Why I'm not Anti-gay

Nov 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Hi - Sorry to bust in on blog secret day (you're probably looking for this post), but I have been getting a LOT of flack from people - usually by email or through MySpace - because of my post about gay rights.

OK, I get it.

From other people who like me are considered right-wingers: I am a leftist-ish commie propoganda stooge and they are disappointed. Very. From other people who like me are considered anti-psychiatry: I'm on the side of the psychiatrists! What the hell am I doing? From other people who like me are considered very religious people: How could I side with the morally loose?

So here are my explanations.

For the people i know who are right wing:

I don't make decisions based on a political spectrum. A spectrum, in the case of politics, doesn't really exist. I believe that it is nothing more than a tool for the lazy so they don't have to find their own opinion on a small number of very confusing issues, and can just lean back on the accepted view of things based on the majority of other issues they feel one way or another about.

I don't even think rights are a political issue. They are a humanitarian issue and I believe in human beings. VERY VERY much.

Government is for locking up truly criminal people and building roads. Basically their job is making it EASY to communicate and travel, letting us do what we want for a living and getting the awful people we can't easily manage out of the way so we can prosper.

Politics is how the government distracts you from what is actually happening. It's the dog and pony show. I ignore it completely. Do you actually READ the bills going through the house or senate? I do. And not until I have read them do I decide what I think about it. I do'nt listen to articles about them. Ever. Sometimes I'll ask people I love what they think, but that's because I already know that I have found their viewpoint useful.

It is OUR job to help, love, assist, allow others on their way to being free happy people. It is our job to not stop others, but help them.

Which brings me to the anti-psychs. Yes, I hate psychiatric abuse. I hate that an industry with far worse statistics (for actually helping people be saner and happier) than religion has, STILL manages to have, a .total. strangehold on mental health. And that they spend billions drugging children. Kids for pete sakes. Still growing their brains and bodies. I think most of that stuff is poor nutrition and bad environment. As an ex-teacher I still think this.

And guess what? I came to that decision from personal experience. Not from religious or political propoganda or writings or the agreement of my fellows.

I reach independent decisions.

Thus I don't care what viewpoint the psychiatrists have. Maybe I'm not against this because it's marriage. I'm not pro gay-anonymous-sex-clubs, pro-loose-morals or pro-promiscuity. I'm pro-gay-marriage. I don't equate the two. I dont' find the connection you're making. I just don't. I have personally known a few gay couples in LTRs and I think they were not harming anyone.

So why ban it?

Political ideologies and ideologies of any kind are totally arbitrary additions to reality. Constructs around which we can wrap ourselves for security so that we don't have to think our own thoughts or see things as they really truly are.

Confront.

Back to the point: I don't believe in forcing a moral code on anyone else, especially at a governmental level. See earlier text about government.

As far as those of you who feel that our religion mandates any one view on this, let me remind you of the two rules for happy living.

And I live pretty happy.

And I don't mind if ANY other group of people in the world also want to live happy. Even if I would never choose their path for my own moral, personal or religious reasons. And marriage is basically a declaration of an intention to never be morally loose in your relationships again. So I don't get that particular view.

So please stop asking me about why I'm so leftist/pro-psych/unethical.

I'm not. I am simply making a decision based on the data I have personally found to be true. You made yours. Leave mine alone. Why are you trying to change my mind? Are you afraid that I might tip some imaginary balance? Let me have my viewpoint - even though it is worlds away from yours.

I don't need your permission to survive, to think the way I do, nor do I need to be liked or admired by you for this.

9 comments

  1. desi Says:

    Still coming to decisions - Example: I'm still torn on abortion. I personally would NEVER EVER get one. No matter the circumstances. But I also can't imagine telling a 14 year old victim of rape she has to keep her baby or carry it for 9 formative months when she's still working on her first real crush. Nor am I in agreement with aborting babies because you don't like the idea of being a parent. If you don't like the idea of being a parent, you probably shouldn't be having sex. And I think the whole thing is moot if you teach really good morals to your kids. But then again, some people seriously should not be having kids. So, as you can see, I'm still working that one out.

  2. C.S. Perry Says:

    Right on.

  3. Kat Says:

    Dude. Desi. Are people really giving you a hard time about this? It amazes me. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe all the nice things you say about me are true and I am one of the UNusual ones who can think for myself? Weird. Anyway. I think you've spoken very eloquently here.

  4. Grahame Says:

    I think part of the reason for people giving you a hard time (although not the complete reason) is because of the (how can I say this nicely) poor PR methodology used to express dissatisfaction with the vote in California - i.e., the middle-finger campaign.

    If you are trying to persuade people to your viewpoint, flipping them off is probably not going to generate friendly feelings of comradeship.

    Perhaps the "F-You" campaign could be changed. Perhaps giving examples of hardship caused and lives messed up could be a potentially more successful route to take.

    And ... I don't think people who are "not anti-gay" realize the amount of hidden anti-gay feeling there is in society. When I worked in the entertainment industry in LA, on the surface everyone was very "understanding" and "tolerant" of people who were gay, but when there was no one about who was gay you should have heard the nasty things some of these people would say.

    So don't be surprised at the amount of anti-gay sentiment. It is unfashionable to be openly anti-gay, but it's there, hidden, as evidenced by the vote in CA.

    (Personally I don't care if someone is gay. A person is a person and I judge each person on their own merits.)

  5. desi Says:

    Yeah, I considered whether the bird-flipping thing was too antagonizing an act. But as a PROTEST action, it is one designed to get attention without violating law. Standard protest methodology in this society. Yes. In real life I don't flip the bird - I use words. As you can see.

    But in other demonstrations I've participated in, I've held placards and walked in circles and screamed and ranted. I don't do that in real life either.

    When protesting, one is supposed to find a way to show both indignation and do something that is instantly recognizable as a protest against that particular action. Anger (bird) and rings (marriage) seems very very good at communicating exactly what needed to be said.

    Like throwing raw meat at someone or splashing red paint on furs. Except mine hurts or damages no one.

    I didn't see another active protest for straight people to participate in.

  6. *standing ovation*

    YES! People who embrace all elements of a single political viewpoint and/or religion are most likely intellectually lazy! Or scared to know their own real feelings. It's not easy to stand up for a set of views that doesn't easily fit into any pre-existing container, because it makes you an "outsider" by default.

    I also have similar view on abortion. I can't bear the thought of it, but outlawing it would hurt so many people... It's very tricky.

    Interesting... my word verification is "hates".

  7. Peace Says:

    Very well said! I'm with ya Desi!

    I think the middle finger thing was pretty funny, and probably got the bigots thinking! Why not match their antagonistic tone level?

    I can't wait to post something about this subject myself!

    Peace

  8. desi Says:

    @SparklingRed Thanks, snookums. You rock, too. I appreciate the kind words. Sorry about the word verification thingee. No idea.

    @Grahame - I just realized you were pointing out the covert nature of LA toward gays. Uhm. Yeah. It's Los ANGELES. I left for a reason. And it mostly had to do with talking about people behind their back. Cut throat doesn't begin to cover it. Not my fave town.

    @Peace Thanks! I think I know you... Or maybe I know people who know you. You look familiar. Wouldn't that be weird?

  9. Kat Says:

    Desi, I felt the same way about flipping the bird. That was HOW I FELT ABOUT PROP 8 passing. Simply that. Also, I thought it was pretty funny, and a pretty decent way to grab attention and get people thinking - it isn't a friendly thing, purposely. And certainly understandable that it's an antagonistic protest, considering the scores of people who are pretty pissed off about the stripping of their own rights and those of people they care about.

    I like Peace's point - match their antagonism. It was an antagonistic act to take rights away from people who are not harming anyone - people who want to be committed, married and recognized as such. "friendly feelings of comradeship" were not exactly generated or intended by those YES votes.