A Mother's Reflections

[Bob Hubbard]

Reposting from LiveJournal....
=====

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]A Mother's Reflections[/size][/font]
reposted from auraseer11

The following is a very strong and moving letter written by the mother of
a gay boy in Vermont...

"Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be
doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that? "

________________________________________ __________________

If you believe that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else, repost this, and be thankful that there are people like this mother, because without them, where would we be?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People have asked me why I repost notes like the above, and imply that because I do I must be "one of them". The answer is a simple one. I believe everyone has a right to be treated equally, and that to discriminate based on gender, orientation, religion, or any other difference is wrong. I believe the US is wrong to try to, and often succeed in passing discriminatory laws against any group, and that it is a crime to try and use a document that in the past has promoted rights, to revoke and deny them. I salute the Canadian Government for doing the right thing, even though many of them were against the idea of "Gay Marriage". Everyone has the right to love and be loved. While that path is not mine, I do have several friends who walk it, and suffer the hatred of those close minded individuals who would deny them both the joys and the agonies that the "straights" have. Love is love.

There are those who argue that "gays" are degenerates, child molesters, pedophiles, sexual deviants, etc. I think that is an unfair, and unfounded allegation. One might as well say that priests, or politicians, boy scout leaders or karate instructors are just as "evil", since those groups are also often in the news in connection to such things. Every group has it's share of scum, and every group needs to be judged as a whole, not on the evil of a minority portion of it's members.

Too often, these same "moral crusaders" who condemn "male-male" relationships, as "Satans Own", will get all excited about "female-female" relations, as 2 guys is "ick" but 2 girls is "yum". It's the same dual standard that allows men to go shirtless, but keeps women's tops on as somehow, a womans breasts are evil, but mens aren't. The topic of nudity is also often seen as somehow corrupting of children. Thankfully, we are born fully clothed so as to avoid that unnatural state. Oh wait, we aren't. Guess it's ok to be naked. Well, thankfully we are born knowing that only "boy-girl" is ok. Oh wait, that's not true either. We're programmed by our environment. If it wasn't for that programming, we might be very much accepting of others.

People need to relax, stop judging and condemning others who are different. Accept the differences, and get on with themselves. Straight or gay or bi, it doesn't matter. Everyone has the right to love, and everyone deserves the rights and responsibilities that making a commitment en tales.

It's like country music...don't like it, don't listen. Don't like your own gender? Don't date em. But some folks like country, let em listen to it.

 

[Tgace]

I dunno. Homosexuals are free to "love" whomever they want in this country. There are no laws against homosexuality. The issue of "Gay marriage" is a legal/social one. If a homosexual couple wants to draw up legal documents regarding power of attny., wills and so forth they are free to do so. The gay mariage issue in this country (as I see it currently at least) is one of forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isnt ready handle such a change.

 

[andy]

Homosexuals are free to love whomever they wish. Noone challenges that.
But when a homosexual promotes the agenda on a heterosexual or their children as 'normal'--therein lies the problem.

If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature has been introduced into the system. what do we do as a caring society with someone who has a physical or mental problem?--short answer we treat and help as best we can.

The political agenda is clear here.
Society does not need to change to an anomaly that creates grief and tragedy. society needs to help perhaps, but not adhere to an abnormality.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The problem I see is politicians doing what is "popular", not what is "right".

Anyone should be able to get married. 2 humans, gender doesn't matter.
No horses (though it was done), no cars (though it's been done), etc.

If not in a religious ceremony, then in a civil (??) ceremony at least.

You can draw up all the papers you want. Civil Union is not the same as "Married" when it comes to property rights, inheritance, visitation, child custody, or health proxy.

There are no laws against homosexuality.

Not accurate. As late as 2003, there were 13 US states with laws on the books that banned same-gender sexual relations or certain activities that were selectively denied same gender while allowed for opposite gender. Canada nationally does not limit what activities consenting adults may indulge in, though it does have a higher age of consent for same gender relations.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm for more information.

But when a homosexual promotes the agenda on a heterosexual or their children as 'normal'--therein lies the problem.

If that agenda is "gay is good, straight bad" I agree, there is a problem. If it is "Follow what suits you not what suits society" I would disagree that there is any problem.

forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isn't ready handle such a change.

Sometimes, you must do that which is unpopular, for the good of all. Discrimination is bad.

At one time, it was illegal (under pain of death) for a colored to marry a white. Today, it is perfectly legal.
At one time it was illegal for a colored to drink from the same fountain as a white. Today, there is no more "colored" fountains.
The social changes required then, were forced upon the population, in some cases at gun point. The courts said that "separate by equal" was wrong, and "separate by equivalent" was also wrong. The same applies today.

As to this:

If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature

There are many "straight" couples who due to whatever reason, can not procreate through intercourse. They adopt or go artificial to generate their children. If they are "ok" even though they go through such artificial means, then why is it not "ok" for a gay couple to also adopt, or go artificial? (I've heard there are procedures that will allow a male to carry a child...expensive, painful, but artificially natural).

A number of countries currently recognize (Two people of the same sex who live together as a family) same-sex marriages. A number of jurisdictions now allow gay couples to adopt children. I think that it is only a matter of time before the discrimination ends. A pity that it will take longer for the intolerance, hatred and fear to follow suit.

 

[sgtmac_46]

First, i'd like to say that I hold no malice toward homosexuals. What two adults (or more) do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Further, if two adults want to enter in to a civil union for the purposes of property rights, inheritance, medical/life insurance, etc., then so be it, allow them to do so.

That having been said, I find it ironic that the same people telling me that the US has no right to interfer in the beliefs of other people in other nations (i.e. violent dictators), are the same who sit in New Hampshire, California, New York, and desire to dictate to other states and other groups of people what they should and should not accept. Could it be that their beliefs on the matter are entirely rooted in their politics.

For example, if it were politically expedient to them, they have no problem interferring and imposing their standards on others, but when it comes to a intervention by people they hate politically, they come up with all sorts of sophist arguments about how it's wrong?

Take Iraq versus Kosovo for example. I agreed with both interventions. Republicans attacked Clinton for Kosovo and backed Iraq, Democrats agreed with Clinton on Kosovo and attack Bush on Iraq.

I myself believe that the rights of homosexuals should be protected, even if states desire otherwise. I also believe that violent dictators should be rooted out of this planet for the same reasons.

Am I missing something? It's the blatant hypocrisy of it all that I find distasteful.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It is (in my opinion) 2 majorly different issues (outside intervention vs domestic equality) but I can agree with your point.

In the case of the Iraq/Kosovo thing, if interfering in the internal affairs of other nations was right in 1 case, it should be right in the other. (Especially if the reasons given [topple dictator, save the kids, kill terrorism, etc] were similar).

Now, a point I'd like clarified if possible: Civil Union vs Marriage.
If I goto my local church and do the ceremony there, it's marriage right?
Is it also Marriage if the ceremony is done by the local justice of the peace? Or is that a civil union? Or is the activity the same, but the title (and a few rights) different depending on the gender of whom I go through it with? That's a point I'm fuzzy on.


(BTW, I liked the "What two adults (or more) do" comment.) :cheers:

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is (in my opinion) 2 majorly different issues (outside intervention vs domestic equality) but I can agree with your point.

In the case of the Iraq/Kosovo thing, if interfering in the internal affairs of other nations was right in 1 case, it should be right in the other. (Especially if the reasons given [topple dictator, save the kids, kill terrorism, etc] were similar).

Now, a point I'd like clarified if possible: Civil Union vs Marriage.
If I goto my local church and do the ceremony there, it's marriage right?
Is it also Marriage if the ceremony is done by the local justice of the peace? Or is that a civil union? Or is the activity the same, but the title (and a few rights) different depending on the gender of whom I go through it with? That's a point I'm fuzzy on.


(BTW, I liked the "What two adults (or more) do" comment.) :cheers:

Actually, i'm not sure about that either. I think the big issue is really civil union. I don't support forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriage, mostly because it isn't really necessary to achieve the goal. I believe that the state must recognize both institutions equally, and therefore, going down to the local county court house and being joined in civil union should be a right for homosexuals.

 

[michaeledward]

If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature has been introduced into the system. what do we do as a caring society with someone who has a physical or mental problem?--short answer we treat and help as best we can.

The political agenda is clear here.

From wikipedia

Asexual reproduction the simplest form of reproduction and does not involve meiosis, gamete formation, or fertilization. In laymen's terms, there is only one "parent" involved. This form of reproduction is most common among simple organisms such as amoeba and other single-celled organisms. However, many plants produce asexually as well.

Because it does not require male and female participation, asexual reproduction occurs faster than sexual reproduction and requirss energy. Additionally, asexual reproduction produces an exact replica of the parent due to the lack of genetic recombination. From an evolutionary standpoint, one could thus argue that asexual reproduction inferior because it stifles the potential for change. However, there is also a significantly reduced chance of mutation or other complications that can result from the mixing of genes.

Many, but not all, single-celled organisms produce asexually through binary fission. Some single-celled organisms rely on one more host organisms in order to reproduce, but most literally divide into two organisms. An exception to the rule are ciliates, which reproduce both sexually and asexually. All prokaryotes (the vast majority of which are unicellular) reproduce asexually.

In addition to binary fission, there are three types of asexual reproduction, all of which are utilized by asexual plants: regeneration, vegetative reproduction, and spore formation. For more information, see Asexual reproduction of plants.

So many anomolies of nature.
So many political agendas.

Or maybe, it is just 'fear of the other' that causes people to behave as they do.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriage

That's the part of the Canadian sollution I like.
They don't have to do it if they don't want to. (The religions that is.)
The option is there for individual clergy to not do the ceremony.
Of course, the religions that do allow it, will most likely see some increase in numbers..as well as some decreases as closed minded bigots leave in huffs.

 

[andy]

interesting points,
however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?


humans are not asexual.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

humans are not asexual.

You've never been to a sci-fi con huh?

(Sorry, had to pick on the geeks.) :wavey:

 

[Tgace]

Yeah..adultry is a crime in NY too. We couldnt build enough jails. Perhaps I should say "nobody is going to be prosecuted for homosexuality in the USA".

BTW: Id have no problem with a civil union either. Its just a contract.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, it would fix many of out political problems, what with half our "leaders" locked up. LOL!

 

[Matt Stone]

interesting points,
however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?


humans are not asexual.

Nor are we the only species that engages in sexual activity strictly for sheer enjoyment or for bonding purposes, nor are we the only species that engages in homo- or bi-sexual behavior for the same reasons...

Bonobo chimpanzees and dolphins both mirror human sexuality.

Get over your fear... "God" made them just as they are. If "God" is perfect, aren't all of his creations made just as He intended them to be? Or, if they are created imperfect, doesn't that imply that "God" is imperfect? If you cite "original sin" as the source of human imperfection, shouldn't we all be stricken with debilitating diseases and physical deformities to equal the imperfection of our souls? "But what about those born deformed or disabled?" Is that due to the sins of the parents? Hardly. If we're going to be religious, let's treat "God" as the truly all knowing, all powerful entity He is professed to be, and realize that people are as they are according to His plan, not their choice... It is the daily choices we make according to how He made us that is getting a report card after we kick off, not how we showed up to class...

Finally, let's not discuss the entire "sodomy" issue, since I doubt very highly that there are many heterosexual couples that absolutely refuse to engage in oral sex of any kind... Oral or anal, both are "evil" according to the religious community and many laws that remain on the books today.

Again, get over your fear. Let people be people, let "God" do His job and sort out who was right or wrong. Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself and your own. Doing that, we can't go wrong. Or, in the alternative, continue to segregate and separate, love conditionally only those who think the same way you do, and in the end we all die and get judged exactly on how much love we spread in His name... If you're okay with your tally of good things done only to good people, feel free to sit in front of the guy that hung out with exiles, alleged prostitutes, other social outcasts (the diseased, the dying, etc.), and was executed along with common theives, and be judged for how you behaved "in His name."

Somehow I think He's gonna be a little pissed... :idunno:

It always amazes me how selective people are with "the word of God." I guess it's easy to forget that little maxim "judge not lest ye be judged." I'm all for letting Him do His job... How 'bout you homophobes?

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's the part of the Canadian sollution I like.
They don't have to do it if they don't want to. (The religions that is.)
The option is there for individual clergy to not do the ceremony.
Of course, the religions that do allow it, will most likely see some increase in numbers..as well as some decreases as closed minded bigots leave in huffs.

That's an entirely different can of worms. From a philosophical persective I can never understand why anyone would desire to join a religion that clearly condemns their lifestyle.

I mean, unless it's some excessive desire for exceptance, I really don't understand it. If you truly believe that god exists, and you truly believe he is the god described in the bible, then it is very clear that he doesn't approve of the homosexual lifestyle.

Now, if you simply don't believe in god, or don't believe in the judeo-christian god, then it doesn't matter. But why force yourself in to a belief system that at it's very core condemns your lifestyle? Further, any judeo-christian that modifies it's teachings and beliefs simply to accomodate homosexuals solely for the purposes of being seen as tolerant and increasing membership (and, thus, profits) really has moved in to the realm of being a McChurch.

It seems far easier to me to simply be an agnostic or atheist, than to have to rationalize how christianity REALLY doesn't condemn homosexuality, it just appears that way.

interesting points,
however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?


humans are not asexual.

I kind of like the fact that homosexuals aren't breeding. Too many people breeding indiscriminately as it. Hard to argue with their lifestyle when it is only their lives they are effecting.

 

[michaeledward]

interesting points,
however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?


humans are not asexual.

andy, you statement addresses 'species', not 'humans'. If you wish to amend your statement that is perfectly fine, but what you claim is not true. Asexual reproduction is not an anolomy for some species. It is perfect 'normal'.

The human race gets to decide, with its cognative abilities, what to 'do' (as if something needs to be done) with a person or activity that is outside the norm. Abnormality is defined as 'exceptional' or 'unusual'.

I would point out the obvious, that when viewing human behavior, most behavior falls within the average. From the average, behaviors can be measure in both directions, (i.e. higher than average, lower than average). I would point out that often the human race recognizes and rewards 'abnormality'. Hell, every four years, we feature a world-wide celebration of abnormality (the Olympics).

If the 'average' member of the human race can run a mile in, oh, say six and a half minutes, we praise people like Roger Bannister, who was first able to complete the mile in less than four minutes (an abnormality) and Hicham El Guerroui, the current world record holder (three minutes, forty three seconds).

We human beings are an amazing species. We are flexible and creative. When the behavior of the species is viewed, and analized, I think, we might find that what actually qualifies as 'normal' might be eye-opening. But, importantly, as we observe, we must leave aside our own prejudices to accurately recognize 'normality'. And then we need be careful to not project our own beliefs onto anothers observed behavior.

Or, maybe, 'they' just aren't like 'us', and that makes us uncomfortable.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Or, maybe, 'they' just aren't like 'us', and that makes us uncomfortable.

That seems to apply in politics too. Unfortunately no side of any disagreement is immune from demonizing those that disagree. We are, afterall, all too human.

 

[Flatlander]

I kind of like the fact that homosexuals aren't breeding. Too many people breeding indiscriminately as it. Hard to argue with their lifestyle when it is only their lives they are effecting.

I'm not sure that I can understand the reasoning behind your statement here. If what you're suggesting is that a child is more likely to be homosexual if one or both parents are, I don't believe that to be accurate in any way. In fact, the difference between a homosexual parent and a heterosexual parent is that the homosexual parent is more likely to raise their child to be open minded, accepting, and tolerant of diversity.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I dunno. Homosexuals are free to "love" whomever they want in this country. There are no laws against homosexuality. The issue of "Gay marriage" is a legal/social one. If a homosexual couple wants to draw up legal documents regarding power of attny., wills and so forth they are free to do so. The gay mariage issue in this country (as I see it currently at least) is one of forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isnt ready handle such a change.

Tom et al,

They (* Homosexuals *) can "Love" whom ever they want. But they cannot have sex, as they is considered wrong in many states, and or local laws.


I understand a Church or private organization not allowing for people to be marriedn and recognized wiht said PRIVATE organization. But, the issue of Power of Attny, and wills, and such costs a lot more money then $30 for a marriage license, and the $100 for a judge to marry you. And even with these paperwork(s) in place parents and siblings can challenge, and a hospitable may error on the sie of caution, and not allow the Spouse in to see a dying person, because they are not legally family.

As to the social/political agenda. If those that are making it political stopped making it a religous agenda, then everyone could look at it from logic and see that it is a matter of rights, and the denying of them, which is discrimination.

My problem is that the Political leaders who are against this, only can site Religion, as the problem. If their religion is so important, and this country supports them so much, then maybe, this country is not really a replubic of ideas and Freedom and the use of the U.S. Constitution, but a Theocracy, similiar to those countries we are at war with.

I live an mixed race neighborhood, because I do not like being told to move out of my house, becuase people think I am not caucasion. When I lived in an apartment building after my divorce, I numerous Homosexual neighbors, they were great! They were quiet, and polite, and no door dings, it was not until the "White Trash" with the crying babies and little kids moved in that cars got broke into, and kicked, and lots of noise. So, the homosexuals, and later myself, all ended up moving out, because we could buy houses, for the most part, or move elsewhere, and not put up with these types of people.

So, the social issue will be there for a long while, the issue, here, is a legal one at first. It must be recognized that they also have rights, and that those rights are the same as women, and the same as African Americans, or , ..., and yes it will take time for society to accept, and in places they may nevern accept, but it begins with the legal. IMHO.

:asian: