Esprix (esprix) wrote,

  • Mood:

A queer notion

OK, so let me see if I have this right:

The radical right can't stand us homos, not because we're not all God's children (of course - they'd never advocate violence, but a little discrimination here and there is acceptable), but on the grounds that, by being all uppity and not sitting in the back of the bus and having the gall to ask to be a part of their oh-so-sacred, Brittany Spears/Anna Nicole Smith/Pamela Anderson Lee/The Bachelorette-inspired, holier-than-thou institution of marriage (which I daresay queers, having to fight really hard and really long to get the right, likely take it a lot more seriously than it seems the radical right does), plus asking for little insignificant things like equal protection under the law, adopting children, and being able to visit our loved ones in the hospital, that means we're shoving it down their throats. By trying to get these things, plus the sheer audacity of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy being a popular show, means we're trying to dictate morality to them by saying, "Hey, guess what? We're exactly like you!" They don't like that. They hate that. They want to be able to hate us without fear of retribution.

Does that sound about right so far?

So how come when some radical right judge tries to put the Ten Commandments - THE governing document of Christianity - up in a public governmental courtroom, they argue for it? Separation of church and state aside, isn't that precisely what they don't want us to do - shove our "lifestyle" down their throats? And cries of "America was built on Christianity" just don't cut it. The fact remains that this is not (or at least isn't supposed to be) a Christian nation, and that there are quite a few - likely, combined, the majority of the population - who are not Christian, so by fighting to keep that monument, they are doing just that - shoving their lifestyle down our throats.

That said, I'd like to say this:

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Religion is.

By that argument alone, you'd think the radical right would actually be fighting for equal rights, right? I mean, they all say it's a choice to be queer. Now regardless of whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant, because it's even more true that religion is a choice. So doesn't it make sense that they should argue in favor of the right to choose and the freedom of expression? 'Cause I might have been born this way, but if you fight to have our rights limited and our freedoms stifled, saying that our "choice" isn't fit for public consumption, isn't that really just tying the noose around your own neck?

Oh, the tyranny of the majority, how it wounds us all so.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded