I love gay men. Gay men are a straight girl’s best friend. They give you a strong shoulder to cry on, without you having to worry about whether they are just being nice to get into your pants. Sorry lesbians, I have nothing against you, but I have to put myself firmly in the camp of being an outright fan of gay men. I also love the creativity of gay men. I don’t know if it’s because they are unfettered by gender roles (once they’ve gone through the difficult process of coming out), but they really bring us some of the best art, music and entertainment. Is calling gay men creative a stereotype? I suppose so, but it’s a positive one. Bottom line: Many of my dearest friends in the world have been gay men, and I absolutely have no problem with them doing whatever it is they want to do with other consenting adults.
So with all that said, do we really have to live in a world where every single person on the planet 100% accepts gay people? Where everyone believes that gay marriage is the exact equivalent of heterosexual marriage? Do we want to live in a world where if someone disagrees about the role of homosexuals in our society, they are to be shunned, demonized, and made out to be heinous evil Nazis who must be stopped at all costs?
Seriously. Think about this for a second. Really think about it. Think about the long-term consequences of promoting thought intolerance, where people are to be marginalized for their beliefs.
Because one day, the shoe may be on the other foot.
I’ve been very concerned lately that the response of some well-meaning pro-gay liberals has been to go overboard and act in the very intolerant ways they decry. We are now crossing into witch hunt territory, where people are being judged by their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, and because of these beliefs, are now being personally targeted.
The latest issue in question actually has to do with the small Michigan town I grew up in, Jackson. I am on Facebook with a bunch of people from my high school, and a well-meaning activist from my high school linked to a letter about how Jackson had hired a new director of human resources. The problem? This person is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a choice, and has stated as such publicly.
I might also add that this person in question – Crystal Dixon – is not only a woman, but a black woman, but I guess those two affirmative action brownie points do not make for the fact that she’s a socially conservative Christian. Since she believes being gay is a choice, she must go! So a campaign of sorts was started to try to convince Jackson from hiring her. It failed. I suppose now people will be trying to get her fired, or purposefully filing lawsuits in order to prove a point. We’ll see…although, the issue may just die down…after all, it is Jackson, and having grown up there, the number of activists per capita is not actually very high.
So why the brouhaha? Dixon had previously been fired from the University of Toledo for a letter to the editor that expressed in clear detail her beliefs on homosexuality. As far as I know, she was not cited or fired for actually discriminating on the job. One can only guess, though, how a university might react with a public statement such as hers. Whether she did a good job or not, the outcry would be enough to force her out. The powers that be in Jackson, however, thought she had a stellar resume and would do a good job, and so hired her.
Let’s now take a look at the content of her actual letter, because I feel this is important. She writes:
First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.
As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives.
Now. We can all debate day and night over whether people are born gay or not, but the distinction here is that some people believe that homosexuality is an activity, not an inherent quality of being. That is, no matter who you are attracted to, it is the action you take in regards to that attraction that matters. I own a copy of the Catholic Catechism, and it specifically says that no matter what the causes of homosexuality, homosexuals are called to be celibate. The Catholic Church, by the way, would also take issue with the actions I have taken as a single person who has had sex outside of marriage. Technically speaking, I am just as much a sinner as the homosexual, because I had sex outside of the covenant of marriage.
You can disagree with this philosophy. And yes, there is definitely more stigma attached to acting out on homosexual desires versus heterosexual desires outside of marriage. But in the eyes of the Catholic Church, masturbation, homosexuality, and sex outside of marriage are all fairly equivalent forms of sexual sin.
Whether you believe in that or not isn’t the point. The bottom line is this:
People have a right to their religious beliefs.
They have just as much a right to have and speak out about their religious beliefs as someone has to engage in same sex relations with consenting adults.
As long as a religious person does not impinge on the rights of a gay person, they should be free to disapprove of homosexuality. (An aside: I’m sure some at this point will bring up the issue of gay marriage as a “right” that the religious people are infringing upon. I would argue, from a libertarian perspective, that gays already have the “right” to enter into any sort of commitment and relationship ceremony they choose to create themselves or receive through a spiritual organization that sanctions gay marriage. The state-sanctioned marriage is not a right, but a privilege granted by the state. However, because this privilege is not granted equally under the law, I would favor abolishing state-sanctioned marriage entirely and just letting churches decide what relationships they will sanction. Consenting adults can then enter into civil unions as they so desire, without the state being in the marriage business at all.)
I personally believe that most religious people who believe homosexuality is a sin aren’t haters but simply people who are trying to do what’s right. Maybe they are misguided, but they are not evil. I stumbled across an evangelical site that works to end sex addiction. They have a page about “helping” people with same sex attraction. As much as that might anger you, please step back and consider that these people aren’t doing this out of hate, but out of a sincere desire to help.
Misguided doesn’t mean evil.
So. Should someone be barred from a job, or worse, fired from a job, simply because they have certain religious views? As long as they are doing their job, I don’t think being 100% approving of gays should be a litmus test for being hired.
The thing is, you might want this to be a litmus test, because it’s your belief that gays should be treated equally to straights. But what if the tables were turned? Would you want conservative Christians to make a stink and create a public litmus test where only people who believe homosexuality is a sin get hired? Would you like it if they started up campaigns to fire people who believed in gay marriage? When we see the Westboro Baptist Church acting like the Christian gestapo, we don’t like it. Why on earth do you think it’s OK or productive to start acting like them in response?
Now. Perhaps you have an objection. And it is this. You might say, as I’ve heard, that because Crystal Dixon is in “human resources” she has to be for gay rights, because human resources people are “supposed” to be advocates for diversity. This sentiment was expressed on Facebook from someone in HR who I suspect works in a very activist organization or liberal business where the human resources position really is about hiring as many non-white males and non-straight people as possible. I doubt it’s like that in all organizations – and I do know other human resources people where the main job is to make sure workplace laws are followed and paperwork is taken care of. HR is not always about workplace diversity advocacy.
Regardless, until I see hard proof that Crystal Dixon actively worked to block homosexuals from positions, or did something else to break the law, I can’t advocate a witch hunt against her for her religious views.
The thing is: What do we exactly mean when we say we want diversity?
Crystal Dixon has a viewpoint which is perhaps distasteful to you, but it is a view that comes from her Christian beliefs and growing up as a black woman. One thing that struck me from reading her letter was how frustrated she seemed to be that well-meaning (and probably white) people were comparing the gay rights struggle to the struggle blacks have gone through. Later on in her letter, she compares the relatively high incomes of homosexuals to the low incomes of black men to show that homosexuals aren’t suffering under the same economic oppression as blacks.
So is her viewpoint as a socially conservative black woman something we should squelch or silence? If we want true diversity, would that also not include people who have differing religious beliefs than our own?
Or does diversity simply mean: We only want liberal-minded people with the right “feel-good” ratio of men, women, blacks, whites, gays and straights? As long as they are all liberal and not conservative Christians.
What the heck kind of diversity is that?
But let’s just get pragmatic and look at the brass tacks here. Will campaigning to get socially conservative people fired actually help the gay cause in the long run?
After the 2008 election, when California voted to block same-sex marriage, angry extremist gay rights activists posted a map to the homes of people who donated to the anti-gay marriage effort. What could be the purpose of such a map, except to incite violence? A friend of mine (a Catholic who has gay friends but believes in civil unions, not gay marriage) was targeted by gay activists who harassed her employer to try to get her fired. They failed, but this behavior sure didn’t help their cause. When discussing this and the “hate map” to a more conservative (and Latino) friend of mine, he got really mad about the whole thing. He said to me: “I don’t give a flying flip about gay marriage, and I was happy to support gays when they fought Proposition 8, but I will no longer give them my support after this.” I don’t think this intention was to vote for anti-gay legislation, but to simply not vote either way.
In other words, the gestapo tactics of pro-gay activists resulted in at least one person vowing to never help them again in the future.
So even if you think that it’s the right thing to do to fire someone for their anti-gay beliefs, I implore you: PLEASE find another way. Find a way that is truly about tolerance and understanding. Find a way that helps open hearts, not close them. Find a way that makes people think, rather than putting them on the defensive, which makes them cling to their beliefs even more. And finally, at some point you are just going to have to accept that not everyone will believe that homosexual behavior is OK. They just won’t. Not now, and probably not ever.
So try to find some peace with that, and let go of the need to punish people for that belief.
Because if you do not stop your hardline tactics, you will end up hurting your cause and make things harder for gays in the long run.
The sad and likely end result of acting like the belief gestapo will be a backlash. Mark my words. And frankly, I care too much about my gay friends to see you overzealous activists screw things up for them.
So please. Stop.