Ah, Cara, I feel for you.
If it's any help, here's some advice:
Cara, do you agree that there is a gay agenda? How could you not?
Yes there is a gay agenda and it is this: that gay people have exactly the same rights (neither more nor less) as heterosexual people. Equal. Fair. No special privileges or rewards for being heterosexual or for being homosexual.
Pretty scary, huh? Treating everyone the same without rewarding your sister-in-law because she happened to be born straight.
(yeah, yeah, I know.. .she'll say gay people "aren't born that way" but so far all of the genetic research says that genes play a part along with inter-uteri hormones)
Can't gay people already do what they want in the bedroom?
Only since June 26, 2003 have gay people had the right to do what they want in the bedroom. And the religious right still claims that was judicial activism and wrong and bad and should be overturned. Ask her if she thinks homosexuality should be recriminalized.
Can't they create a legal document that allows their partner to receive an inheritance if they die?
Well, actually, no. Not like she supposes. If her husband dies, she inherits. If a gay person dies, their partner can become a beneficiary but the estate is subject to taxes and the will can be challenged by relatives.
Can't they also have a legal document drawn up that allows their partner to see them in the hospital if they're in intensive care?
It depends on the State. Some good Christians have passed anti-gay marriage laws that seem to invalidate hospital visitation (Nebraska for example).
Besides, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to get what she can get for free? Does your sister-in-law think that is fair? Is she willing to do unto others as she'd have them do unto her; or does she think she deserves special treatment for free that gay people should have to hire an attorney to get?
She seems pretty upset about education because the schools aren't teaching her religion. She seems to think there's some gay religion. That's delusional.
But I still think that it could be possible to not live out your urges if you're gay. Maybe they could live a fulfilling life in touch with God, not acting out their same sex attraction. The personal testimonies of people who have turned away from it are real.
Sure, someone could choose celibacy. But it is incredibly arrogant of your sister-in-law to decide for them. What she forgets is that "turning away from it" doesn't mean they're straight. They're just choosing to repress their lives. She has decided that the appropriate thing for gay people is to remain alone and never have either a sexual experience or a love relationship in their lives. Ever. And that is not only presumption, it's downright cruel.
Fortunately, my church doesn't teach that. If they did, I'd have to question how I could worship a Deity that was heartless and cruel. I would have to find a church that didn't think that it was God's will for people to live without love, ever.
And finally:
Is it possible that some gays hate PFOX because it touches a raw nerve? It challenges the assumption that if you have gay urges, then you're gay and that's just who you are.
No. Actually if there were an organization that gave support to people unhappy being gay and who wanted to live celibate, there would be no problem. That's not what PFOX is.
They are a political lobby group.
All that they do (yes, all) is to lobby organizations and political bodies to enact anti-gay positions.
What I find most interesting about their claims is that they say it is possible to not be gay. But then they say that there is persecution against ex-gays. But wouldn't those "not gay" ex-gays be straight? There certainly isn't discrimination against straight people. It's a bizarre circular way of thinking which has nothing at all (truly nothing) to do with helping anyone and has everything to do with politics and lobbying.
From your sister-in-law's e-mail it's pretty clear that she thinks of gay people as "them". And she doesn't like "them" and frankly doesn't care whether she's fair or reasonable or just.
But she's not content with supporting inequality and discrimination. She also wants absolved from any criticism about it. She want to simultaneously be anti-gay and also not be called a bigot or homophobe.
Why? If she want to support bigotry, why not be proud to be called a bigot? If you want preferential treatment because you aren't gay, why not be proud to be called homophobic. If you think of gay people as "other" and want to actively deny them rights because you disapprove, why not be proud to be call a hater.
Because deep inside she knows she's wrong. She knows it isn't right to hate. She knows it's wrong to make one set of rules for herself and another for gay people. And she just doesn't want to confront it.
