Italian Food or Mexican Food?

Lots of people are going to disagree with my opinions here, and I’m sure many will consider the topic significant enough to unfollow who they previously thought was a really cool person. While my intent is far from offending anyone, that’s okay if you don’t agree with me. I still love you.

If given the choice of eating Italian food or Mexican food for dinner tonight, which would you choose? Feel confident in your selection? Now what if I told you you were wrong? Wait, what? There’s a right and a wrong answer to this? If you said there’s not, then I’d agree with you. Whether you eat Italian food or Mexican food - or both - for dinner tonight has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. This post takes what has become a major, controversial topic and uses it to advocate for something I believe should be as commonplace and standard as plants photosynthesizing sunshine into growth-inducing nutrients. Something I believe should be as long-standing as existence itself: acceptance.

Now, from an evolutionary perspective, I can understand why a species might reject an outlier. But at the same time, who am I, as just another human of 7 billion on this planet, to say that someone different from me is “better or worse?” Consider a 4-leaf clover. Supposedly, these good-luck charms only grow 1 out out every 10,000 clovers, and we consider one with 4 leaves to be a “mutation,” a deviation from “normal.” As far as I’m concerned, that “mutation” brings to the plant 33% more sunshine to be photosynthesized. Most would consider that a good thing. Most would consider that “good luck.”

So why would being left-handed be any different? A quick Google search tells me that approximately 11%, or 1 in 9 of the world’s people, is left handed. This could be a good thing; left-handed people could be the superior demographic. Who am I to say? And why would it matter, anyway? I, a right-hand dominant person, am not going to all of a sudden start doing everything with my left hand just because someone convinced me left-handed people are “better.” While our judgment of this may be more prevalent and openly-discussed than dinner preferences, as evidenced by so many tasks and devices being designed with the right-handed in mind, it is nowhere near as hasty and hostile as our judgment of the LGBTQIA2S+ community. Why??

I like to believe that certain life experiences at a young age have taught me to value and appreciate character traits such as resilience, uniqueness, acceptance, and a sense of belonging. In a world that so vastly favors the white, heterosexual, right-handed male, I would suspect that non-white, non-heterosexual, non-right-handed, non-males might also relate to some of these words. For this reason, I think it’s no coincidence that so many of my best friends throughout my life have identified with one or a combination of several of those characteristics. Many of my thoughts found on this page have been in my head for a long time, but what finally prompted this expression of them was when I woke up a few weeks ago to find so many social media posts about HB 1557, aka the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. 

For one, the day I saw the bulk of these posts was right in the thick of all the Ukraine chaos. To consider that juxtapose just baffled me – we’re still using violence, much less on innocent people, to settle our disputes, and while this is going on, politicians in Florida are “restricting the education of LGBTQ topics in the state’s public schools.” Like, that’s the top of their priority list right now? And then by removing a special tax status, they punish powerhouse Disney for opposing the bill (which may or may not be the right thing to do, but not as retaliation for not supporting this bill). Financial transactions in exchange for suppression of human acceptance? I was disgusted. 

What’s the bill even say, though? This article from NPR quotes the bill as saying: Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Supposedly the intent is to shift autonomy to responsible guardians at home, giving parents the decision of what and when to teach their young children. Put this way, I can appreciate some of that. But at the same time, I also suspect that a less-than-comprehensive “education” will still exist for young minds, only now coming exclusively from their similarly young, less developed/mature peers. I foresee this laissez-faire perpetuating traditional, vastly homophobic ideologies in addition to a fear of being disapproved and unaccepted in impressionable minds. Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, reportedly argued that teaching kids "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children. I’d argue quite the opposite. What I see as being inappropriate for children is teaching them they can’t be themselves, that they must conform to somebody else’s perception of who they should be, with no voice to say otherwise or opportunity to explore what any of that even means. When I was in 3rd grade…20 years ago…I very consciously knew that my teachers had to accept my dreams and aspirations to be an astronaut, president, whatever 👏🏼 I wanted 👏🏼 to be 👏🏼 And as many protestors have made clear, “someone’s identity is more permanent than a profession,” so I’d argue it is considerably more important to accept the former, considerably more crippling to reject the former.

Moving to Greenville a few months ago has honestly been such a dream. I love it here. However, it’s the smallest city I’ve lived in and I’ve noticed a correlation between small cities and a lack of acceptance toward diverse populations as well as enthusiasm in religious affiliation. (I have noticed an oddly high number of lefties here, though, including interactions with 9 left-handed people a few Wednesdays ago, 3 of whom were all within a 5-foot radius of me within half an hour of each other.) I’m not suggesting that all small city inhabitants or church-goers are anti-gay, or close-minded, or anything like that. I know tons of people who have accepted Jesus as their savior and continue to “love all God’s people,” including a bisexual pastor who’s actually one of my closer friends and mentors (guess what - he’s also left-handed). But I also acknowledge that these two concepts are often perceived as conflicting, so I felt it appropriate to consider this can of worms.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore actually published an article in 2015 that addresses a lot of the Bible’s view on same sex attraction (SSA). I like a lot of what the second paragraph is already making clear: The first thing we must remember about persons with SSA is that they are made in the image of God; each person is unique and of infinite worth, “chosen by eternal love” to exist…We cannot reduce a person to his or her sexual orientation, and see someone as simply “heterosexual” or “homosexual”, for that is not their deepest identity. To see persons with SSA with the eyes of Christ is to see them first of all as someone loved by God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, our fellow child of God.

For what it’s worth, my understanding of the distinctions between one Catholic/Christian denomination and another boil down to smaller interpretations of a lot of the same core values. Even when comparing Western and Eastern religions, so many of the differences, to me, seem more related to language and interpretations of nitty gritty than anything else. Most mainstream religions seem to involve a written text explaining what it means to its author(s) to “love thy neighbor.” However you want to interpret this above excerpt, it seems clear to me that regardless of a person’s attraction, identity, actions, thoughts, etc, it is not for you or me to judge or treat them any differently than we would another.

Reading on, we find Pope Saint John Paul II’s words: The sexual act between man and woman is thus the expression of loving self-giving through the language of the body, and the meaning of this expression is derived from male-female complementarity.

Translated to my brain, it sounds like he’s saying that sex is largely defined by the way a person gives themselves to another. If we’re considering literal, tangible parts of a person to be “given” to another, separate from the physical and emotional vulnerability that can also be a beautiful part of this connection, then maybe he’s referring to sperm and eggs that can be fertilized and create new life. Several I’ve spoken with would further the argument that sex’ purpose is just that – to create new life.

The article goes on to support this, saying that sex loses its meaning outside of this complementarity, as its purpose is twofold, to unite and for procreation. My mind gravitates toward this concept of union – if a person is to give of themselves, whether that relates to their emotions, their vulnerability, their physical body, whatever it may be, why does it matter who the recipient is? What is the harm in giving? Again, some might argue that the harm comes from overlooking the procreation part, engaging in a mutually self-serving act, knowing that new life cannot result.

But, if that were the case, then SSA isn’t the problem. If that were the case, then the problem would lie more in sex outside of a fertile window, which heterosexual couples do all the time with nowhere near the same judgment gay couples receive. In fact, I’ve noticed a big push in the Church to use varied approaches to this “fertile window” as it relates to natural family planning, preferred over more traditional contraceptives.

Consider two concepts: karezza and tantra. The former comes from the Italian word for caress, “carezza.” Similar in practice, both of these terms refer to a type of sex where climax is not the goal, but rather a physical and emotional connection, attraction…union. I mean, think about it – two individuals who share a mutual connection, deeply in love, using various forms of physical touch as a vehicle to explore and appreciate each others’ mind, body and soul…present with each other and nothing more for a limitless time domain. Does that not sound absolutely beautiful? Who’s to say that this form of connection is reserved solely for heterosexual, post-marriage couples who intend to conceive?

There are countless other sources that either support or reject SSA, and I think one of the hardest parts about sifting this information is considering all the applicable contexts, biases, and translations/interpretations of a toneless text. If this post sends you down a rabbit hole, I’d love to know I got you thinking. But regardless of your opinion on LGBTQIA2S+, my overall point here places value in accepting one another. To judge or belittle someone for their identity, life choices, or otherwise, in my opinion, is a lot more hurtful than identifying with non-traditional gender ideologies or mutually conceptual sex between two individuals. If you disagree with me on any of this, that’s okay. I still love and accept you. If you eat pizza for dinner every night, I love and accept you. I believe that every person on this planet deserves to have autonomy over how they’re addressed, deserves a base level of respect for and acceptance of their identity, and regardless of what you believe, I encourage you to just be kind.

As always, I welcome and encourage feedback on my thoughts. I’ve been chewing on a lot of these concepts for years, but I acknowledge that I’m still learning, especially as it relates to the language associated with some of these concepts. DM me!