Wednesday, September 9, 2009

All You Need is a Revolution Seeking to Protect the Rights of LGBTQ People in Life and Love

I am compelled to write about the rights of and challenges faced by various LGBTQ communities today, but don't feel I'm enough of an authority to delve deeply into the subject(s). While I don't identify solely with any one of these groups in particular, I think my overwhelmingly feminist philosophy has me very much attached to the rights, barriers, and cultures of these communities. So I'll just say this:

Love is an active thing that requires persistence, dedication, and integrity. It's not to be confused with immaturity, sexual deviance, or purses & cosmopolitans.

I don't want to lump every community in the acronym together because that would be as narrow-minded as presuming that gay men shouldn't be boy scout leaders. But what we find consistently among these groups in social politics, above anything, is the need to prove one's capacity to love. Before marriage ever came into discussion, skepticism about the legitimacy of love among LGBTQ folks was rampant. Love of what? Oneself, one's partner(s), one's mother, one's father.

And, of course, in some parts of the country, there is still pressure on us to prove loving someone of the same sex does not equal romantic love for one's sister, one's cub scout, or one's neighbor's pet goat. (For whatever reason, sexuality and gender identity issues are often mistaken for sexual disorders and taboos like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.)

In any case, it is saddening and disappointing that, at this stage in progressing the rights of members of LGBTQ communities, there is still a debate about whether one's capacity to love is equal to that of the heterosexual individual. Many anti-gay-marriage proponents argue that it is a matter of the laws, and that the cultural definition of commitment (which they say is unquantifiable) plays no role in defining marriage.

It is obvious, though, that the cultural perception of love and the human ability to demonstrate great affection and care for individuals across gender lines is skewed. Where people differ on the issue of something like "gay marriage" has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with what I believe is a misinformed philosophy on the teleological purpose of human beings and the ideal form of human identity.

Ironically, I believe those who oppose marriage are themselves symbols for how easy it is to slip onto a path of euphemistic hatred and degradation-- the two devastating forces that they actually claim will destroy American family values once LGBTQ folks are granted all the rights we/they deserve. By contrast, those who fight for the right to marry are symbols of persistence in love and devotion.

If I could, I'd call on all of those in love with someone who is NOT a heterosexual male or female to come forward and demonstrate that love can be legitimate no matter how different the couple (or triple?) seems. Age, color, gender identity, orientation, music taste, and even political philosophy cease to matter when other people are bringing out the best in us. And that is what love does, isn't it?

No comments:

Post a Comment