The Homo-Acceptance Movement?

You could almost hear the tear down the seams of America during the State of the Union -- one on side, there was thunderous applause as President Obama announced, once again, his intention to see "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) repealed from federal law. On the other side, tumultuous outrage and incredulity and the mere mention of the concept. Over the past years, the debate over homosexuality in America has become an increasingly visible (and controversial) one. While the issue has almost always existed in one form or another, in our society never has it been as vivid and front-stage as it is now. The Supreme Court has accepted a challenge to the Proposition 8 law passed in 2008 banning gay marriage. Numerous states are passing laws to allow it, while many others side with California. And now, the Commander-in-Chief has declared in what is considered to be his most important speech of the year that he will relentlessly persue the abolishment of DADT.

So the lines are being drawn for what is quickly becoming one of the most expensive political wars in recent history. The "anti-gay" team wages battle with edicts describing the endangerment of family, morals, free speech, and children in allowing homosexuals the rights to same-sex marriage, the right to serve openly in the military, and the protection from discrimination and hate crimes. The "pro-gay" team demands the freedoms of this country extend to all, including minority groups such as them, and that they have the same rights as any other groups or individuals in the United States.

Is the message really that free expression is allowed, so long as it is within a certain, strict set of parameters? Is the right to serve (and possibly die) for your country one that is reserved only for a few in a time when we need all of the talented individuals we can get to help us? Is the capability to raise a child really only for a man and a woman, either together or separate? In the name of family, morals, and the American way, the movement was led to push down a culture group that was different than the majority. Millions upon millions were spent to legally define what love was, and what it couldn't possibly be. One man, one woman -- that is what made a child, that is what made a family. That is what made an American soldier. That is what could be legally protected by the law.

Of course, one argument for things such as DADT is for the protection of the gays who currently serve in the military -- if they were discovered, then there might be a greater risk for harm from others in the unit who might not look favorably on such an orientation. And I will admit, to a degree this is a valid point. A friend of mine in the Navy described a situation on one submarine where a sailor was tortured to death by his shipmates because they discovered his secret. But instead of fighting this mindset, instead of discouraging such acts and hatred, the mantra has become "shut up or go home." The willingness to put oneself on the line for country and comrades simply wasn't good enough. Being one of the best soldiers in the military wasn't good enough.

Part of this comes from two dangerous perceptions in society -- first, is the religious perception that all homosexuality is an abomination, unnatural, and evil. While I am not intending to challenge any religious views in this particular post, I do simply point out how out of an entire laundry list of other items in the same chapters of religious texts of what is evil, this has been singled out and magnified in proportion. The second dangerous perception is that homosexuality is based completley upon lust and physical action. The assumption is automatically one of "oh, you're a gay guy, so you want to sleep with every man you see." Such a perception is (generally) not taken with most of the heterosexual community. A woman certainly does not want to sleep with every male she sees, works with, is friends with, etc. The challenge is then brought up of "Oh, but military personnel are put into a close situation to where a gay man might be tempted, would see fellow personnel in exposed circumstances, etc." and to that, the counter question is --Why is a gay man less capable of being a professional than any other person? In today's military, the above mentioned situation is one that occurs across the gender barriers, so why is it a homosexual is any less professional than a heterosexual?

In terms of the idea of gay marriage, and how the arguement stands that only love can create and raise a child, and love can only exist between a male and a female because of "compatible parts", I offer this challenge -- sex makes a child. This happens sometimes (unfortunately) with the absence of love or relationship. Sex makes the child. Love makes a family. If two individuals are capable of love, true honest-to-goodness love, why does it matter if they happen to be of the same gender? A family is about the love, the dedication, the commitment, the responsible decisions. It’s about the community. It transcends the restrictions of simple blood relations. But according to these groups, all a family consists of is a man and a woman, they are the only one capable of providing what is necessary for a family.

Does anyone else see the irony of this? In the 1500s and 1600s, this land was settled by people who sought to escape the oppression of an unyielding, unforgiving religious dominance, simply because they dared to believe that what might be the Truth was different than what a few men in power said it was. They wanted to escape that tyrannical dictatorship and oppression in the name of “Faith,” and here we are 500 years later doing the exact same thing to ourselves. We have become the very thing our ancestors struggled to avoid.

And it’s taking its toll on the homosexual community. More and more, cases such as the one of Mathew Sheppard are appearing across the country, when innocent gays are being beaten and killed. They are being denied the right to information and visitation of partners at hospitals. They are being denied benefits on insurance, joint accounts, adoption, marriages. Protection from discrimination, hate crimes. Who is the real victim here? It's family and moral values, but not because of homosexuality. It's because of the bigotry opposing it.

These are issues and arguments that are now coming to national, front-and-center attention as the question of "homo-acceptance" is now in all three branches of the Federal Government for consideration. The stakes are high for both sides, and the repercussions of any outcomes will certain affect society in big ways.

So as a society, we are at a point where we must stop trying to find a group of people to hate, to treat unjustly. Especially in this country, where freedom is so proudly and easily talked about. Because right now, it seems that everyone is for freedom, unless it means freedom for someone who’s different than they are. The only question, what will the ultimate answer be -- to do what is "comfortable" for many, or what is truly right for all?