When I originally signed up to participate in this year’s
hop against homophobia I was initially thinking of creating a piece similar to
what I did last year. A simple fact
based empirical piece about how homophobic action leads to indisputable harm to
society. This however I believe is the
wrong venue for such a piece. The people
following this hop are already well aware of these inequities, and I see no
point in reinforcing pre-existing understanding.
Instead I have based the following on the old story of the
watermelon monster and the land of fools.
This is a story about regardless of how correct or accurate you are, in
order to get a person’s thought process to change, they must be allowed to
arrive at the conclusion on their own.
I have had much success in getting people to re-evalute
their homophobic thoughts and actions by helping them to arrive at a conclusion
on their own, rather than tell them where they should end up. In order to do this, I must bite my tongue
and listen, I need to hear and understand how the person evaluates other
concepts and ideas. And lastly I never
tell, I ask questions, loaded questions but ones that I know they don’t want to
answer. And if they refuse to answer I
ask them why the clear answer makes them uncomfortable?
What follows are some of my go to lines;
At what age did you choose to be straight? Was it a difficult decision?
How are gay couples marrying in need of more regulation and
government interference than fire arms purchases?
How many gay marriage related fatalities are there compared
to fire arm deaths?
Why are you more comfortable with depictions of two men
killing each other than kissing each other?
How have the traditional marriages in X state changed since
y date of same sex marriage legislation?
Are homosexuals marrying and forming monogamous long term
relationships truly more damaging to the sanctity of marriage than the bachelor
or any of the other such programs? If
this was truly about the sanctity of marriage wouldn’t as much effort be put in
shutting down the marriage chapels all over Vegas?
If you are basing your true objection to marriage equality
on biblical scripture, isn’t then stating it is based upon other issues against
the lying commandment?
How do you justify not treating thou shalt not kill as strictly
in interpretation as the Leviticus verse against men lying together?
Note when using the bible I find it accomplishes more not to
throw out other Leviticus verses. I rely
heavily on the 10 commandments.
Finally I have spoken to a few people that object to being
called homophobic because they are not scared of gay people. I welcome this statement, because it allows
you agree with them and say they are in fact straight superior. They believe straight people are better than
gay people, which is why discriminatory laws such as those that allow
homosexuals to be fired for their sexuality are fine.
The key to finding success with these questions is to allow
the person you are speaking to a chance to answer.
Don’t rush them, don’t be abrasive.
I know this is incredibly difficult, but I am tired of an unending
talking point battle. If a person wants
to speak let them answer a few simple questions. Even when they refuse to answer, they are
still thinking about it and I have to believe they are searching for an answer
that will allow them to maintain their previous mindset.
Click here for a chance to win my newest short story.
Click here for a chance to win my newest short story.
