You've Got the Right...Maybe?

Rights

Relationships to me are hilarious. It's not really the actual relationship that's funny but the delicate dance that goes into making it happen and sustaining it. What happens when your dance partner steps on your toes or takes a crazy solo in the middle of the dance, or decides to toss you in the air and flip you around. How far is too far? How much trust do you have in your partner to be a good partner and someone that you can last the entire song with? Across the boundaries of sexual preference, gay/lesbian to straight, it seems like everyone, and i do mean everyone, wants to be loved, wholly and healthily.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson puts forth life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights of humanity. Now despite the vicissitudes of Jefferson's proposition and the realities of his life, he makes a good point. We often get bogged down in the realities of what he, and other theorists, did and the assumption of their intent that we miss the importance of the theory in and of itself. If in humanity, we are all entitled to pursue happiness as we define it, why are so many people concerned about dictating the happiness of other groups? Does the happiness of one have to come at the expense of another? I don't think so. All of this leads me to something that I find a little disconcerting...homophobia and the the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

Often there is this raging debate about the similarities and differences between the Civil Rights fights of the Gay community and the Black community. I think it does a great disservice to both groups to compare pain. It seems very immature to me. Neither group will ever be able to understand the complexities of the discrimination that the other has felt...unless you happen to be both Black and gay/lesbian and that seems to suck because in a large way, from my research, you're a man or woman without a country. The pervasive homophobia in America, most noticeably in minority culture, seeks to muzzle the "liberty" that we all purport ourselves to be about. Be it rap lyrics that uses the homosexual lifestyle as the ultimate slur, the awkward silence around the table when a same sex partner is brought to a family dinner, the uncomfortable glances across the locker room as everyone is changing and thinks someone's going to spread "the gay," it's unavoidable. We are not as free as we say we are.

In the quest to create the ideal equality of mankind, we have allowed the definition of mankind to be co opted by the greedy and disingenuous. This subversion of mankind allows room for inequality, subordination, and the disenfranchisement of man. When the rules of humanity only apply to select humans, we have entered what Nietzsche would term a slave-master paradigm. We have moved away from what appears to the universal doctrine of the equality of man and their inviolable right to be joint heirs in what Immanuel Kant called "the Kingdom of Ends." But as with the majority of philosophies, the perceived inclusion is always exclusive. It appears as though "gays" have always been the other. Even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was rampant and the beauty of the male body was admired, it was not a unanimously accepted sentiment throughout the Greek world to say the least.

Most often in life, as I was trying to explain to a friend, the fear we feel others is genuinely a fear of self. That's the reason that I believe that laws exist because everyone is afraid of his or herself. I feel that laws exist because each individual can imagine a scenario in which they would commit a crime and that if they can do so reasonably, what's going to stop someone who is unreasonable from committing a crime against them? Nothing. I think with homophobia, maybe its a stretch, that people are afraid of that part of themselves which is deemed as irregular, so instead of dealing with that fear of self, they project that unto others. Some people say, " I hate that gay shit cuz it's gross." But, there are plenty of things that are gross that I don't hate, like eating food off the floor or people who don't wash their hands once they leave the bathroom. But I don't hate them. I don't wish death on them. I wouldn't bash them or seek to destroy them as individuals. I just would leave them the hell alone.

I couldn't care less about two women or two men getting married. What does it have to do with my life? Not much. Does my happiness end because theirs begins? No, well, not unless I'm extremely immature. We constantly talk about how joyous and wonderful true love is. If two people are truly in love, does gender matter? It seems rather envious and hypocritical to me. I was listening to the Russ Parr morning show a week or so ago and they were discussing gay/lesbian marriage. One of the callers stated that he didn't object to gay/lesbian marriage in the sense of two gay/lesbian people coming together in a union but he objected to the term marriage and went on to ask essentially, why would gay/lesbian people want to be a part of a religiously-defined tradition that doesn't involve them? I said to myself, "Wow, that's quite a question." But the question itself assumes that gay/lesbian people are automatically outside of the Christian community. If the basis of their exclusion is their "life of sin," I think Jesus said it best in saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Christianity is necessitated by sin. When it comes to homosexuality and religion though, I'm very confused. If homosexuality is in itself an explicit sin, how can one atone for it or be absolved of it, if one continues to do what one feels is natural? How can you forgive your own nature? If sins are to be forgiven at least. In that sense,Conservative Christians are right, homosexuals are doomed to hell and are really outside of the Christian community.

Religion

I find myself asking, are those who live homosexual lives and even those who support those who live homosexual lives complicit in the bastardization of Christianity? Have we essentially pooped on the bloody corpse of the Christ right after his crucifixion? I guess that really depends on how you interpret the Christian myth. It kind of reminds me of what the elders in the church always say, "You got to know God for yourself." And that's true; but, that also limits the universality of God. How can he be everywhere, in everything, and do anything, if his relationship with you is not the relationship he has with others who claim the same faith? God is a personal, individual experience. So how can we collectively evaluate the individual? If our understandings of God, vastly differ, who's to say which perspective is the correct one? Most Christians will tell you the bible is. That in and of itself is a troubling proposition. A document transmitted to man by God that is in no way altered, adulterated or misinterpreted? Hmmm...

And if you take the stance, "that yes, some of it may be corrupted but the essence remains true," how much lying does it take to make the whole thing a lie? It requires the kind of "leap to faith" that Søren Kierkegaard discusses in his writing. He posits that one's relationship with God is internally and can only be discovered through intense self-reflection and only expressed through devotion. He uses the story of Abraham's sacrifice to illustrate that point. True love can only be shown through the act of sacrifice to illustrate one's devotion. No one can experience what you are experiencing the way you are experiencing it. True love, even the love of God, is irrational and inexpressible through words, that's why faith is necessary. It's easy to criticize someone's faith. It's illogical. But the passion of real faith is unbreakable. (An interesting aside here is Obama, his election proved that the faith America had in him was strong than the faith they had in White supremacy). Faith is a continual active exercise with permeates all areas of life.

I often question my own faith. Wondering why if God is who he says he is, then why does the world look, act, and perform the way it does. If he is the manifestation of PURE GOODNESS, why is darkness so pervasive? Why are there so many different forms of God? If there is one God, presumably He's the one God of all people, and his law equally applies to everyone, and those in faith have to assume that while it may not in this life it will in the afterlife when he corrects all of man's wickedness. Even though I grew up in the church, I don't always feel God the way that I feel like I should. The Christian life is a life of abstention, a life of denial, and I find myself asking sometimes, why deny myself if there may or may not be a God and there may or may not be an afterlife? If one is to be a good person, a truly good person, it has to be of one's character to be that, not some facade to keep you of Hell.

People get up and give these grand testimonies about how God delivered them from all sorts of nonsense, craziness, and distress. And I look at my life and realize, "I don't have that kind of story. Am I somehow incomplete?" Was I supposed to get hooked on drugs? Even though my life isn't awesome, it's definitely not awful. And often when people get up and talk about God, they talk about how they "could've been crazy, could've been homeless, could've been poor, could've been dead." But you also, "could've been rich, could've been a genius, could've been wiser, could've been a superhero."

Often people talk about how "you need to be grateful because there is someone less fortunate than you."What a terrible reason to be grateful. You are essentially reveling in the fact that you're "not that guy." What if you are "that guy"? Who do you rejoice in not being? The guy who has too much? I don't think so.That's part of what makes unity so hard. Often the unity that is extolled is the unity of hatred, the unity of division, not the unity of love. Like what happened in the Iranian Revolution and kind of like what happened in the Iraq War, it's like, "Woohoo, we all banded together to stop that guy...but wait a minute, now what? Who's gonna lead now?" And that's when you get the kind of division that comes from a unity of hate. In a lot of ways, that's what has retarded the Christian faith (see slavery, Jim Crow, and the Crusades).

Relationships

A couple of my friends had been haranguing me to watch the two new Beyonce videos. I'm not a big fan of hers; but, I respect her as an artist and a creative being. Anyway, I watched both Single Ladies and If I Were A Boy. As far as Single Ladies goes, I think it's a pretty cool video. Some of the moves reminded me of Tina Turner back in the day. But when I saw If I were a Boy, it really made me stand up and take notice and really watch it intently. I like the video and it presented a worn concept in a very fresh and tangible way. However, the premise that the video, song really, is based on troubles me deeply. In this video, Beyonce takes on the stereotypically male role, the masculine role, if you will, and leaves the male to take on the feminine role.

The flirtatious and promiscuous nature that Beyonce put forward while taking on the masculine role supports the notion that men, well masculine characters in relationships, are naturally both flirtatious and promiscuous. Simultaneously, the video also makes femininity tantamount to fidelity and virtue via the apparently sympathetic nature with which the feminine character is treated. This notion troubles me, as a masculine man who has never EVER cheated. Am I supposed to be out "bussin down" random chicks? Do I need to go get me a "shawty", a "boo", a "buss it baby" to just "break off" with no attachment? Is this is a birthright of manhood? Have I missed the boat? Am I less of a man for keeping my penis in my pants?

The fidelity and "emotionality" that the man put forward while taking on the feminine role supports the notion that women, well feminine characters in relationships, are doggedly faithful to their mates even when their mates have apparently disrespected them. C'mon B. I'm not the most experienced man with women but I believe that they are intelligent enough to leave when they've been disrespected. We always talk about how the "sistas don't take no mess (perfunctory neck roll, finger snap, and eye roll included)." So why is it that when they have a good reason to leave, they won't leave? This idea that it can't be the woman's fault or the feminine character's fault that the relationship ends is, to me a dangerous proposition and counter-revolutionary for the rights of women.

In stating all this, I must directly say that I no so much support the notion of men naturally being masculine and women naturally being feminine; but more so that, one sex shouldn't allow themselves to be limited be the titles of masculinity or femininity as being transfixed by sex but allow themselves to embrace the meshing of the two traits. It's just that when one has to transcend one's gender to do what one wants and desires to do that individual has given far too much credence to the differences of gender stereotypes and their roles in society.

When discussing relationships and the courting process, I think it's interesting to note how much we give into our gender biases. Things like who's paying, who asked who out, who pursues who, and who makes the plans dominate the real interest interest each person should have in genuinely getting to know the other. I find that very disturbing. Women want to step out of the kitchen but still have car doors opened for them obligatorily. And when it comes to pursuit, whether you are masculine or feminine, you want to be found attractive; you want someone to show interest in you.

On Seinfeld, the character, George Costanza, starts dating his friend Elaine's named Paula. After George and Paula's first date, George starts grilling Elaine for information. Elaine says, "She really likes you...she's not into looks." And of course, the ending sentence sent George into a tizzy of self-doubt and introspection. As much as we all want to appear to "not be shallow" and "looking for something deeper" and "not into looks," we are all, at least in my opinion, fully aware of the aesthetic attractiveness of our potential mate and use that as a chief criteria in selection. And often when we are told that we are not attractive, the most natural and honest reaction is to ask "Why?" I had to become aware of my own biases, having often been aesthetically discriminated against, and realize that I was just as discriminatory if not in that area than in others. Although we often deride looks in intellectual circles as not being substantive, it really is. It is our first sensual perception of the individual. It gets the foot in the door.

Final Thoughts

But, I have digressed, I believe the central concept here is faith. Do we believe in our common humanity? If so, on what basis? What constitutes our belief in one another? What does it really mean to be human? Can we all be human? I believe that we can and we are. I believe that we are all potentially equal contributors to the culture of man. So what is it that inhibits us from doing so? Is it our humanity that keeps us from being human? If you believe that humans are naturally envious and power-hungry, then that is a definite possibility. That's kind of the question I asked my professor, when I posed, "How do theories and ideas survive? I'm sure that other people have thought the same thoughts as these people; but what separated the others from the notable people that we all study?" One of my other professors, answered the question, in his own way, in saying that the people who become icons do it, through the full affirmation of self beyond the society in which they live, beyond the mass culture in which they are mired via the transformational light which they carry within themselves them emanates onto society as a whole.

If that's true, then we are truly the greatest inhibitors of self. Anthropologist Benedict Anderson in his book Imagined Communities talks about the Janus-faced nature, facing both forward to modernize and backward to tradition. This is an idea that Anne McClintock advances in her discussion of the gender ramifications of nationalism. She states that men are modernizers of society while women are the keepers of tradition, even going so far as to transmit the traditions of gender inequalities and inferiority. Have women also transmitted to us our ideas of masculinity and femininity, our views of homosexuality? Is it because of men that we have continued to advance socially but not to the point of true equality? I suppose it is. But then that makes me ask, are gay men actually men in society? Are lesbian women actually women in society? By that I mean, in a very circuitous way to the top of the discussion, are gay/lesbian people, who actively affirm their sexual preference, able to truly influence culture? I don't think there has been that transformational character in the LGBT community; that could really bring their issues mainstream. But I'm also not a student of LGBT culture (lol). One of the most unique things about humanity is that, in culture, we are all both students and teachers. So, as we assimilate, we disseminate. But at what point, do we take responsibility for the culture we create?

P.S. This is what makes me angry about all this Obama buzz...