June 28, 2014

Lisa Graas Thinks Homosexuality is Bad
Because something something something something bee hives and pianos



It's not unusual to run across sites that are contrary to my viewpoints. In fact, I do this on purpose. I've got my Google alerts triggered to dig up content that will keep us all interested. Churning out 17 posts or more a week is not something I take lightly--I need something to keep me invested. Being opinionated about things that I don't agree with is it.

In the fields I'm searching, you start to get familiar with names. Most of them I can take or leave. A few pieces I've run across have changed not my opinion, but my way of looking at things. Some are intelligible and though provoking, even when we don't agree. I can clearly follow their logic, and I can understand they are coming from.

And then there's the likes of Lisa Graas.

Graas and I disagree on a number of subjects. Actually, I think we may disagree on every subject in existence. In fact, if she said the sky was blue, I'd be really tempted to correct her, or assume that blue was not what I had thought it had been. That's how much we disagree.

To say her posts are trippy is an understatement. It's like a slide down a rabbit hole, and there's no way back from Wonderland.

Today for your perusal, I've got two posts from Graas. Don't worry, they are Do Not Links. Graas has a real heart for homosexuals, as we'll see. She's downright poetic about it.


Here's what she thinks of recent marriage equality gains:
“Gay marriage” is a novelty of the irrational. It will not stand. The reason is that mandating acceptance of “gay marriage,” is like mandating that people accept that a bee hive is a piano. Any rational person knows that a bee hive is not a piano and any rational person knows that “marriage” cannot be between two people of the same sex. Thankfully, judging by ballot measures, most people who are responsible enough to be registered voters are rational enough to know these things, which is why “gay marriage” is only becoming “the law of the land” through judicial activism.
Don't worry, she's not done there.

Any rational person? It's clear where folks like me stand in Graas's worldview.

Graas also says:
I can almost guarantee you that close to 100% of people who accept “gay marriage” also accept the idea that participation trophies (which are handed out to every kid who shows up to play in a sport) are a good idea. These trophies were invented as a means to “build self-esteem” among kids who are not athletic but who are motivated enough to show up. The idea is that if we treat those non-athletic kids who just show up equally with the kids who are athletic, we avoid hurting their feelings. “Gay marriage” is a participation trophy for those who do not have what it takes for actual marriage.
I can almost guarantee you that close to 100% of marriage equality proponents don't give two shits about participation trophies. I'm not even sure how that is relevant.

I don't understand how you can equate people who want to commit to marriage as not having what it takes for "actual marriage". What the fuck is "actual marriage", anyway? I don't think that exists. Actually, you know what--it totally exists. Actual marriage is any marriage that two adults consensually enter into as the terms of a mutually agreed-upon contract.
When we turn a blind eye to what we know to be true, just to keep from hurting the feelings of people who do not live up to it, we are sending the message that the thing we know to be true is not that important. But truth is truth, and avoiding it only causes pain. For this reason, just as participation trophies actuallycause kids to underachieve because they require us to yawn at achievement, “gay marriage” causes people to lose their respect for marriage as an institution because it requires people to yawn at the unique nature of actual marriage. If you can be married just for showing up, then marriage becomes meaningless, just as it becomes meaningless to participate in sports if everyone is rewarded.
The last time I checked, anyone could be married for just showing up. In fact, once you have that marriage license in hand, that's pretty much all you have to do--show up, say the words when prompted, sign on the dotted line, bada bing, bada boom. What hoops does Graas think people jump through to be married?

What is the "unique nature of actual marriage"? My marriage goes like this: My husband and I like each other an awful lot. We agree on the meaningful things, and sometimes disagree on other things. We both like sleeping in the same bed, and we enjoy having sex with each other. We'd really like for us to mutually commit to not sleeping with other people. We like to watch Supernatural. We both root for Washington, but disagree on college times, where I pull for WVU and he pulls for Virginia Tech, the damn turkey. He likes to eat my cooking, and even when he doesn't like it, he eats it anyway. I like the way he looks in a sleeveless shirt mowing the lawn. I could go on and on--at what point are we experiencing something unique to us as a man/woman couple? At what point are we experiencing something so unique to our clicking genitalia that a same sex couple could not experience it? Because everything I've listed could involved interchangeable genders easily.

In another piece, Graas says:
It gets worse, though. The same argument is being made today in the context of religion at theWashington Post as Gregory Pappas complains that he was denied communion in the Orthodox Church because he is actively homosexual. 
I know how this debate goes: The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. St. Paul said this, St. Peter said that, and Corinthians says this. But consider for a moment that people choose to commit adultery. They choose to rape. They choose to masturbate. They choose to take God’s name in vain. Every day, people make conscious decisions to commit sins that go against the teachings of the Church. People do not choose to be blond, or to be 5 foot 11 inches tall, or to have green eyes. They are created this way. And yes, people are created gay. And if we are created in God’s image, then millions of others like me were, too. 
Mr. Pappas believes that with God, some things are impossible. He believes that God cannot change him. He believes that his own beliefs about himself trump what God says about humanity. It is certainly his choice to be impatient with God, to believe that God can’t change people and to believe that his conscience is equivalent to God’s will, but he is wrong, and he is making more arguments that are inconsistent with Christianity than simply the one on homosexuality. He is wrong about many important things, not just that one. 
Pray for him. 
 God can change people. Why does God create people he needs to change? I created my children. I crafted them for nine months. It was hard work too. I could never imagine bringing them into the world with the intent to change them. Sure, I'm going to mold them into socially acceptable human beings (hopefully, at some point...) but it's not going to be at the expense of the character that makes them uniquely them. That character is what I love about them. That personality is them. If God is such a loving parent, why does he endow human beings with characteristics that he expects to change or expects them to repress forever?

Now that I've shared with you the whacky world of Lisa Grass, tell me--what is the most insane analogy you can think of to compare bee hives and pianos?

No comments:

Post a Comment