My younger brother is gay. Gay as laughter. Gay as the day is long. One of the finest moments in my life, and one of the greatest compliments anyone has ever paid me, was the day he felt safe to come out to me. He’s in his mid-30s now, but he’ll always be my little brother. And man, I love that kid. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. And he just married a phenomenal man.
I was always predisposed to like his husband because, y’know, he’s my brother’s partner and therefore has automatic status in my heart. The wonderful bonus is that I really like him. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. He’s a cool dude to hang out with. He also stood by my brother like a rock when my brother had a life-threatening cancer that cost him his left eye.
They married in May. It was a wonderful ceremony in which I was honored to stand by my brother, supporting him in his vows. My eyes teared up like they always do at weddings. I had the joy of watching two people commit to a lifetime together. It filled my heart.
Folks started posting photos from the wedding on Facebook, and I proudly reposted photos of the ceremony (with me looking awesome in my new suit, of course). Shortly after that, I received this message from a FB friend:
“Hey David, I am removing you from my friends list…sorry man, that latest post is way over the top! Homosexuals joining in “Holy” matrimony…I don’t think so??? The Holy Bible speaks out against homosexuality and speaks highly of Holy matrimony between a man and a woman. It’s nothing more than a slap in the face to those who choose God’s Word, for homosexuals to join in a Holy marriage. I’m only defriending you so I don’t have to look at your anti-God stuff anymore…nothing personal!”
Wow.
This came from a man I used to work with. A man I respect in his dedication to his family, and in his desire to live a moral and ethical life. A man with whom I have had some very interesting religious debates. He has become a Baptist preacher since we last spoke in person, and I suppose that makes this message unsurprising.
But, I was still surprised. I was taken aback. I needed a moment. I was hurt.
I was inclined to hurl some expletives in his direction.
But, only for a moment. He’s not really that important of a person in my life. I had actually at times grown rather tired of his Facebook postings…I don’t have a great need for fundamentalist dogma in my day. So, on some level, good riddance.
I sent him a letter at his church, expressing my disappointment in his withdrawal. I had a few friends read the letter before I sent it, to make sure that it didn’t contain too much bile. I’m not surprised that I haven’t heard back from him.
The situation got me thinking: What if this hadn’t been about my brother’s wedding, but about MY wedding? What if it hadn’t been from a distant friend, but from a beloved family member?
Ouch.
How many millions of gay kids (and adults) have had that exact thing happen to them? How many millions more will in the future?
I’m sorry.
I’m sorry for that pain. I’m sorry for that rejection. I’m sorry for that isolation.
I’m straight. Straight as a yardstick. Straight as an arrow. I am in your corner. If I could take on that pain for you, I would.
I love you.
If you’re gay, I think that’s wonderful, and I’m truly happy for you. I wish you all the love and joy in the world.
If you’re straight, I think that’s wonderful, and I’m truly happy for you. I wish you all the love and joy in the world. And I charge you, I charge you to imagine the above scenario played out with YOU as the target of rejection. Imagine the people closest to you telling you, essentially, “You are fundamentally flawed and I want nothing to do with you.” Our LGBTQ brothers and sisters face this everyday. Please don’t forget that.
The poor, misguided soul is no longer in my life. That’s okay. My brother and his husband still are. I just hung out with my brother a few weeks ago, and it was a blast. He’s brilliant, he’s funny, and he’s kind. I couldn’t be prouder to call him my brother. I love him, and love wins, period.
Don’t forget to “Like” us on Facebook here.
Image by Ono Kono.
allydavidstevens
apeene
blazingbeau
guestposting600
kzottarelli
Ono Kono
robw77
thomsense
evoL = 
I actually had been exploring for creative concepts for my
weblog and came across your post, “Defriended Over a Wedding, a Straight Man Gains Perspective | evoL =”, do
you mind if perhaps I personally work with a few of your own points?
Thx -Gracie
Have at it! I’d love to see what you come up with.
-Dave
Pingback: Homophobia in the Social Media Age: Defriended Over a Same-Sex Wedding | John M. Becker
good riddance of that close-minded bigot (coming from a fellow straight as an arrow who loves his sister-in-law and her girlfriend and hopes that one day she is able to marry the woman she loves if she so chooses)
Reblogged this on thismockingbird.
Apparently same-sex couples don’t “pro-create” in an acceptable fashion according to MaryLS. Seems the evidence shows otherwise, and they are actually doing a good job of it.
—
Following on from the last new story, here is some further information on that study showing that kids from Lesbian parented families are doing just fine (if not better)!!
Teens with lesbian mothers are academically successful and happy with their lives. The 17-year-olds participating in the longest-running study of lesbian families had high school GPAs in the A- to B+ range, and nearly all planned to attend four-year colleges. These adolescents had strong family bonds, and they were nearly unanimous in describing their mothers as good role models. They also reported having numerous close friends—generally with same-age peers who were predominantly heterosexual. Most of the teens felt comfortable bringing friends home, informing friends about their mothers’ lesbianism and confiding in their mothers.
The teenagers were asked a series of questions about their everyday life experiences including academics, extracurricular activities, aspirations, friendships, family interactions, role models, health problems and wellbeing. Notably, almost all of the 78 adolescents described their mothers as good role models. Prior studies on the same group of teenagers found that they demonstrated more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than an age-matched normative sample of American youth; although some adolescents with lesbian mothers had experienced homophobic stigmatization, family closeness helped counteract its negative effects.
The 78 adolescents in the current report were drawn from families that are participating in the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the United States. Initiated by Dr. Gartrell in 1986, the NLLFS examines the social, psychological and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families.
The current study appears in the current issue of the Journal of Homosexuality.
Click here for the full report: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/nllfs-adolescents-with-lesbian-mothers-2012.pdf
Click here for the press release: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/teens-with-lesbian-mothers-are-academically-successful-and-happy-with-their-lives/
Original Article: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/adolescents-with-lesbian-mothers-describe-their-own-lives/
—
Bad news for those who believe homosexual parents can negatively affect their children: a study of 17-year-olds who were raised by lesbian mothers found that they did well in school, with grades ranging from A- to B+, and were overall happier with their lives.
The study, lead by Nanette Gartrell at the Williams Institute of UCLA, titled “Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives,” has been a 26-year-long process. Gartrell and her team studied 78 participants and just recently published their results in the Journal of Homosexuality.
Not only did the teenagers report having good relationships with their mothers, but they also shared with the researchers their strong relationships with other friends. Many reported feeling comfortable talking about their lesbian mothers, whom many considered their “role models.” In addition to their great grades, many planned to attend four-year colleges.
Gartrell added, “As a psychiatrist, I can say that these are the types of child-rearing outcomes that every parent hopes for.”
Original Article: http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-11-07/children-of-lesbian-mothers-have-higher-grades-and-happier-lives/
Marriage is just a contract. Some keep it, some break it, and some have arrangements that allow flexibility. There is no “sanctity” to marriage. It may be for pro-creation, because of pro-creation, or simply the absence of pro-creation. There are no rules.
Now, to see just how precious marriage really is, let’s look at the delightful news embarrassing the USA at the moment in the eyes of the world. It couldn’t have come at a better time, especially when Hilary is trotting her way around my home country. Bless her cotton socks.
Petraeus hoped affair would stay secret and he could keep his job as CIA director.
Priceless really.
“There is no “sanctity” to marriage.” Not anymore. That is why those of us who felt marriage did have an important social purpose do not support gay marriage. Your observation that “There are no rules.” simply confirms that marriage is on its way to becoming meaningless. There I anticipate negative social consequences.
Of course, if you wanted to help give marriage some of it’s lost meaning you could support allowing same-sex couples to get married. We show commitment, loyalty, responsibility, effective parenting and so much more. Mostly the values you hold dear. But you could uphold your bigotry and make our lives so much more difficult. Oh, I forgot, you should check the rates of youth suicide associated with intolerance of homosexuality. I suppose you have a few spare children to sacrifice to the cause.
What nonsense. There is certainly sanctity in my marriage. In fact, the only thing unholy about it was how bigots used it as a stick to beat innocent gays with; how bigots made me, *against my wishes*, into part of the oppressor class, by refusing to allow gays their equal right to marry the people they love. As someone who feels that marriage should always be sanctified, my anger & condemnation goes to people like Britney Spears & Jason Alexander, and their 55 HOUR marriage. To whichever Kardashian it was who got married solely to get a multimillion dollar gift-laden spectacle paid for by a television company. Those are the sorts of classless clowns who are destroying the institution of marriage – if it actually can be destroyed. Marriage is what we make of it, &, let’s face it, straights are just as disgusting as some insists gays are!
I smell troll.
That’s utter nonsense. Marriage between a post-menopausal woman and a man will never allow for pro-creation. And you know it.
Once again — it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate heterosexual couples who do not wish or cannot procreate. There is also the ambiguity around exactly when a woman is “post-menopausal” and the fact that to undo marriage for post menopausal women would then require the extra step of divorce. Maybe post-menopausal women should get extra credit if they have already procreated. (I am being facetious here.) All in all, having a special category for post-menopausal is more trouble than it is worth. BUT — if pressed, because I do believe marriage as an institution is integrally related to procreation, I would even be o.k. with ending marriages after — 55?? 60??, if it would make gays feel better. After that you could have people choose to stay together in a civil union arrangement — or not.
MaryLS.. So post menopausal women can have their marriages ‘adjusted’ down to civil unions.. because they don’t fit the “definition” of marriage. So in other words you are requiring a re-definition of marriage to EXCLUDE others just to avoid including folk who don’t affect you, or the definition of marriage (you may want to check but I’m sure there isn’t a definition out there anywhere that requires procreation to validate marriage.. just your tiny mind).. and that re-definition is ok with you. What a small, small world you live in.
The term “marriage” does not need to be redefined to “exclude” gay relationships — but it does have to be redefined to include them. That is what I disagree with. There simply is no need to redefine in order to accommodate non-procreating heterosexuals, so I do not see a problem with the status quo. Marriage remains a bonding for purposes of procreation and our archetypal notion of a family continues to include a mother and a father. But redefinition is required to accommodate gay marriage. I know a woman (85 or so) and she has a new partner. They did not choose to have a marriage per se, but rather a “blessing” bestowed on their relationship. That seemed very appropriate to me. There are many options available for couples who choose to bond, but marriage should remain a social institution with a meaningful social purpose.
This reply is not only to MaryLS, but also others who have been commenting. Mary reminds me of other people who lament the changes in language. Words used to me one thing, or were limited in ways they no longer are in a living language. You wants to hold onto your definition of marriage, you is entitled to do that. Why do people care if it is called marriage or civil union? People and society recognize marriage as a serious commitment (despite the evidence to the contrary!) and do not other arrangements. I am ‘Unionized’ does not mean the same as I am married. One day that may change, but not yet. Frankly, I believe that couples, straight or Gay, should have recognized alternatives to one-size-fits-all marriages for life. Religions can recognize what they choose. Perhaps if we had time limited contract marriages, or something with less theoretical commitment than for life, there would be less divorce. Children’s need for stability and committed parent figures will always be important however the legal and social commitments are formulated, and regardless of the sexuality of the parent figures. For Gay couples wanting children, that is one of the prime motivations, but not the only one.
“Words used to me one thing, or were limited in ways they no longer are in a living language”
This is not about the natural evolution of a language, this is about deliberately altering the language to fit a social agenda. In my view, if you change the word “marriage”, you change the institution in a fundamental way. If you have always thought about marriage as just a committment between two people and nothing more, then the concept of gay marriage does not intrude on that understanding, but if one’s understanding of marriage is a to undertake a partnership to beget and raise children, then gay marriage cannot be accomodated without destroying that concept. I know that several people have talked about gay partners raising children — but children in these cases are not begotten through that relationship — and most gay couples do not “marry” to have children. You might not say “I am unionized”, but you could easily say “I am in a committed relationship,” and that concept is easily understood. Surely how a couple feel about one another is what is central here.
Mary,
You are right. Gay Marriage will challenge and redefine YOUR idea of marriage. It’s clear that that is really hard for you. I’m sorry, I hope that you can adjust. We’ll try to be gentle and kind.
Peace!
You are amazingly kind & patient.
MaryLS says:
See, that’s the beauty of difference of opinion. You’re entitled to your view. However, under civil law, say in Australia, the Marriage Act (1961) makes NO mention of children, or procreation, or god, or leprechauns, or fairy floss.
It’s slightly disappointing that you feel the way you do about marriage, procreation, and the raising of children because I know an increasing number of gay and lesbian couples who have the most beautiful families, with perfectly adorable, well-behaved, normal children who could equal any children raised in a happy heterosexual household. In fact I’d challenge you to tell the difference if you put the kids in the same room away from their parents.
So whilst you and those who share your outlook on marriage and procreation may feel that same-sex parents are a problem and should not be allowed to get married or raise children, or some other mind-numbing dross like that, the reality is that there are plenty of positive same-sex role model parents who could actually benefit from the increased stability that marriage offers, but which you wish to deny them.
Then there are those horrible homosexuals like me who are not planning to start a family at the age of 43, but wish to get married because there’s no good reason why we shouldn’t. It’s not like my 49 year old partner is going to want to start a new family now given that he has an 18 year old son and 20 year old daughter (and we all live together).
To be honest, because I like to speak my mind, I find it the height of rudeness and insolence when people tell me I shouldn’t have the right to marry the person I love because he is not a she. Imagine if I told you that you shouldn’t get married because your partner was too fat or too thin or too black or too white or had a big nose and flappy ears or just because they looked incompatible with you. Or worse yet, that the two of you would make bad parents. I bet you’d tell that person it’s none of their business and politely or otherwise ask them to take their opinions elsewhere.
That’s how I feel. So if you don’t mind, please keep your personal opinions about my relationship to yourself and but out of my life, because I’m not really interested what you think about Gregory and me getting married.
Thank you.
Marriage is a social institution. You and Gregory are asking to have your relationship somehow blessed or supported by society. I wish you well, but in my view, marriage is about procreation and raising families. The fact that there are gay people raising children is irrelevant, since clearly, raising children is not the reason gay people marry. I have a strong view on this because I feel that marriage has a social purpose. It has been an institution that preserves social stability specifically as it relates to children. While I can relate to two people wanting some social acknowledgement of their personal “bond” — I cannot understand what interest society would have in two people forming such a bond. Your connecting with Gregory — or not — serves absolutely no social purpose.
Hi Mary,
Thanks for commenting. I will disagree with you on the point of gay marriage serving no social purpose. The child issue aside (which I also disagree with, since many gay couples do either adopt, artificially inseminate, or employ a surrogate in order to have children together), people making the commitment of marriage to one another serves a very important social purpose. Specifically, people having a committed spouse leads to greater happiness, greater stability, and the support of a definite family.
My wife and I lean on each other every day to get through our challenges. As a result of her support, I’m better at my job, my health stays good, and I’m generally a more pleasant person to be around (I like to think I do the same for her).
Whenever two people (of any gender) vow to do this for one another, the whole of society benefits.
Peace,
Dave
I do not totally agree with you to the extent that the same “committed relationship” could reflect what happens in a civil union, or just a personal commitment. I have friends (both heterosexual and gay) who have been in committed relationships for years without marrying. So, I would agree that life partners are a good thing. I will say that at least your argument gets to the crux of the matter — that is, what benefit is there to society in supporting “gay marriages”? Most people argue this from the point of view of how nice this is for the couple. That, I do not think is sufficient justification for altering a long-standing traditional institution. Your point is a good one — but one would need to look at both pros and cons and I do see cons over the long-term (reflected in some of my other posts).
Actually you are completely wrong. Marriage in Australia is an act of law. It is simply a legal contract that involves two parties, witnesses, a government authorised celebrant, a marriage contract and optionally a religious ceremony. In it’s essence marriage is nothing more than that.
However. If you wish to place greater emphasis on it then that is entirely your call. Others may join you in that. Yet others may choose to not do so.
Wrong again. I don’t want or need anyone’s “blessings” or support if I choose to get married. I just want my government to enforce the legal obligations of the marriage contract, in whatever form that takes.
Did you know people choose to get married for a variety of reasons, such as convenience, immigration purposes, social obligation, religious obligations (such as the need to get married before the baby is born), gold digging, peer pressure and sometimes even love? Yet others may just get married because it just feels right.
You don’t know that gay couples get married to have children. There are religiously observant gay people who may want to get married in the eyes of their church before embarking on parenthood. Trust me, it happens.
Oh, and you are wrong yet again. The social purpose that a marriage between my partner and me is be seen as equals in the eyes of my family and Gregory’s family. My mother wants to be able to celebrate a marriage between us, just like she celebrated my brother’s wedding. That’s “social”. It also means that Gregory will attain the same “social” status as his nine living married siblings. He’s been married once, so there’s no reason he can’t get married again, assuming the law allowed it.
So on all count have you been wrong. Unfortunately. Now it’s time to work on how you can be right, which would start by saying “Michael, I honestly don’t care if you get married as long as you’re happy because you getting married will make no difference to my life.”. Practise those words because they’re the only way you’ll possibly no be wrong yet again.
“I just want my government to enforce the legal obligations of the marriage contract, in whatever form that takes.” That sounds like civil union to me. I have no problem with civil unions. What I object to is changing the definition of marriage which severs our connection to traditional marriage. As a result, I think “marriage” loses its meaning to the point where I don’t know why anyone would even bother getting married — and in a few years they won’t. I think gay marriage also destroys our archetypal understanding of families. Children are subtly harmed by this in my view. That will further exacerbate the problem of single mothers raising children. (Obviously divorce has also been a factor.) Your perspective is a totally personal one, so I understand how you would feel strongly about this, but there is also a broader social context that needs to be considered. We are all impacted as long-standing social institutions are changed (I believe undermined). We do not yet have an appreciation for how our society may be altered by “gay marriage”.
Exactly the same argument used by those opposing marriage for African Americans. Just listen to yourself. You are really not applying logic here. Look at the countries that already allow gays to marry. There is no credible evidence of any problem in society caused by it. Families are actually strengthened. You really don’t like gays. That’s all there is to it.
It may be that marrying Blacks required a change in the law (did you mean inter-racial marriages?), but it did not require a change in “definition”. I am saying that if you change the defintion you change the nature of the institution, and that is what I find problematical. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like gays. Actually, I am pretty indifferent to them. Additionally, although some countries have “gay marriage” already, one does not expect the detrimental effects of this to be experienced overnight. It took a while before readily available divorce left us with an overwhelming number of impoverished single parent families. This is called unintended consequences — and I believe there will ultimately be a social cost to pay for gay marriage.
MaryLS, while I find some of your reasoning spacious and not so reasonable, I do respect you engaging on this in a strong, yet not derisive way. You wrote to MikeyBear “but it did not require a change in “definition”. I am saying that if you change the defintion you change the nature of the institution, and that is what I find problematical.” If you don’t like the changing meaning of the word, find a different dictionary. I just did a quick online look; the sites are not consistent. But then, by “traditional marriage” you are defining it based on your understanding growing up. Polygamy was the biblical norm, tradition if you will. Change is hard at times, yet I think of the quote ‘the only constant in life is change.’ As for children, they are remarkably adaptable. The real studies made on children raised by same sex parents show them as well adjusted or a bit better than in so-called traditional marriages. Long range effects? Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, using that as a ‘reason’ is not reasonable. I must add, that the former status quo of your ‘traditional marriage’ has done a lot of harm in excluding Gay couples and their children, as it continues to do so.
You’re concerned about an as yet to be defined negative consequence from allowing gays to get married on children that we don’t have by accident or in an ad hoc fashion. We are a tiny minority. If you are genuine in your concern for the welfare of children, just look at the vast number of children that are the victims of bitter heterosexual marriage breakdown. That is the real, problem. People who wed hastily, perhaps have children to save their marriage and may be lacking the skills to achieve success in any of these areas. And you want to stop gays from getting married?
I wouldn’t bother argueing about AI and serogescy. I know a hetrosexual woman who had the AI as her husband couldn’t give her children. I’ve been told several time it is evil and a type of child abuse, I am still trying to work out how and why it is evil. The child concerned is now married with kids of her own and is very happy with her life. Say too much about it and we’ll have someone ranting about that next.
Hi Mary,
I know you’ve probably written it already and I missed it, but would you mind articulating your concerns regarding the damage gay marriage might do to the institution (the cons)?
Thanks!
Dave
Oh, maybe I found the answer to my question, regarding how if marriage is just about two people “in love”, then we’re just going after the Hollywood myth and denigrating the true commitment of marriage.
I agree that the Hollywood romance has done serious damage to the institution. What most romantic movies never show is the dark side. Times of reduced passion, waking up to another person’s bad breath and body odor, sharing a bathroom with a toilet, washing someone else’s dirty underwear, the times when being marries is plain old hard work.
However, I categorically disagree that gay marriage will contribute to this trend, and I’ve yet to see any evidence presented to the contrary.
Especially when you consider that LGBTQs are FIGHTING for the right to marry, their participation in this institution is more likely to strengthen it, as their passion for the right shines a new light on what a precious commitment a marriage is.
If you have any contrary evidence, I’d be very interested to see it. Thanks!
Long story short, I basically lost my virginity to a guy. I was terrified and confused for days afterwards, afraid that my friends and family would treat me differently or even disown me after it. Eventually I “tested” telling it to a couple of close friends, and one of my cousins. All of them were utterly supportive, and I was surprised to be surprised at that. Scotland as a whole is very progressive in these areas, and things are probably very different in many parts of America, which I personally perceive as being stubbornly, even dangerously against modern liberties. I have a friend who is an MTF transsexual, and we all give her the utmost support in the process – moreso since we need to combat the views of her religious mother, who utterly refuses to acknowledge that God would let a “mistake” like that happen. Why can’t we just love each other above all else? Just love each other.
Many people have been refuting my argument that marriage has traditionally been about procreation and that gay marriages establish that it now is most emphatically NOT about procreation. Well, then — what’s the point? Why should we have marriages at all? The argument that many infertile or people not interested in getting married have been married in the past is not relevant here because to accomodate these marriages it has not been necessary to change the definition. In the case of infertility, a couple may not be aware of this until after marriage and we would need to force them to test feritility in advance or otherwise dissolve the marriage in order to state that marriage will be exclusively about procreation. BUT with gay marriage what we are saying is that marriage is not at all related to procreation and fostering a stable environment for a new generation. In which case, I have say again, what exactly is the point? I understand two people who want to live together — fine do it. But as a social institution, marriage has to stand for something broadly meaningful and important for society. “Two people who love each” other is Hollywood BS. Many who do not love each other get married all the time. I am o.k. with civil unions which provide certain legal benefits to one’s life partner, but think gay “marriage” is pandering to a silly notion about romantic love and that it does indeed undermine marriage in the way it has served us as a stable social instintution for many years. Gay marriage will undoubtedly lead to not very many people bothering to get married in 10 or 15 years time. Marriage in the future will really be about nothing. Who cares? Why bother?
Many do not agree with my view, but please understand there is nothing “homophobic” in wanting to preserve a traditional institution. Good luck to all the gays in having long and satisfying relationships outside of “marriage”.
Marriage is committing to each other, saying this is the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with. We want to be committed in the eyes of God and the world. Just because you can’t see the point of committing to each other in love doesn’t mean that most of the rest of the world can’t. They can and want to make that committment, whether straight or gay.
My mind and heart can’t seem to wrap around the ignorance it takes to think in such a limited and cold manner. I’m as straight as a ruler also, but I CHERISH and ADORE my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in this world! Love is love. I will pray for those who suffer from such fear and ignorance….that they will one day know the warmth and joy that the rest of us know, and that they will someday shed the safety of their judgement and intolerance. Poor souls…truly they are the losers here. Thank you for a truly marvelous piece of writing. Congrats to your brother and his partner! xoxo
What a great article. Thank you. Even God said in the Holy Bible that love is the GREATEST gift. Live and let live.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | Solving Problems
Pingback: Defriended Over a Wedding, a Straight Man Gains Perspective | williamjameskennedy01
This is a great read and much as I would like to air my opinion, I must say I have none. My background is filled with “you must read and follow the bible”. I don’t really know enough bible to quote it or claim it’s truth but I have much honor for anyone who finds themselves and are able to accept that which is irrelevant to squeeze this imperfect world into their systems. We shall all get there in good time, meanwhile this is a perfect educator for the doubting Thomas. Kudos
I know so many people have told you this, but you have a beautiful soul, and I’m so happy for your family that they’re finding happiness. 🙂
Pingback: Why written content is not dead (but video is awesome) « To Muse and Carouse
“love wins, period.” So very true…it always will ❤
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 » Blog Free for All
wow this was truly amazing.
The essence of being hurt is to take things personally, which is what you did with your “defriend.” The essence of forgiveness is that when you hold a grudge, the only person who gets hurt is yourself. Its not worth the time and energy with someone who rejects you because it is not about you, its about them. If people learned not to take others behavior toward us personally or to take ourselves so seriously, we wouldn’t need psychotherapists.
How could you not take something personally when it is directed at you specifically?
He never said he is holding a grudge.
You really don’t understand mental illness if you think all of it is caused by being oversensitive.
Deanna,
Thanks for your comment. Without a doubt, I have a long way to go in my own personal growth to not take anything personally. I don’t think I’m holding a grudge against my erstwhile friend. In fact, I’m largely grateful to him because his actions were the inspiration for this piece, which has struck a chord with literally hundreds of thousands of people.
That said, I think maybe my point in the essay was not delivered as clearly as I had intended. My point was not that I was hurt by his actions, my point was that the flash of pain and rejection I experienced was a mere glimpse into the deep pain and rejection that many of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters have been subjected to in their lives due to the prejudices of others.
I suppose that one could say that our LGBTQ peeps need to evolve enough to not take it personally, but I think that it’s pretty unreasonable to tell someone, “Hey, just get over the fact that your parents kicked you out, that your friends abandoned you, that your family will no longer talk to you, that society doesn’t count your relationship as valid.”
Sure, the Buddha could probably handle it, and maybe several lifetimes down the road, everyone can. But it’s not my (or anyone’s) place to tell people that they shouldn’t be hurt, especially when I’ve never actually experienced the type of rejection that they have.
In the words of Ram Dass, “If you think you are so enlightened, go spend a week with your parents.”
Peace,
Dave
Hello again Deanna,
I just looked at your blog and got a little snapshot of some the transitions that you have been going through in your life. It certainly appears that with the challenges you’ve faced, you have undoubtedly had to follow the advice you tried to give me; that is, “Don’t take it personally, live your own truth.”
So, it’s clear that your comment came not only from a place of wishing to give sound advice but also from a place of deep personal experience. I apologize if my reply came off as flippant or any way diminishing of your hard won wisdom.
Thanks again for commenting.
Dave
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | GamePunter.com
Reblogged this on thussaytheraven's Blog.
Good for you. Good for your brother. Good for all those with open minds.
Pingback: Since last time | Wedding Invitation Exegesis
As with many difficult situations in life, it is not until someone close to us, somebody we already know & love before they were labelled as gay, shatters our privately held view. For me, this came from Bible teaching. The more people I already know & care for who are coming out confuses me. I already know them as loving, caring people who finally give up the struggle to be straight so that they fit or whatever. They want the same things each of us need: to be loved & accepted for who they are, and to share their lives with a husband or wife, should they be blessed & find the soul mate we are all looking for. What if this was my sister, brother or child? I would not want them shunned or judged. As with all people I love & care about, I would want them to be allowed to be happy. We are called to love one another & to leave the judgement to God.
I know this oversimplifies the subject, but…
I’ll opt for maintaining an open mind and accepting heart now; rather than clinging to a judgmental, narrow-minded attitude, in hopes for eternal life. Sincere congratulations to your brother and his husband.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | Miley Ray Cyrus
The last sentence sums it all! “I love him, and love wins, period.”
Pingback: Links – te% by Herbstrevolver
You are a good guy.
Thanks, Dann.
Pingback: Defriended Over a Wedding, a Straight Man Gains Perspective | Sweeting Hub Pages
Wow! I can’t believe I missed this post when it was Freshly Pressed, but I caught up with it on the WP Editor’s Pick of the month club. Dude. I couldn’t believe he actually sent you that message. I knew you said wow but I was like What the @#$%!
Yeah you don’t need these kinds of people in your life. And even though he wasn’t a close friend or acquaintance I get the shock factor too. It’s weird to find out that you know someone who’s a jackass. Most of the time we pride ourselves in being good judges of character so when something like this happens we’re like What the @#$%^! Sorry about this little encounter, but good for you for being a great brother.
Thanks, Guat! Yeah, it was a bit of a shock. Alas, I suppose it’s good to be reminded of the world we live in sometimes. Peace.
Reblogged this on Martin´s Blog.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | CMS News Today
Love should see no color, should see no gender, should see no age.
Thank you for the post. I wish there were more open minded and intelligent people like you and much less of the close minded, self righteous fundamentalists in this world.
A sad story from the world of “them vs us”. I wish that there were more people like you.
I am just now coming out of twenty-eight years of organized religion. It has been a very horrendous ordeal for me. Many of the people there judged me because I was different from them. I saw so many people hurt in the name of ‘God.’ I just finished listening to Joan Osborne’s, What if God was one of us? I am beginning to believe this is true. In the twenty eight years of hard core Christianity and Messianic Judaism I have come to realize that religion serves only two purposes: 1) to make money, and 2) to control people. It is no different than the pharmaceutical companies who create drugs to prolong a person’s condition without ever healing it. Many of the people that I encountered had very little compassion on me or others. In fact, when I was at a very sad and low point of my life, I had a gay minister befriend me and help me through that difficult time. I have been programmed in religion to hate gays, lesbians, and other people groups. They use the slogan, ‘hate the sin, but love the sinner’. What I experienced was to condemn first and ask questions later.
I am not an advocate of one night stands and sleeping around, but I think God would understand the love a man or woman has for another person, regardless of race, age or gender. I think the way your ‘friend’ on FB treated you was very cold and cruel. I am coming to terms with the reality that whoever God is, (s)he wants us to be responsible for what we say and do to others. I am coming to believe that there is no hell that people spend eternity in for ‘sinning’ against God. Whatever happens on this side or the other, we ourselves, are responsible for creating.
I put forth a question: Which is wrong: two gay men who are in love and get married, or a married heterosexual Pastor who indulges in pornography? According to statistics, and they are reliable, 54% of all Christian pastors indulge in and/or are addicted to pornography. Over 50% of Christian men are involved in pornography, as are 20% of Christian women, and these numbers are climbing. I am not bashing anyone, but the stats speak for themselves.
When Jesus was on the earth he strongly condemned one type of behavior – hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is like telling a gay man he is going to hell (no such place) when the person doing the condemning is doing the same or similar thing. We are all guilty of being hypocrites at one time or another, sadly, some people haven’t been made aware of it yet.
I wish you and your brother and his spouse much happiness and prosperity now, and in the coming years. Blessings. Paul Moore.
Reblogged this on Trans*forming Family and commented:
A very touching (and relatable) must-read.
I am sorry your friend responded as he did. I DO understand his sentiment, but I think it was rather unfeeling in how it was done. I love any person who is gay or lesbian, because Jesus does. I have had many acquaintances who were also GL. What a person believes or claims to be does not mean I have any excuse to hate them or regard them as worthless.
I don’t hate those people, and neither does Jesus. Jesus offers His grace (empowering favor) to anyone who asks, and His grace is more than sufficient to transform any person (regardless of current condition) into a new creation. This grace, not judgment and hate, is the “Good News” of the kingdom of God. Jesus already paid for all sin, and He makes His power available to us, we just have to ask Him to make us what He desires us to be.
That being said, the Bible clearly disapproves of GL lifestyle just the same as other things (drunkenness, lying, murder, adultery, or hate) that control a person against the wishes of the Creator. If a person chooses to continue in the GL lifestyle, just own up to it and do not try to validate your choice by deceiving yourself into believing that God “loves homosexuality”. He clearly does not love “it”, but He dearly loves the person. In all the older versions of the Bible, it is referred to ONLY as being sin, and the only way anyone can claim it to be a “Gift from God” is to re-write the Bible to fit their beliefs and enable them to believe a lie.
Hi Kim,
Thanks for your comment.
Is it possible for beliefs about God and understanding of God’s will to change over time? For example, the Bible (both OT and NT) explicitly condone slavery, which at this point is generally viewed as wrong. Is it possible that the men who wrote the Bible had some of their own prejudices come through?
Thanks for considering,
Dave
Great question. There is a difference between the two. The Bible never says slavery was wrong OR that it was God’s will or command to HAVE slaves, BUT IF you had slaves, you were commanded to be a good and loving master. As long as they had a good master and did their honest work, slaves were fed and cared for and had lives not that much different than a free person; probably better than some of the rotten bosses and horrible schedules many people now endure in their “free” lives.
Slavery was commonplace, but even when it was forced slavery to repay a debt, Biblically, there was supposed to be an end to it, and the person was never supposed to be abused. There was even a option for a slave’s own choosing at the end of their time of service to commit him/herself for life to the good master that they loved.
I do not feel offended by slavery, because I am happy to call myself a slave (bond servant) of Jesus. He is my master, and my desire is for only His will and purposes in my life, because I know how much He loves me and seeks to give me good things.
On the one hand, while slavery may have been allowed, homosexuality is expressly prohibited, and the Bible states that those practicing it (and other things) will not enter the kingdom of God.
Unfortunately, just like any other things, mankind has provided example that tends toward the greedy and hateful, and we see all the abuse, from Africans selling other Africans into slavery, children kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, and many other horrible things.
Thanks again, Kim.
I’m not sure that all of your facts are correct, however. According to Leviticus, slaves could indeed be made slaves for life (and I see no indication that the slave gets a vote):
Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
However, I’m no Biblical scholar. Heck, I’m not even a Christian, so this is by no means my area of expertise.
What about the fruits of the teaching that homosexuality is a sin? If I’m not mistaken, Jesus had NOTHING AT ALL to say on the matter (with two possible exceptions: Sermon on the Mount when he issues a prohibition on calling people “fag” in the language of the day, and the story of the Centurion and his Pais wherein Jesus praises the love and faith of the Centurion), and the fruits of the mindset are clear: Bullying, Murder, Suicide.
I’m at work and gotta get back to it.
Thanks again for the conversation!
Hi Kim,
Thanks for your point of view. I cannot fathom what “older version” of the Bible you are using as the things you are stating here simply are not in it. If you are attempting to quote Leviticus, please be aware that the same book you are quoting says that it is not for all people, but for the Levite tribe. It also uses the EXACT SAME WORD to describe the eating of shell fish, and that word does not mean (or say) “sin”, that word literally translated means “ritually unclean”. Further, if you are choosing to take a superficial pass at Leviticus and claim to adhere to it literally then you are quite the danger to your gay neighbor, for according to that book, you are not to tolerate them…but to stone them to death. Right now, I am glad you actually pick and choose out of the Bible more than you own up to.
In the new testament in the “older versions”, the statement that it says homosexuals could not get into Heaven is patently false. You are actually quoting very new translations that took a word that was referring to sexual predators and mistranslated it as “homosexual”. The word that would have been used in that time was “born eunuch” and Jesus was quite clear that those folks qualified for Heaven.
Anyone who reads the chapter Hebrews in the Bible will understand how someone who consecrates with God, understands in their heart and mind that they are as He created them, can easily acknowledge that God loves them for who they are. God, I would think loves or does not love homosexuality as He does heterosexuality…they are amoral conditions and how they are used determines their goodness or misguidedness.
Unfortunately, you have selected a few out of context (literary, historically and culturally) passages as if you were practicing witchcraft and the Bible was your spellbook. That is not a sin. But judging as you have …IS… according to the Bible.
I hope you get to know your gay neighbors on a deeper level than you do now; I hope you study the Bible deeper and with a greater sense of context than you have seemed to, and most of all, I hope you learn the depth of principle behind the second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself”.
Kim, your comments are highly condescending. You have no right to tell gays that they are not going to enter the kingdom of heaven, nor that they should own up to the choice of continuing their “lifestyle” (which is wrong; it is an orientation) and not blame God for making us this way. Your sentiments are hatred by another name, no matter which way you slice it, because you are putting conditions on gays, conditions that are based on *your* personal beliefs. And to compare our orientation to fundamentally negative things like murder, adultery, hate, and lying is immoral and unconscionable. Those things hurt people. Two gay adults in love is not hurting anyone because it is consensual.
I am gay because God indeed made me this way. Why would He make me this way and then tell me, through a book, that I’m not supposed to be true to myself? To suggest otherwise, as you’ve done, is highly condescending and bigoted. It is also a sign of poor mental health on your part: you are too irrationally afraid to think beyond the views in the Bible.
I used to be that way myself, until I turned 18 and realized that the Bible was destroying my sense of self–which God had given to me.
Perhaps you should forget about the so-called “wishes of our Creator” and start taking personal responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings. Only then will you realize how much your actions are hurting people around you.
What about those of us who don’t believe in your god? Are we to be subject to your god’s laws anyways? Frankly, and not without intent to offend, but to by BLUNT, I think your god is as much a fraud and myth as any of the other, ancient gods. I don’t suppose you can find a non-religious argument?
Hi from overseas. Reblogged this on Luonnonkihara (funny Finnish word meaning curly hair) and commented: “Post that really gives you thoughts. Highly recommended.”
Pingback: Defriended Over a Wedding, a Straight Man Gains Perspective « Luonnonkihara
I’m so touched by this blog. Be glad the unfriending was by someone that isn’t someone close to you, that you care about – believe me, it becomes much harder when it’s a family member or close friend that reveals such bigotry.
Reblogged this on The World in General and commented:
Really a great read!
I really enjoyed reading your story. I have gay/lesbian friends and I proudly support them. To me is whatever makes a person happy, thats all that really matters in this world. I also am not a believer that it is a sin against the bible. God empowered us to choose who we love and to me thats all there is. I am from a country were gay/lesbians are accepted. This story really touched me becuse of my good friend who is gay and will always be my friend till the end.
Pingback: Freshly Pressed: Editors’ Picks for September 2012 | Camping Catalytic Heaters
Reblogged this on CHIEF EXECUTIVE BUM and commented:
“You are fundamentally flawed and I want nothing to do with you”.
Lovely post. Love should and will conquer all!
Hey how about sharing some of these wonderful wedding photos too?
Isn’t that really what life is about anyway? LOVE 🙂
Congrats on being freshly pressed too.
Leah
Pingback: Defriended Over a Wedding, a Straight Man Gains Perspective | Serendipity