church that is for sure.
It’s remarkable you did not loose faith Tom… that you are still exploring and growing.
Good for you.
Hi Tom:
No, I am not Orthodox in the sense of Eastern Orthodox, but my partner is. Orthodox Catholic is another label for “Old Catholics.” We basically follow the same faith of the Roman Church in some aspects, in others we follow the Eastern Orthodox theology, and in some cases we are more in line with the Church of England (which is why I attend an Episcopal Church right now).
In matters of discipline, administration and procedure, Old Catholics differ from the Roman Community. For example, clerical celibacy is optional. At the discretion of the local bishop, sex and orientations are disregarded in selection of clergy. The local bishop determines liturgical expression. Consequently, Old Catholic Communities use a variety of formulae for the sacraments — all within acceptable patterns. Because of the small size of Old Catholic Communities they are better able to use the Ignatian model (previously mentioned) of organization. This concept views the membership with clergy and bishop as a community or family united in concern and support for each other.
There are other distinctions in which Old Catholic Communities differ from Roman Catholic parishes. The matter of Papal Infallibility is a non-issue for Old Catholics because they are independent of Papal jurisdiction. Old Catholic Communities extend to the Holy Father the respect and honor due him as the first among equals. Old Catholics adhere to the traditional opinion that only the whole Church in General Council is infallible. On the matter of divorce, Old Catholics may do so and remarry in the Church. The issue of contraception is a personal matter between spouses. The Community, usually, being inclusive by nature, regards such matters as sexual orientation, ethnicity or politics as non-issues; all are treated equally and equally welcome. Old Catholic theology recognizes that the Church’s teaching magisterium has two objectives: the formation of conscience, in which authority has an instructional quality; and the nurturing of a formed conscience to full maturity, in which case authority is guiding but not dogmatic nor dictatorial.
Emily…if my last post is off topic and needs to be deleted it’s ok by me. I don’t mean to change the subject at hand. 🙂 Alan S
This is to Marcus,
What your example of the brother/sister situation points to all those heterosexuals who AREN’T keeping their own children or nuclear families intact.
This is the risk they run of abandoning their own, without the knowledge to the adoptive parents or children regarding their origins.
This union was ACCIDENTAL, and a cautionary tale regarding how careful heterosexuals MUST be about where they spread their seeds.
Having said that, incest, nor polygamy has nothing to do with BEING GAY.
Gay people form sexual and romantic bonds with OTHER GAY PEOPLE.
This is a matter of two adults marrying SOMEONE who SHARES their same attributes. This is a matter of matching two people who are alike.
We know the outcomes of mismating gay to straight is unworkable and usually disastrous.
This is why it’s best to allow gay people who are most compatible to each other, to marry.
And as pointed out, marriage is specifically about PRIMARY KINSHIP being formed from the non related.
When a person is already primary kin, or already married….multiple spouses or incest is an issue of REDUNDANCY, not primacy in the relationship in the first place.
To say nothing of the precedent in history that multiple spouses tends to occur WITHOUT consent and is an abusive situation.
It’s getting old having to answer that question over and over and over and over again.
Take the answer and NEVER ask such a question again, or put it out there as if that’s not the truth of the matter and that question is unanswerable.
We know the point of bringing it up. It’s to use fear and the unsupported ASSUMPTION that marriage between to gay adults MUST ALSO support whatever creative unions are dreamed up.
YOU answer this: why should anyone be forced into either being alone, or being with who they are NOT compatible with?
Would YOU accept that?
Then why shouldn’t a gay person be with another gay person?
Even the deaf can marry the deaf…or not.
Or a criminal can marry a free person.
This is about the affirming support marriage itself brings to individuals, that even a murderer in prison has the choice for such a thing.
There is no rational reason why gay people cannot have the same option ALL things considered.
And all things HAVE been considered.
And making up crazy scenarios to make a point or muddle the discussion isn’t proof, evidence or facts.
It’s imagination run amok.
And not something supportable when discussing gay people who ARE agreeing to every rule and regulation that straight couples agree to.
What gay people don’t agree to, is the opposition making up new rules as they go along.
Like marriage ONLY being about children or procreation.
The courts know that it’s illegal and unConstitutional to ban couples from marrying who can’t or won’t have children. Everyone knows that….except the opposition when they are trying to make an INVALID point.
Now, do you understand?
It might be nice if you didn’t insult the intelligence of the folks here.
And gay folks shouldn’t have to explain those nutty scenarios when their goal is quite clear.
Emily,
I was at the Philadelphia protest too! I live in the Fairmount section, so I just walked in to town. I was stunned and thrilled by the turnout! Just never expected anything close to that. How many people do you think were there? I’m thinking between 2,000 and 3,000. Your video captured it all very well.
Regarding the move from Dilworth Plaza to the street: I was near the beginning point, and the way it looked to me was that a police vehicle drove up to lead the street march while other police on foot motioned for us come into the street and follow the vehicle around City Hall. I was moved that the police did that.
There was one thing I thought was odd: After the march around City Hall, most of the crowd gathered at the center of the plaza, so it seemed we were just showing our signs and chanting to each other. We would have been more visible at the perimeter of the plaza, like we were before the street march. Just a small quibble.
I saw that Michael Marcavage and two fellow loonies from Repent America were there, one of them with a bullhorn. For awhile there was a sizable crowd around them chanting to drown them out. Marcavage was grinning ear to ear enjoying all the attention. (For the benefit of others, Marcavage is our local and younger version of that nut, James Hartline, in San Diego)
This event, along with all the other protests across the U.S. (and elswhere) on Saturday, really felt like a major historic awakening. I hope so. It was a wonderful day.
Yeah I was wondering if Michael was there, but I didn’t see him. He’s like the resident Christian Crazy. If anybody protests the gays, it’s him. But that’s it. There were a couple thousand there so I’m not surprised that I didn’t notice it. I had to leave right after the march was through so I guess that got there late. But still, that was at about 2:30 so it took them about an hour. tsk tsk…
My wife and I participated in NYC. For us, the best part was that a couple of friends of ours, a female couple in their late 70s, split a cab with us. They are grandmothers and have been together over 40 years. People were so excited to see them! They got quite tired of talking about themselves, but they both saw something they never thought they’d see when they were our age and demonstrated what a long-term same-sex relationship looks like.
When they were our age, they were married to men they didn’t care for because that’s what women did then. Do anti-gay straight people actually want to go back to those days? Do they want closeted gay or lesbian people to try faking it until they make it again…with them or their brother or their son? I don’t get it.
Jayelle said:
The issue you raised should be discussed much more in the equality debate. I think it is one of most compelling arguments we have. Those days of “faking it” still have not gone away. I could tell many stories of people who have faked it in the past. And I know of many (probably more) who are still faking it today. Only the full social acceptance of gays will put an end to faking it.
A common anti-gay talking point is that we already have equal marriage rights in that we can marry a person of the opposite sex. What those people are really saying is that they loath gays so much that they would rather see heterosexuals deceived into marrying a gay person. And these are the people who are protecting marriage!
I would say to them: “I’m a gay man. Would you prefer me to marry my boyfriend or your daughter?”
I just ran across this site while looking for information on left-handedness and homosexuality, after an interesting conversation on that subject with a gay friend of mine. Af first I wasn’t sure if it was a support group for people wishing to convert to heterosexuality, or for people who had had experience of such a conversion and wanted none of it.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I was amazed to learn that there are schools of professional therapy that evidently attempt to change one’s sexual orientation to conform to religious standards of some kind. One immediately hypothesizes some kind of counterpart, e.g., a movement for the redemption of heterosexuals, aimed at the person saying: “Ever since adolescence, I’ve had powerful feelings of attraction to the opposite sex! Why can’t I be like other people? Is there no help for me?” Sometimes turning things around like this can provide a sense of perspective, and an understanding that the essence of democracy lies in preventing a tyrannous majority from imposing its viewpoint on everyone else.
Have you ever asked this question and got an answer to it? I’d be interested to know.
Some time ago, in the wake of the publication of Jones and Yarhouse’s book Ex-gays?, someone posted on the message board of an evangelical website – I can’t now remember which one – the question, “If it works, I mean really works, how do you feel about a gay man marrying your own daughter?”
One man replied that he wasn’t sure that this was a fair question; he didn’t explain why. The others simply dodged the question altogether.
William, no, I haven’t actually asked anyone the question. If I ever do, I think it would need to prefaced with some educational statements. I don’t think the general public has any knowledge of how common it has been for predominately homosexual people to marry an opposite-sex partner. I haven’t seen any hard data, but based upon personal acquaintances, and others I hear about from friends, the number is certainly large enough whereby the general public would be stunned. I have some male friends who tell me that virtually all of their sexual partners are currently married men.
If/when I participate in another protest I was thinking of making a sign to say:
But it would probably go over the heads of the general public.
Richard, what they might honestly be more concerned about is that your boyfriend is (or could be) their son.
If you married their daughter, and “did right by her,” by being faithful, providing a safe home for her and your children, I honestly don’t think too many of these parents are going to care that you aren’t sexually attracted to your wife/their daughter. Just so long as any sex that you *do* have occurs with her in the appropriate procreative way. She can be the proper Christian wife/mother fulfilling her proper Christian duty.
This is one of the many topics my partner and I touched on these last few months, with the whole infuriating Prop 8 “What about the children?” spiel. (Yeah! What about our 2 daughters and their 2 daddies!) And, what we decided they actually would rather is that we would all just vanish from the face of the Earth.
Les GS, heterosexist parents might very well be concerned if Richard’s boyfriend were or could be their son, but I very much doubt your suggestion that few would care if he married their daughter without being sexually attracted to her – assuming, of course, that they knew the facts.
I don’t believe that my sister or any of my brothers would be indifferent if one of their daughters announced that she was going to marry a gay or ex-gay man; indeed, I am sure that they would make great efforts to dissuade her from taking such a step, no matter how sincerely he promised and intended to do the right thing by her.
I’m being cynical here, I know, but I really think that many parents would feel that it’s perfectly O.K. for a gay/ex-gay man to marry a woman to whom he’s not sexually attracted, in order to conform to the heterosexual “norm”, provided that it’s someone else’s daughter that he’s marrying.
Yes, Les GS, I agree that heterosexist parents might well be concerned if Richard’s boyfriend (or any other guy’s boyfriend) were or could be their son.
I doubt very much, however, your suggestion that many parents are likely to be unconcerned about their daughter marrying a man who wasn’t sexually attracted to her – assuming that they knew that he wasn’t. I’m quite sure that my sister or any of my brothers, for example, would be extremely concerned if one of their daughters announced that she was going to marry a gay or ex-gay man; in fact they would certainly do everything they could to dissuade her from taking such a step – no matter how sincerely he promised and intended to do the right thing by her.
I’m being cynical, I know, but I think that many fundamentalists who proclaim their belief in the ex-gay process would regard it as being perfectly acceptable for a gay/ex-gay man to marry a woman for whom he felt no sexual attraction, in order to conform to the heterosexual “norm”, provided that it was someone else’s daughter that he was marrying.
Les GS: You are right that “they would rather you would all just vanish from the face of the earth.”