I was over reading Lesley's blog about the social tragedy yesterday at the Fort Worthless X-tian academy and something she said stuck out:
[. . .] they just hate me for loving Bekka. They don't know us, but they smile so big and proud because we (still) can't get married. It's all very heartwarming isn't it?? But don't you dare get all thoughtful and compare it to the plight of the black man back in the day...Pastor Dwight McKissick of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington will put a real quick stop to that...he says not to 'compare your sin with our skin'. HOW SILLY OF ME TO COMPARE!! He was already black that day I DECIDED to fall in love with girls so everyone would hate me! Damn me to hell!
I have a theory about the black ministers who are touting sentiments similar to the phrase "[don't] compare your sin with our skin". It's the usual fear that stems from ignorance mixed with jealousy. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "What-what-WHAT? Jealousy? How did you arrive at that conclusion?" Well little virgins, it is genetic jealousy.
Since science seems to be proving more and more over time that being gay has a strong basis in genetics, then one must suppose the hypothesis that being gay is genetic and keep that in mind as I posit my own theory. I fbeing gay is genetic, then it stands to reason it is just one of many slight genetic differences contributing to the wider array of genetic diversity found in the human animal, genetic differences such as hair color, eye color, skin color, height, frame, facial bone structure, etc. However, there is one key anomoly in homosexuality that differentiates it from those other traits: it takes nothing more than mere force of will to hide. contacts, hair dye, platform shoes, changing one's weight, platform shoes, plastic surgery can disguise genetic physical traits to some extent, yet skin color is the one that is most difficult, if not impossible to change to any great degree.
The ability to hide one's sexual orientation and the inability to hide one's skin color each work in two ways to benefit and harm their possessors. Hiding one's sexualy orientation, while preferential in times when it was considered a crime, has resulted in the popular misconception that homosexuality is a choice. What perveyors of this claim don't realize is that the choice lies not in one's sexual orientation, but rather lies within whether or not to lie to the world and one's self about one's sexual orientation.
If one deduced the logic of such a claim, or even applied Occam's Razor, one would soon realize its fallacy. Which is simpler, being true to one's self or lying and hiding? Which is simpler, living as society deems fit, or living in a manner so outside society's acceptance that it is detrimental to one's physical and mental safety? The two questions inherently contradict each other when it comes to homosexuality and western society. So then the question becomes, why would anyone choose to live as a homosexual when it is detrimental to one's physical safety and well-being because it is viralently unacceptable socially? The simplest answer is, one wouldn't. One who found his/herself in such a situation would choose the safest route. Sexual orientation not being a choice puts gay men and women in the situation of having to make the first choice between honesty and hiding. Historically it has been safer to hide. Thus, the misconception that, if people have lived as heterosexuals, but later "came out", then obviously it is a choice, was born.
As for skin color, since it cannot be disguised as easily (if at all) like a person's sexual orientation, then the choice argument is moot before it is even introduced. No one would dare point at anyone and say, "You choose to be white/black/brown/etc." It was never an argument for racism. History and religious doctrine (as is the case with homophobia) were cited as justification for slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination. The rather obvious downside of this reality was that since one could not hide one's skin color, persecution could not be eluded. Oppressed racial minorities had no "choice" about their social standing. You can look at someone and know from a glance if he or she is a different race as yourself; however, you cannot (usually) look at a person and know instantly if his or her sexual orientation differs from yours.
If a Caucasian racist homophobe looking at an African-American and a plain-looking homosexual Caucasian, he or she would immediately focus hatred onto the African-American and probably ignore the homosexual unless the homosexual was wrapped in a rainbow flag. The African-American is now in danger, while the homosexual (presuming s/he is not a flaming queen or bull-dyke) escapes unnoticed. This is where jealousy comes into play.
These minorities who take such vehement offense at any comparison between racial- and sexual orientation-based oppression/degradation/persecution/etc. are actually suffering from a jealousy borne of their homophobic ignorance and oppression-filled ethnic history. They could not hide, they were vulnerable to attack. We can hide, and by so doing, often avoid attack. It is the green-eyed, brown-skinned monster. They are jealous because in their time of oppression, they had no "choice".
Let me close by saying that I am not a racist. I harbor no ill will toward other races nor favoritism for my own. So long as the world is filled with hatred and discrimination of any type disguised as morality, I am saddened by and untrusting of all races equally, including my own.
Since science seems to be proving more and more over time that being gay has a strong basis in genetics, then one must suppose the hypothesis that being gay is genetic and keep that in mind as I posit my own theory. I fbeing gay is genetic, then it stands to reason it is just one of many slight genetic differences contributing to the wider array of genetic diversity found in the human animal, genetic differences such as hair color, eye color, skin color, height, frame, facial bone structure, etc. However, there is one key anomoly in homosexuality that differentiates it from those other traits: it takes nothing more than mere force of will to hide. contacts, hair dye, platform shoes, changing one's weight, platform shoes, plastic surgery can disguise genetic physical traits to some extent, yet skin color is the one that is most difficult, if not impossible to change to any great degree.
The ability to hide one's sexual orientation and the inability to hide one's skin color each work in two ways to benefit and harm their possessors. Hiding one's sexualy orientation, while preferential in times when it was considered a crime, has resulted in the popular misconception that homosexuality is a choice. What perveyors of this claim don't realize is that the choice lies not in one's sexual orientation, but rather lies within whether or not to lie to the world and one's self about one's sexual orientation.
If one deduced the logic of such a claim, or even applied Occam's Razor, one would soon realize its fallacy. Which is simpler, being true to one's self or lying and hiding? Which is simpler, living as society deems fit, or living in a manner so outside society's acceptance that it is detrimental to one's physical and mental safety? The two questions inherently contradict each other when it comes to homosexuality and western society. So then the question becomes, why would anyone choose to live as a homosexual when it is detrimental to one's physical safety and well-being because it is viralently unacceptable socially? The simplest answer is, one wouldn't. One who found his/herself in such a situation would choose the safest route. Sexual orientation not being a choice puts gay men and women in the situation of having to make the first choice between honesty and hiding. Historically it has been safer to hide. Thus, the misconception that, if people have lived as heterosexuals, but later "came out", then obviously it is a choice, was born.
As for skin color, since it cannot be disguised as easily (if at all) like a person's sexual orientation, then the choice argument is moot before it is even introduced. No one would dare point at anyone and say, "You choose to be white/black/brown/etc." It was never an argument for racism. History and religious doctrine (as is the case with homophobia) were cited as justification for slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination. The rather obvious downside of this reality was that since one could not hide one's skin color, persecution could not be eluded. Oppressed racial minorities had no "choice" about their social standing. You can look at someone and know from a glance if he or she is a different race as yourself; however, you cannot (usually) look at a person and know instantly if his or her sexual orientation differs from yours.
If a Caucasian racist homophobe looking at an African-American and a plain-looking homosexual Caucasian, he or she would immediately focus hatred onto the African-American and probably ignore the homosexual unless the homosexual was wrapped in a rainbow flag. The African-American is now in danger, while the homosexual (presuming s/he is not a flaming queen or bull-dyke) escapes unnoticed. This is where jealousy comes into play.
These minorities who take such vehement offense at any comparison between racial- and sexual orientation-based oppression/degradation/persecution/etc. are actually suffering from a jealousy borne of their homophobic ignorance and oppression-filled ethnic history. They could not hide, they were vulnerable to attack. We can hide, and by so doing, often avoid attack. It is the green-eyed, brown-skinned monster. They are jealous because in their time of oppression, they had no "choice".
Let me close by saying that I am not a racist. I harbor no ill will toward other races nor favoritism for my own. So long as the world is filled with hatred and discrimination of any type disguised as morality, I am saddened by and untrusting of all races equally, including my own.
Comments
Kisses...