The short answer – the American answer – ought simply to be "Why wouldn't it be?"
The majority of people in this world are not gay or lesbian. I am a member of this majority, and if it's any consolation, I don't get it either. And, of course, I don't need to get it to know it's no skin off my nose if two people find love and affection – whether it be for an hour or a lifetime.
In my youth, growing up in a relatively isolated mountain community, I was afraid of all sorts of things I didn't understand. This included racial minorities, poor people, rich people, the boogieman, Democrats (it was a highly Republican environment), and gay people. So I do understand the fearful environment that comes with innocence.  I am however a forty-eight-year-old grownup now.Â
Around nineteen, I was asked "Why are you afraid of them" and I could not give an answer. There are no gay death squads, no gay gangs, no gay activist groups wanting me to stop doing any of the things I like to do. So, really, the only other reason I might fear gayness was that I might be afraid to think about it at all, lest I realize I was gay.
Now, I've thought about this – whether I am gay – because if I were gay, then a great deal of those things in my world that bother me might well be rectified through that revelation.Â
I mean think about it.Â
Let's assume you are a heterosexual man (or in gay speak "straight") and you lived in a bizarro world where there was great pressure on you to be gay (like "everyone" else), so much so that the thought of being straight actually frightened you. Your mom's sage advice would be to go play with that nice boy down the street who says he wants to be a doctor when he grows up. You date. You kiss. You neck. You go steady. But something just isn't right, and one day you come to the realization and blurt it out.
"God forgive me, but I'm straight! I should have known! Now the world makes sense! Sorry mom, but I like girls. I like the way they smell and the way they look over their shoulders and giggle. If my clothes even brush hers I tingle with desire and I just want to sweep her up in my arms and give her one of those big fresh-back-from-World-War-Two type kisses. And mom, guys just bug me, mom. I can't wait to get out of 6th period gym class and go find me some girls! I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry mom, but if I go through with this engagement with Stephen, I won't be able to live. I'll kill myself. I will. If you love me mom, if you really do, you're going to have to deal with the fact that I'm straight."
So, out of respect for myself and my happiness on this Earth I thought pretty long and hard about it. Who am I really? Am I really white(?); yeah, pretty obvious there. Am I conservative(?); yeah, pretty much – though that was a very good question to ask myself because it made me ask what I meant by "conservative". Am I straight?  Am I at all attracted to other guys? Do they show up in speedos in my dreams? Does that guy have a nice butt? How about that guy, or that guy? Any guy! For the life of me, I couldn't see it. See above paragraph.
Hedir Antonia de Brito may have been just as committed a straight man as I. He met the woman of his dreams, a woman who had no problem with his using a wheelchair to get around. Think about that. How lucky he was.  How lucky she was to find someone in this world to love and marry. This I can relate to. My wife uses a wheelchair to get around and when we decided to get married that was it. Not one person I knew saw anything wrong with our getting married.
See the second sentence from the top above. "Why wouldn't it be?"
Hedir Antonia de Brito was a citizen of Brazil, and because that country's government had trouble distinguishing between love and fertility, they were denied the right to marry. I guess they couldn't have kids. That's pretty much all I know about it. I don't know how it turned out and I don't want to know. It makes me sick, sick I tell you.Â
Janie and I probably could have had kids, but it never occurred to us to take a fertility test. With all due respect to those who think we must reproduce or that a person can't possibly be fulfilled or blessed without children, it was just too inconvenient. The person who handed us the marriage license application didn't ask. People do ask from time to time, and we shrug our shoulders and go "eh." If we had two lives to live, there would be kids in that other life, just for variety. But with this one life, kids are not in the cards, and we are as blessed and cursed as anyone else.
We choose to think life is good, and "wah-lah" - it is.  It's that easy to shed the notion that there's something wrong with this life, this world. But that's a somewhat different topic.
Many Americans are, unfortunately, also stuck with this inability to distinguish love and companionship from the vestiges of the fertility cults of old. It's not unlike the one person who said to another, "What? She has her own bedroom? Your wife doesn't sleep with you? Is there no love in your marriage?" To which the second person responded, "You're confusing sleep with sex."
I don't know how to explain to someone dead set against accepting same-sex relationships as that age old, universally cherished thing called
love.
With all the loneliness
and twin-tower-crashing,
fan-of-the-apocalypse hate
that runs rampant these days,
you'd think we could welcome any and all expressions of affection.
And yet we do not.Â
That is embarrassing.Â
That is humiliating. Â
That is playground-bully weak if I ever saw it.
I'm not asking for tolerance of their gayness and lesbianism. As a person who values love and family and community, and a person with a clear spiritual sense of what is cherished and twisted in human nature, I say they deserve our respect. In this, I put patriotism and honor above all religious edicts that have ever been issued against them. You bet I do.
.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 76
Yours is the first of a great many essays I've read that simply does not care one way or another in the nation's bedrooms. It seems so much more realistic not to care, and demands less of an effort.
Cheers.
It's none of my business.
Seriously it's not. I know many people have different views on this. Hey, they are allowed their own view. I am allowed to mine.
This is one of the very best things I have ever read on Gather. As long as there are people like you writing here, I will stick around. Thanks so much!
"Many Americans are, unfortunately, also stuck with this inability to distinguish love and companionship from the vestiges of the fertility cults of old."
I'm going to swipe that statement and use it regularly, because it is totally brilliant.
Fertility is WAY overrated.
The most amazing thing to me about the whole gay marriage issue is that I cannot understand why people care so much to protest against it. Two people loving each other is never bad, and I don't care what they do behind closed doors. That does not for a moment alter the love and passion I feel for my husband.
I love Joe's comment also: "I can't wait for the day when being gay isn't something to be for or against: it just is."
Halleluyah!
The whole thing is silly. And to top it off, certain people who are soooo convinced that gay behaviors are degenerate and sinful suddenly discover that their kid is gay, and it all goes out the window and gay is fine-
I do not know which is worse: being a total and consistent bigot, or being an inconsistent bigot who makes an exception for his own kid.
I am sorry if I flirt with being uncivil here. It is just that life is too short for this nonsense.
No, they aren't, but they are collecting buckets and bales of money from "innocent" folks who listen to their crap. I used the word "innocent" deliberately, Ron, because you used "innocence" in your article to describe the irrational fear of gay people.
When I read this to my wife, she said, "He should have said 'ignorance' not 'innocence.' I told her that in this context, the two are equivalent.
Do you agree?
Now, innocence.
I always use "innocence" and "ignorace" interchangeably. I firmly believe thousands upon thousands of innocent young men followed Hitler down into the hole. Innocents voted for George Bush because gas was too expensive, and then again because the guy who went to war was a coward and the guy who stayed home and partied was a hero(?). As much as I didn't want to bring it up, this post was inspired by the innocent of ignorants. Try not to reward him. I know it's hard.
I don't think ANYONE cares if homosexuals want to live together in committed relationships, they just don't like the idea of redefining the religious institution of marriage. I know there are places, like the state I live, that have even banned civil unions, but I don't think that would stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.
I would suggest civil unions are the LEGAL means by which homosexuals attain the LEGAL protections THEY SUGGEST they seek. I would suggest homosexuals and those promoting their agenda seek to codify inherent differences between the state of marriage, and a civil union, while granted all of the same benefits for both types of legal unions.
The simple fact is, no one cares if homosexuals want to live aberrant lifestyles. But most religions will simply not condone such unions in their dogma, and that fact cannot be changed by the government.
Let them go to judges, let them go to ship captains, whatever is legal, but do not force the people that believe in God to accept a LUDICROUS definition of the divine institution of marriage.
Yes, homosexuals have LEGAL rights, but these rights do not include forcing religious groups to redefine the meaning of marriage or any other religious function.
I don't think I can ad a single thing, so I will simply quote you, in your entirety, where ever you give me permission to do so.
In fact, I'd like to put this into Sandy's group:
I like your work so much I want to publish it myself.
This is a not to be missed article!
We are committed to wars on two fronts.
We are in debt deeper than any country has been in the history of time
and the only rudder that our President has is this obsession against guy rights.
There are people in his employment that work with him everyday that are gay.
Yet the only way for him to win an election is to bring out the stake and burn all gays at it. This is what happens when we elect leaders who don't have a clue to what democracy means. Heck he can't hardly say it let alone spell it.
1) "I don't think ANYONE cares if homosexuals want to live together in committed relationships" - But of course they do. They call it a disease, for one thing.
2) "they just don't like the idea of redefining the religious institution of marriage." - Numerous churches marry gay couples. They have no problem with it, but the United States government has seen fit to intrude on the religious freedom of those congregations. Churches should be free to define marriage as they see fit.
3) "The simple fact is, no one cares if homosexuals want to live aberrant lifestyles." - If people didn't care, they wouldn't go out of their way to call it aberrant. I think you care quite a bit, and you sound to me like one of the more moderate voices.
4) You are correct that "most religions will simply not condone such unions in their dogma". That's why those religions should only marry people in the church. What the civil government does should be irrelevant. If the government is going to issue licenses, these churches should object to those being called "marriage" licenses, and insist they be called something else.
-------------
Civil unions are not the purpose of this post. My position is much broader than than that narrow focus. I am saying this: as people in love, gays and lesbians are entitled to the same encouragement, pat on the back and good wishes handed out by anyone who values love as an ideal. That is my spiritual and patriotic position, and how each citizen exercises his or her freedom to assemble is only a small piece of the pie.
I'd forgotten about Sandy's group. It's a great idea. Thank you for the reminder.
Patrick, I'm with you in spirit, and I would add a couple observations of my own, which I will convey to you by email, because what I have to say about that topic doesn't have that much to do with the content of my post.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose, heck, most of the European Union countries are in deeper debt than we are, measured against GDP. Your silly focus on raw, total numbers is absurd.
They call it a disease, for one thing.
It is a disease, a disease of the mind. Recognizing the fact doesn't imply anyone cares if you waste away with this disease.
Numerous churches marry gay couples. They have no problem with it, but the United States government has seen fit to intrude on the religious freedom of those congregations.
While it's true a very few, very fringe, very small religious groups have opted to "marry" homosexuals, it certainly is not true the US government has tried to stop them. It is a ludicrous statement, unless of course you'd like to offer up an example.
If people didn't care, they wouldn't go out of their way to call it aberrant.
I already refuted this argument nicely with the whole "disease" thing. The behavior IS aberrant, far outside of the norm. That doesn't mean people care if other people decide such behavior is for them despite the facts.
That's why those religions should only marry people in the church. What the civil government does should be irrelevant. If the government is going to issue licenses, these churches should object to those being called "marriage" licenses, and insist they be called something else.
Precisely what I have advocated and precisely what is being done.
I am saying this: as people in love, gays and lesbians are entitled to the same encouragement, pat on the back and good wishes handed out by anyone who values love as an ideal.
Well, aren't you just the sweetest *snigger*
So what is the question? Your sloppily sweet sentimentality doesn't even speak to the legalities of civil unions, much less the spiritual component of marriage. I'm all for freedom pal, I'm a conservative.
I'm also all for traditional definitions of things, recognizing the history of mankind and the taking note of the differences between things mortal, and spiritual.
Homosexuals don't get to define marriage, it already has a definition. The LEGAL PROTECTIONS they ostensible seek, are readily available without usurping the authority of the church.
The state has nothing to do with the sanctified nature of a marriage, they only add on their own civil encumbrances for legal purposes. These legal dictates by the government are all the "rights" homosexuals can expect from a constitutional, and logic point of view.
I see gay and lesbian couples just about every day. I also talk with them and have them as friends. The reasons they are in those relationships is for love and companionship. Neither of those constitute "wrong reasons" for sharing your life, or your evening, with another person.
Thank you for keeping your last comment short. The truth, if it is the truth, can usually be stated without a lot of words.
I didn't say they did, what I said was it is wrong to call such a union a marriage.
The truth, if it is the truth, can usually be stated without a lot of words.
Only if the lies have been stated in the same manner, and I noticed your article contains 1,151 words, does that make you a liar, or just misinformed???
why should it matter to anyone who anyone else loves?
It doesn't, such an argument is a red herring. It only matters when they want to redefine the religious institution of marriage.
There are much bigger problems in the world than gay people.
There most certainly are, and yet the homosexuals insist upon forcing the agenda to the front. Such insistence is logically met with resistance.
Nasty comments for nasty images should be expected.
I have a dictionary here that begins its definition of psychiatry as "A branch of medicine . . ." and when I look up medicine it begins "The science of . . ."
I don't lie, but rather when comments are long and redundant one's attention begins to wander. And you could say the same about me, but you're listening aren't you?
I just think we've said about all there is to say to one another on the topic, and we're childishly going around in this "you know what . . . you know what . . . you know what" circle. If you're so sure you know better, write your own article. Title it "Ron Hall Is Wrong".
And so I was, so I was.
I have a dictionary here that begins its definition of psychiatry as "A branch of medicine . . ." and when I look up medicine it begins "The science of . . ."
Big deal.
you're listening aren't you?
I'm certainly listening closely enough to understand your limited abilities to convey a thought, however misguided, and then be able to refute those thoughts one by one.
If you're so sure you know better, write your own article
I have, and I didn't need your silly advice to do it long ago. This isn't personal Mister Hall, though I'm sure you are taking it that way based on your supercilious responses.
I simply respond to the words, it matters very little to me who utters them.
And you're a better man than me jJack if you can separate a man from their mind.
Well, if you say so, who am I to argue???
You and Bob J are two of a kind.
Bob J is this guy.
You and Bob J are two of a kind.
whatever a bob J is *G*
If you can't follow that conversation it's no wonder you haven't been able to keep up with the thread. And what should we believe anyway ??? First you say you don't know what the "string" means, then you offer up the proper answer ???
How odd.
If you are referring to testing, 1, 2, 3---
are you suggesting you didn't delete a comment that said "testing" ????
Perhaps happy hour in Nebraska is just winding down.
Just can't keep from trying to insult someone, can you ??? *snigger*
You said homosexuality is a disease. I cited the American Psychiatric Association, who in 1973 decided it was not.
You said psychiatry is not a science. I cited the dictionary which defined psychiatry as a a branch of medicine, a science.
Your refuted that with the argument "Big deal".
You have observed that my positions were weak, and that you were able to "refute those thoughts one by one."
Have I missed anything? You may have the last word.
Like the the emperor he seems to imagine himself, Jack spends his life unclothed.
Nevertheless, I think he's cute -- like that ratty little terrier my mother once owned.
Bravo again for writing such a good article.
I have to say, one term that has always bothered me is "tolerant" -- people are "tolerant" of homosexuals. Blech. You know what...some days when I am really overtired and my kids are misbehaving, I "tolerate" their misbehavior 'cuz I am too damn tired to do anything about it. If I make dinner for my husband expecting him home at 5 and he doesn't get hime 'til 6, I "tolerate" his tardiness. But what is this garbage that people think they are being all warm and fuzzy if they are "tolerant" of homosexuality? There's nothing warm and fuzzy about that. We should all be embracing each other, not just tolerating each other! There is too much hate in this world. I say if you find someone to love and who will love you back...have at it!~!!
I would certainly tolerate a kid banging on a pan, at least some of the time. He or she might grow up to be the next Mick Fleetwood!
and for u jJack moron u suck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We all need to make peace with who we are and avoid living a lie at all costs.
Joe, even if it wasn't a born tendency one way or another, I would still honor a person's right to do as they please.
I copied the line when I read it. I love it. Then I saw- eek _ jJack was here and thought it described him to a tee. That man has so much hate and arrogance dripping off of him.....
I loved it Ron. Nicely put.
My ex was a bit of a homophobe and I will say the same for jJack as I did for him. How fortunate for you that you were born straight then. Or was he?
I agree wholeheartedly that those who are so preoccupied with homosexuality have a reason for it. Like Haggard they cannot stand wha tis inside themselves. Acceptance is an amazing thing!
And while we are at it, why not stop other minorities as well, don't just make gays the exception. I mean we could take human rights back off the blacks and oh don't forget the Mexicans, while Americans don't actually say that Mexicans are an inferior species their behavior towards them indicates as much.
WOW, why can't we just live and let live? How is the idea of gays getting married going to impact any intelligent heterosexual? It's just none of your business as Chris H. so wisely says.
"Well, if having the last word makes you right, congratulations. Have your last word.
You said homosexuality is a disease. I cited the American Psychiatric Association, who in 1973 decided it was not.
You said psychiatry is not a science. I cited the dictionary which defined psychiatry as a a branch of medicine, a science.
Your refuted that with the argument "Big deal".
You have observed that my positions were weak, and that you were able to "refute those thoughts one by one."
Have I missed anything? You may have the last word."