#sexualequality

Alan Jackson has a song called “I’ll Try”.....“And I’ll try to love only you....And I’ll try my best to be true”

Instead of saying “I Do”, I should've said, “I’ll Try.” I knew walking down the aisle, marrying that man was a huge mistake. I knew it, not in a cold feet sort of way, but to my core, I solidly knew it.

Why he wanted to marry me remains a mystery. I know he loved me, in his way, and I know he tried to fix what was wrong.  But the ‘wrong’ was unfixable. The ‘wrong’ was me.  I wasn’t broken, I was just the wrong girl.  Wrong in the sense that the right girl wouldn’t have lied and cheated more than a handful of times and wrong in that the right girl wouldn’t have fucked his best friend. Twice. I’ll get back to that.....

I was never truly sorry for what I’d done either.  I felt sufficiently bad. And by sufficiently, I mean I dutifully appeared to be remorseful. It wasn’t until later in life that I actually felt bad. What I felt bad about though was that I lied. I lied when I said I’d be faithful and true.  I failed to be honest, with myself, and I led someone down a path of destruction.

But, in the moment, I said the words; I’m sorry. That’s what we do, right? We hurt someone and then we say, oops, sorry.  As adults we’re able to reasonably predict the consequences of our actions. In that context, those forbidden liaisons weren’t mistakes. They were choices. And in that context, my “sorry” didn’t mean I was actually sorry. Quite honestly, I only felt stupid. I got caught. My biggest struggle wasn’t in deciding to stop having sex with other men. I wasn’t going to do that. My biggest struggle was getting better at hiding it. I failed at that too.

Having been ‘caught’ again, he looked at me, eyes tear-stained red, with incredulous, seething hatred and said, “Why are you like this?” 

All I could say was, ‘I just am’. 

Albeit tragically late in the relationship, I did attempt to explain how I see the world and what I want out of it. Not in an effort to salvage anything, but rather just to be understood. My perspective and my thoughts were not met with any sort of understanding or tolerance.

Through my lens, marriage, as defined, is a legal union between two people. Monogamy is not in that definition or synonymous with marriage, but yet is treated as such. Traditionally, it’s inferred, expected and required. Just like ‘love’.  Love is typically perceived to be synonymous with fidelity.  Inferred, expected and traditionally required. 

I do not subscribe to either understanding. Practical aspects aside, I do not believe in traditional marriage, or one that is centered around monogamy. I do not believe that I love ‘you’ less by having an intimate, sensory experience with someone other than ‘you’.  In fact, I believe the opposite.  The love I believe in says the door to the world is open and it’s not up to me to dictate how you exist in that space. It’s not up to me to MAKE you happy. It’s selfish to think any one person has that much power or ability.  It’s far too big a job to put upon another person that your happiness be their responsibility.

I believe that if I love you, I should support and share in your happiness. Not manage or marginalize. Speaking strictly of fidelity as a requirement in a relationship, that feels fearful to me. Be who you are and I’ll be who I am and if those pieces fit, how lucky we are. That’s love to me.  Let the ‘us’ be who we are, without judgement or punishment. What could possibly be more amazing?!  Imagine the limitless expansion of your life experiences when wholly accepted! Only then are we living authentically and I believe in that openness, we experience love at is purest form. Who doesn’t want that?? 

Only recently defining that whether it’s my idea of marriage or something else, a relationship that’s without judgment, one that shares, creates and explores is where I feel most genuine. A relationship wherein the ‘we’ are limited only by the boundaries that we create.  A relationship where I’m never asked; Why are you like this?

It has occurred to me, quite a while ago, that the real debate over whether two people of the same sex should be married is based on the section of the Bible that states that; 

“Man shall not lay with another man.”(Some Bible verse, from some book(Acts or something))

 And that it has everything to do with religious belief and nothing to do with legitimate logic. 

For example, a friend of mine, an American, grew up with two mums, and while he received a LOT of grief for this, turned out as a perfectly healthy STRAIGHT young man. 

So, this have evidence against the theory of homophobic protestors that “Gays’ raise more Gays”, which is a stupid theory, by the way. In my own experience, being raised by heterosexual parents who see no problem with the LGBTQ Community being able to marry, as long as its just the ability to marry without any compensation (which is actually a bit unfair to the hetero couples who have been together for years and received no help despite being, quite often, in financial stress). The thing is, the only right way for union to be granted to the LGBTQ community without upsetting anyone is to do so fairly, equally, and in a way that is recognised world wide. 

My suggestion, as I, myself, have thought about it for a long time, is for there to be another word for marriage that means the same thing, but for both hetero and queer couples. A Mortal Union, I’m thinking of calling it, and basically, it does the following things;

- The couple involved share a main bank account

- The couple involved will both have equal say in the relationship (no sexism i.e) male partner(s) has an equal standing with spouse, as does the female, or gender fluid/queer) 

- Divorce is just as difficult to file as in marriage

- Asexual ‘partners’ are included and share the same basic right of way

- Adoption is the same as when applyed by a married couple

- And Union CAN be considered Marriage if the couple so desires

It would be nice to find a way to please everyone and convince others that peace is possible, and as a Christian myself (who beleives in evolution, God, dinosaurs, and mind boggling luck) i would really enjoy it if my fellow Christians supported this idea. Such a Union would mean that Churches could hold a ceremony between the couple without having to call it marriage, and Christians who are against Gay Marriage will learn that love isn’t conventional.

So, if anyone thinks that a Union outside of marriage for Hetero and LGBTQ couples is a good idea, please support and reblog so that someone who can change the world can see this. 

Cheers, my dudes,