Most of you see me every day. You see me acting the part of "straight" Jacob, when I am in fact LGBT. Unlike millions of other LGBT teens who have had to act every day to avoid verbal harassment and physical violence, I'm not going to do it anymore. It's time to end the hate in our society and accept the people for who they are regardless of their sex, race, orientation, or whatever else may be holding back love and friendship. So take me, leave me, or move me out of the way. Because I am what I am, and that's how I'm going to act from now on.
There's a couple things I want to point out. First of all, I think he plagiarized this scene (at least the idea) from this movie (one of the only decent gay films I've ever seen), and I think that's pretty funny. (I actually plan to do a post on gay film soon.) Second of all,it's actually a pretty ballsy thing to do. I doubt I'd have the fortitude to get in front of a bunch of people and do that. I also find the issue of constantly acting, "living a lie" as they'd say, kind of interesting as well (but I'll have more to say about this in a later post; probably the same post as the gay film post).
I think the value of the whole thing ends there, though. For example, I find his use of "LGBT" really strange. In fact, most news sources keep using this phrase: "he came out as LGBT." I don't think I've ever referred to myself as "LGBT." I've never even thought it. It sounds stupid. But I think it's a phrase that's used on purpose. It's used, I think, to make the issue a political one. An issue where it's the weak group against the strong, oppressive group. Identifying yourself as "LGBT" allows you to align yourself with the weak group and become the good guy fighting against the bad guy.Which leads me to the point of this post. What I think is being done here is actually a sort of philosophical or moral sleight of hand. The issue is not about whether people should pick on gay kids or whatever. The issue is sexual morality. The whole controversy is whether gay people should have gay relationships. If it's good guy v. bad guy, then you can avoid the real issue altogether.
Now, this kid wasn't going up there with the intention of defending his moral choices, but his going up there was exactly this. Standing up and saying "it's time to end the hate in our society" was really him saying "I am going to go off and have homosexual sexual relationships because I think they're just fine." He was just doing it under the guise of good guy v. bad guy. Sometimes I feel like people fail to realize why homosexuals feel there's this big us v. them struggle. It exists, I think, because people still, and probably always will, consider homosexual relationships immoral. They can't articulate why, but they do. But what these people are speaking to when they say they think homosexuality is immoral is almost completely ignored. They're just assumed to be ignorant or bigoted; it has to be an issue of "hate." What they're saying can't have any merit because the LGBT people are the little guys who are fighting a hateful world, and the little guys, or so it goes, are always right in their cause. (I think we can probably give a pretty decent thanks to Christianity for this strange and illogical standard, incidentally.) By focusing on "LGBT v. The World," the real question completely disappears. It allows the homosexual to "overcome" something without actually overcoming the moral problem.
I think this completely realigns the whole debate in such a way that it effectively ends the argument. But it also does something else that's pretty important: it allows people who may consider homosexuality immoral to jump on board because they also dislike the idea of "hate" and "discrimination." This, in my opinion, is really unfortunate. But you see it all the time; people who are originally against homosexual relationships come to completely supportive of the LGBT movement when they discovery they have a gay son or a gay friend. What kind of person would disown his friend for being gay! Or what kind of parents would stop loving their child because he's gay! Bad friends and bad parents. No doubt about it. But this has nothing to do with whether their original position, that homosexuality is in fact immoral, is correct or incorrect. That the parent or friend treats the homosexual with compassion does not give the homosexual the right to pursue homosexual exploits. It's completely irrelevant to the issue. The homosexual could say things like "I'm gay, and I hate having to hide it, and I hate what people think about me," and not endorse homosexual activity. But he doesn't; it's never that way. The one is always the other.
This whole setup allows the homosexual to get away with immorality while forcing his parents or people who care about him to "accept him for who he is." Anything the parents or friends do that condemns the behavior will be seen as them being bad parents or bad friends. And if society says anything, they just have "hate." And it really doesn't matter what the kid is doing. He could be committing the most depraved sex acts with any number of partners, but if someone says "I think that's wrong," it's LGBT v. The World all over again. And because of the way our society works, if you're the little guy, the kid who is picked on, everything you choose to do that's related to why you were picked on must ultimately be correct.This is a major, major problem in my estimation, and it's usually the reason discussion about sexuality won't ever go anywhere.