Love Is Love (Not Flamboyant Displays of Sexuality In The Streets)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

You Don't Have To Watch 19 Kids And Counting

I really shouldn't pay attention to trending topics on the internet. I shouldn't.

But it's like road kill on the side of the highway. It's laying there all mangled and grotesque and I tell myself that I shouldn't look. I even try looking at something else... the beautiful fall foliage, a nice sunset, even the discarded plastic bottles that seem to be everywhere. But then at the last minute I look anyway... because I just can't NOT look. I just can't help myself. My eyes were just going to glance, but then they linger, and I see all the disgusting grossness. Then I'm disappointed with myself for looking when I knew I shouldn't have, but it's too late because that image is burned into the backs of my eyelids forever. I'll never be able to unsee what I have seen.

Trending internet topics are like that. I know that I shouldn't, but I can't just NOT look.

Today, it's thousands of signatures on a petition to get TLC to cancel the show 19 Kids and Counting.

"End LGBTQ fear mongering by the Duggars" a letter posted on Change.org reads. "The Duggars have been using their fame to promote discrimination, hate, and fear-mongering against gays and transgendered people. You need to take a stand on the side of justice and cancel the show."

Hate-filled anti-gay bigots or Christian family?
Maybe they are the same thing.

I don't watch the show, mostly because Michelle Duggar's sickly sweet voice makes my blood curdle, but I have seen a few episodes thanks to my 11 year-old daughter who is currently suffering from a TLC addiction. We are considering an intervention. She also is obsessed with Dr. Phil and The Doctors... so we aren't ruling out the possibility that she is actually a 50 year-old woman trapped in a child's body.

I'm no huge fan of the show or the Duggars or their many children. I think they are more than a little whacky. And I can't get past the submissive wife thing or the weird no-kissing courtship thing. So other than the fact that my sweet daughter won't know what to do with her time between Say Yes To The Dress and Extreme Couponing should the show be cancelled, I have no real interest in whether it goes on or not.

But the Duggar's are conservative Christians who hold traditional family values. They believe in the traditional definition of marriage. And since they haven't taken up the banner of marriage equality, they are therefore "anti-gay". And we all know that accusations of being "anti-gay" fall into the same category as being called "sexist" or "racist". It's the kiss of death for someone's social and professional life (whether it's true or not). So bring on the petition to silence the hate!

Just for clarification, the "fear-mongering" that the Duggars have employed involves:

1) removing pictures of gay married couples kissing from their official Facebook page... which is completely within their rights. Personally, I don't understand why someone would post pictures like that to the Duggar's page. It's not like posting to your own wall so your friends and family can ooh and ahh over what a happy couple you are. If you're posting those pictures to the Duggar's Facebook page, you're only trying to stir up trouble. I'm not sure why the posters would be outraged or shocked or even mildly surprised that their pictures were removed. What were they expecting? Intellectual discourse? I don't think so, Tim.

2) a recorded robocall which featured Michelle Duggar's voice informing Fayetteville, Arkansas citizens about a pending city council vote. The vote concerned an ordinance allowing transgender persons the right to use the bathroom facilities of their identified gender (rather than being limited to the bathroom designated for their biological gender). Remember the good ol' days when genitalia determined which bathroom a person used? Still this is probably a subject that doesn't necessarily require legislation (Most subjects don't require legislation). I find it somewhat slanderous that grumpy petition creators paint the picture (ironically using their own fear-mongering) of the Duggars working to repeal a law so "business owners and land lords can evict and fire people solely over gender identity and sexual orientation". Or maybe it's because the idea is a little creepy, especially as a mother (My mama bear instincts are NOT politically correct and don't give a shit about anyone's personal rights).

3) Josh Duggar has taken a position with the "Family Research Council", a pro-marriage, pro-life organization. So... yeah. On this one I've got nothing...

Maybe the Duggars are a bunch of hate-filled fear-mongering anti-gay bigots. Or maybe they are a bunch of people who value Christian morals and family bonds.

Maybe those are the same thing... you know? Po-Tay-To versus Po-Tah-To.

Here's a newsflash for the tens of thousands of people who have signed the petition in a fit of self-righteous fervor:

You Don't Have To Watch The Show

Seriously. You don't. If you, like me, can't stand Michelle Duggar's voice or if you think Jim Bob Duggar has a hideous haircut or if you are appalled by the lack of trendy fashion in the Duggar girls' wardrobes... or if you think the Duggar's are horribly despicable human beings... You Don't Have To Watch The Show. It's pretty simple really. No petitions necessary. And if enough people don't watch the show, guess what? TLC will cancel it. Because television stations care very little about morals and social ideals. They care about money, and ratings = money.

I know it might offend you that there is a show out there presenting ideas with which you don't agree. You might even think those ideas are destructive and insulting. But here's another newsflash:

Not Everyone Thinks Like You Do.

Seriously. They don't. Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't. But it's true. There are plenty of different viewpoints floating around out there. It's a fact of life you might want to try getting used to, because trying to silence every opposing view is going to be exhausting. And silencing them doesn't destroy them anyway. Sometimes it makes them grow stronger. Forcing people to think exactly like you is going to take a lot more than petitions, and it's just not going to work out in your favor. (Try reading 1984.)

So suck it up, Buttercup. Even if the show's existence somehow offends you.  You don't have the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to silence opposing opinions.

But you do have the right to choose to not watch the show. You also have the right to make fun of the Duggars... because you've got to admit, there's an awful lot of good material there.

Gay Marriage - Why Everybody's Right... and Everybody's Wrong

Lines have been drawn, the symbolic moral high road taken, and the demands for social acceptance...um... demanded in the latest showdown between Christians and homosexuals in the War on Marriage/ Battle for Marriage Equality. (It all depends on which side of the fence you're on. But everyone seems to agree that they are engaged in combat of some sort.)

A bridal boutique in central Pennsylvania has allegedly refused service to a lesbian couple citing her religious beliefs as the reason. Owner of W. W. Bridal Boutique, Victoria Miller told newspaper reporters that "providing those girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God's law." The spurned couple turned to social media for justice and out of the woodwork swarmed supporters... both for the dressless women and for the boutique owner. 

You might remember a similar incident from back in 2012, when a Colorado baker refused to sell a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding reception. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was found guilty of discrimination after a lengthy court battle, was told by the court that he must make wedding cakes for gay couples, and was ordered to take a "diversity course" to help him be more sensitive to the rights and feelings of minority groups (which kind of sounds like an attempt at government thought control, but I may just be paranoid). Since the ruling, Phillips has stopped taking orders for wedding cakes of any kind (Way to stick it to the man, Phillips.)

Like with the Colorado wedding cake controversy, the Pennsylvania wedding dress fiasco has caused both sides of the marriage conflict to come out swinging ("Coming out" pun intended. but only for the marriage equality side of this issue). Proponents for gay marriage are screaming for equal rights and fair treatment and the right to designer wedding gowns and fabulous multi-tiered baked goods. Christians are crying for religious freedom and moral standards and the right to follow their conscience, even when it leaves them seeming closed-minded and more than a little bigoted.

On both sides of this battlefield, the armies of ideology see the issue as completely black and white. And they are convinced that their side is right and the opposing side is wrong.

And they're right.

Both sides are right.

Christians (at least many of them), who see homosexual behavior as a sin, want no part in the wedding services or receptions of same sex couples. To them, marriage is seen as the binding of two individuals both spiritually and physically, and a wedding reception is the celebration of that union.  By providing bridal gowns or a wedding cake or flowers or tiddlywinks for a marriage ceremony or reception, many Christian business owners feel they are supporting or enabling or even celebrating a perversion condemned by their God. These business owners aren't refusing to serve homosexuals just because they are homosexuals (because that would just make them assholes).  They aren't refusing to provide birthday cakes or party dresses.  They just don't want to provide products or services in contribution to celebrations of homosexual marriages.  It's against their religious beliefs. And last time I checked, there was this neat little thing in this country called freedom of religion. It was so important to our country's founding fathers that it was spelled out in the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It seems very un-American to force individuals to provide services against their conscience.  (But then again, there's the Affordable Care Act which forces Americans to purchase services which might be against their conscience... so I could be wrong.)

Homosexuals (and other proponents of marriage equality) believe all Americans should have the right to marry. Homosexual couples seek the same basic fundamental rights and protections provided heterosexual married couples under the law. And this is a serious issue. If marriage were only a sacrament, if it were only a spiritual or religious union, we might wonder why homosexuals would seek a religious rite from a Church that has largely turned it's back on them. However, there are certain privileges to marriage that surpass religion and hocus pocus spiritual oneness. There are laws (which vary somewhat from state to state) that confer many rights, protections, and benefits to legally married couples (Doesn't it always get overly complicated when the government gets involved?). Here's a short list:

• filing joint income tax returns with federal and state taxing authorities.
• creating family partnerships which allows the division of business income among family members.
• inheriting a share of the spouse's estate.
• exemption from estate taxes or gift taxes for property given or willed to a spouse.
• priority in consideration for a spouse's conservator (someone appointed to make financial and/or medical decisions when an individual becomes incapable of making those decisions).
• receiving social security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• right to visit a spouse if hospitalized in intensive care.
• making burial or other final arrangements.
• filing for joint adoption.
• receiving child support, shared custody, or visitation rights in the event of divorce.
• receiving family rates for health, home, and automobile insurance.
• claiming marital communications privilege which keeps conversations between partners confidential and unable to be used in a court of law.
• visiting privileges in prison or other places that are restricted to immediate family.

Yes.  This is the short list.

The institution of marriage is far more than a celebration of sexual relations. There are too many legal and social implications of marriage that drive the issue into the realm of civil rights.

If homosexuals don't view their relationships as sin, yet they are denied access to the rights and privileges of marriage based on the religious beliefs of others, that does seem like a civil rights issue. If laws are made that keep certain couples from legal matrimony based on religious definitions of marriage, that seems like a government establishment of religion... which was a huge no-no in the eyes of the founding fathers. It's right there in the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

But do they really need fancy white dresses and wedding cakes?  And do they need to buy them from Christian businesses?  And should those businesses be forced to provide their services?

You see, just as both sides of this battle are right... both sides are just as equally wrong.

I can't seem to see why a homosexual couple would even want to spend their consumer dollars with a business that doesn't support their basic civil rights. So when a Christian business refuses wedding services to a gay couple... they could just head down the street to the next bakery shop or bridal boutique and spend their money at a business that might be more in line with their values and principles. And it is completely possible to do this quietly and without fanfare, no news coverage required. It is a viable option to just walk away and respect the fact that there are people in this world who think differently than you. It's called tolerance, and I find it horribly ironic that a population of people who rally for acceptance, respect, and tolerance for their lifestyle and beliefs are often the most unaccepting, disrespectful, and intolerant of those who view things differently than they do. When a marriage celebration becomes a political statement and a media circus, one must wonder how sincere the wedding vows are.

And for Christian business owners, certainly you realize that you are servicing sinners everyday. If it is true that all sin is equal in the eyes of your God, then selling your wedding trinkets to previously divorced couples, or couples who have had premarital sex, or had multiple sexual partners, or even if the wedding being planned is overly ostentatious (since surely gluttony is just as heinous as any sexual sin) should stir your conscience into quite a tizzy. Why single out the sin of homosexuality?

As business owners in (what is supposed to be) a free country, you certainly have the right to stand on your own principles and decide who your customers will be, but remember that does not free you from the possible consequences of your actions. By denying your services to one customer based on their sexual orientation, there very well may be a tsunami of social backlash that could drive you right out of business. Besides, it baffles me that in this economy any business is turning away customers of any kind.

Also, please remember that when you refuse service to a homosexual couple, you make all Christians look bad, whether you mean to or not. Sometimes standing on your principles just makes you look like a hate-filled, closed-minded bully. You are not going to save people from their sins by alienating them. Perhaps by focusing on the Christian virtues of humility, gentleness, and love you could do more for sinners who saunter into your shops... and do more for the world at large. But it's just a thought.

I think we could use a lot more tolerance and humility on both sides of this war.  Maybe if we could see all the shades of gray this topic displays instead of seeing it all in harsh black and white we might actually get somewhere.  Maybe if we could use a little empathy and try to see things from the other side of the issue.

But those aren't exactly war-like tendencies, are they?

And who doesn't love a good skirmish?

On "Coming Out", Ellen Page, and Michael Sam

According to several links posted on my Facebook news feed, some actress named Ellen Page has come publicly bursting out of the closet.  This past Friday, the young (and obviously obscure) actress announced that she is gay at a Human Rights Campaign Event in Las Vegas.

I had never heard of Ellen Page before her name was plastered all over the internet due to her "moving" speech.  But then again, I'm not a serious movie-goer, but I've heard that she starred in some movie named "Juno" and made an appearance in some other one called "Inception".  But I certainly don't think she qualifies as an A list actress.

You know what?

I don't care.  In fact, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of Americans just do not care about Ms. Page's preferred bedroom activities. While being gay in America may have (in the not so distant past) riled up a bunch of people.  It just isn't happening any more.  Openly gay people are everywhere, not just in San Francisco.

So why are so many progressives fawning over Ellen Page and how brave she is to come out in Hollywood?  Good question.  I mean...it's Hollywood.  Was there really some irrational fear that she wouldn't be accepted in Hollywood?  Seriously?  Isn't Hollywood like almost entirely progressive and pro-gay marriage and liberal and accepting?  What about Ellen DeGeneres and Neil Patrick Harris and Elton John?  They are all openly gay...and pretty famous and wealthy and influential to boot.  In fact, it's almost kind of vogue to be openly gay in Hollywood (even if it isn't the trendy thing to do in small rural towns across the U.S.).

I agree that being gay in most of America (outside of Hollywood) can still be pretty difficult, especially here in the Bible Belt.  But I have to wonder why coming out of the closet is still considered such a big event.  Why do we need public announcements and excessive media coverage? Is it not okay to be confident and believe firmly in who we are as individuals without having to have the acknowledgment and acceptance of society at large?  I'm just asking, "Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?"  Who cares if the rest of the world accepts who you are as an individual?  Because the acceptance (or lack thereof) of society shouldn't influence who you believe you are.  Not one iota.

I wish we lived in a world where we, as individuals, could just quietly be.  Be whatever we are, without the need for announcements...or labels.  Because labels are for canned goods, not people.  They are limiting and confining.  But unfortunately, we live in a society of labels.  Everyone slaps labels on you...your parents, teachers, employers, friends...why would we want to label ourselves?  Especially in an area as complex and diverse and complicated as sexuality and relationships?

Perhaps it's from a deep need to fit-in, to belong that we assign these labels, a desire for kinship and acceptance that our society is often missing.  In a society where independence is worshiped, we long for a sense of interdependence and community.

Or, in the case of Ellen Page, it could be for publicity's sake.  When the act of coming out in Hollywood goes viral on the internet, I have to wonder why.  It has launched a relatively little known actress right to the front of social media hype.  With this one act she has beaten obscurity, and shielded herself largely from criticism and mockery (lest the offender be labeled homophobic).  She has become largely untouchable by the vulture-like Hollywood critics of fashion and lifestyle and beauty.  And if and when she is turned down for parts in the future, it won't be her acting ability that comes into question, but rather the acceptance and progressiveness and open-mindedness of the casting crew.

It's brilliant really.

Brilliant in the same vein as Michael Sam, who "came out" (dare I say strategically) before the NFL draft.  Because as a moderately talented openly gay football player, if you aren't drafted by at least the fifth round, well...you'll get just as much publicity as if you had, plus a book deal and a made-for-tv movie about your hardships...and you can always rake in the big bucks as a motivational speaker.  Hello talk show circuit!  And it will be a lot less work than training for third string in the NFL.

There really is no such thing as bad publicity.  As long as people know your name, it doesn't matter in the world of the rich and famous just what you are known for.  So if your career is suffering, maybe you could just come out and bravely announce your gayness.

Although that may not work for run-of-the-mill customer service reps or high school teachers or bank tellers or wedding planners (Alright.  It might work for wedding planners.  Who wouldn't want their wedding to be FABULOUS!?!).

And it probably wouldn't work for sarcastic and opinionated bloggers either...although I wouldn't want to slap a restrictive and limiting label on myself anyway.  I'm not a can of soup.