Skip to main content

Stop referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle"

Following the Supreme Court's landmark marriage equality ruling on Friday morning, social networking sites spread the news faster than the NRA spreads fear and paranoia, and while most of the posters (from my vantage point anyway) appeared to be in quite the celebratory mood, there were of course a few whom were disappointed. With regard to the latter group, one such post I read was a Facebook meme, attributed to Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, but which was really said by pastor Rick Warren, and said this:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

First of all, these words weren't uttered by Phil Robertson, so please stop including his picture on the memes.

Secondly, and more importantly, stop referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle." A lifestyle is, according to the dictionary, "The habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group."

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it's part of who a person is - an essential component to their identity. Do these same people call heterosexuality a lifestyle? No, of course not. So, let's cut the crap. Here's what Rick Warren's quote was and how it can be translated:

Actual quote: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Translation: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's identity, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

What that really means: "If we think you're a sick, immoral person that goes against what we've interpreted to be God's rules, even though we never wrote them ourselves and have little idea if they're true or not, we're going to judge you, condemn you, and dislike you, but attempt to cover up our bigotry by claiming we just disagree with your way of life and not you, the actual person."

Such quotes just mask a person's prejudice and overall dislike of the LGBT community. It reminds me of the saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Sure, if this phrase were used consistently for every sin, then I may be a little more forgiving. However, 9 times out of 10 (that may be an understatement), I hear it used in reference to homosexuality, and once again, it illustrates a lack of understanding about this particular demographic. Both of these quotes suggest that homosexuality is voluntary and not innate, even though science and studies continue to showcase otherwise (not to mention testimony from LGBT individuals themselves). So when a person tells a homosexual, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," they're essentially saying they hate the "sinner," for homosexuality is an essential component to the person's identity.

When hearing these two quotes uttered by (supposed) Christian conservatives, I always want to ask the following pair of questions:

1) When exactly did you wake up one morning and decide to be straight? Take your time...

2) Is being white a lifestyle? Black? Asian? Latino? Straight? Male? Female? Again, take your time...

I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a while...

http://aattp.org/new-low-phil-robertson-supporters-now-attributing-false-quotes-to-cleanse-his-image/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lifestyle?s=t

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"