Opinion
Columnist attacks conservative Christian for hypocritical beliefs
April 23, 2009
If I were gay, I’d be the most hardcore, pissed off, adrenaline junkified homosexual man on the planet. I’d skin my head, tattoo a swear word backwards on my forehead and wear black and white, urban commando BDU (military fatigues) shorts and combat boots that would never be fully tied. I’d also constantly be sprouting an empty beer can at all times, probably Hamm’s, but I’d tell people I’d resorted to beer because I ran out of my No. 1 favorite drink: jet fuel. Unfortunately, though, I am straight. If I were gay I’d be very obnoxious, kind of like now, only I’d like men. But I’m not, so I can’t do those things.
Anyway. Last week’s guest columnist, Shawna Carpentier, wrote an outspoken, interesting and moderately thought out response to Nathan Sparks’ previous column about equality toward homosexuals. I have some questions regarding her response, just because I have a bullshat detector the size of my…Saturn; and that’s roughly a ton-and-a-half of safety, reliability and only a third of a tank of gas at all times. I remember being asked if I was “straight” in sixth grade by the cool kids, and that, at that young age, it was definitely not cool to be labeled gay, regardless of the fact that we didn’t really know what it meant to be gay.
So eventually, like maybe a year later, I grew out of my irrational fear of gays; and lately I thought the same of others, but apparently your fearful kind are still out there, Shawna. Your column is loaded with fact based on biblical knowledge, which may be okay in dealing with the supernatural, but is neither accepted in public debate like this nor truly valid. “This country was founded on Christian beliefs and it should not be deceivingly denied”? Okay, but what about the Native Americans; slaughtered and fought by the thousands when Spaniards began venturing into colonial Latin America?
What about the Catholic priests who’d set foot a mile and a half away from Natives with a printed doctrine stating the stipulations “protecting” Natives from mass slaughter? You know the one? I think it was called The Requerimiento, and it served as something of a loophole for Spanish elites to engage the pestering Natives who’d refuse to give in to the invader’s Christian ways. In essence, the document read “join us, learn our ways or die.” Yeah, and if they did refuse? A “justified war” (known as a Just War) took place which allowed Spanish commanders to sleep comfortably at night knowing they fired pieces of metal into the heads of combating Natives. Hm. Seems truly enlightening and justifying. Imperialism’ sure it was bitch work, but it got stuff done!
And if the homosexual population “is free to live their lives as they choose,” but “don’t have the right to redefine marriage,” then you have the right to write an article for the masses, and I have the right to tell you you’re wrong just because I feel like it. It’s your ignorant, literal interpretations of the Bible, which has been translated, rewritten, memorized, revised and argued about a frack-ton over the course of the past several thousand years that gets the rest of us in trouble. I couldn’t help but laugh maniacally after your bestiality comment. Wow. I can only imagine THAT conversation with my first child years from now. It’ll go something like…
“Son, you can’t be with a turtle in that way…” and then I’d have to stare into his confused, frightened and crushed eyes, glazed over in a thin skin of child tears. It’ll be as bad as telling him the truth about Santa. And if you’re so afraid of being one of six wives under a single husband, then don’t friggin’ marry a polygamist.
Denying a Christian gay couple (they exist) the sacrament of marriage is a direct violation of freedom in the spotlight of basic human rights whether you like it or not, and if you, a person created by God, deny a person’s (also created by your God) right to choose their lifestyle by force, then you represent the biggest hypocrisy of all. It is you who doesn’t have the right to say what’s morally right or wrong based off tales that have been twisted out of originality, and until Jesus walks up to me and tells me my pants look bad, I’m going to continue to wear them.
Denying a black man a spot on the bus because of his skin color was a direct violation back in the day, but, damn, now we have a black in the White House. Maybe you ought to give evolution a chance. Not Darwinism, no, I’m talking thoughtfully, like how opinions change over time based on concrete happenings. Go get married, have some kids and teach them the ways you wrote about by doing what Catholics can do best: instill fear and shame in the idea of homosexuality, but leave the people in this country whom you associate with the least alone. Contribute to the solution by letting the cards fall where ever. If I wake up tomorrow and read or see some story about a guy who wants to marry his dog, you can bet your ass I’ll be the first to show up at his house in a sweat-stained wife beater tank-top with a pitchfork and shotgun.
Brad Brookins is a graduate of UW-River Falls.