Each day tens of thousands of travelers traveling south on Interstate 95 and east on Interstate 64 will see this message of inclusion as they pass the Gay Community Center of Richmond. Perhaps some will learn. Perhaps some will come out. Just as in 1987, Richmond will be reminded that LGBT people are woven into the fabric of the city.
Since Netflix is foolishly forcing users to pay twice as much for access to both instant viewing and DVDs, I've been on a hunt for LGBTQ films, shows, and documentaries I can watch online before September hits and we say goodbye to Netflix's extensive yet paltry selection of instantly available movies and shows.
Anyway, this habit and the company's suggestion generator led me to the 2009 documentary Fish Out of Water, which I watched yesterday. (Watch the trailer.)
I immediately related to aspects of writer/director Ky Dickens' opening backstory of being gay at socially conservative Vanderbilt University (I graduated from Notre Dame), and found the arguments and evidence presented in her film, which is essentially a refutation of the claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality, ones that I want to use against my cousin and others who incorrectly use Catholic/Christian teachings to argue against gay rights.
You can find a handy list of the "anti-gay" Bible verses-- and why they're not-- here. This documentary echoed what the MCC minister argued in Prayers for Bobby(also a great film-- and I usually hate Lifetime movies-- but you will need tissues).
Fish Out of Water features interviews with a dozen ministers and theologians (all heterosexual), including two that believe homosexuality is unnatural (one of them is Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church). It also interviews more than 170 members of the LGBTQ community, many of which identify as Christian despite their churches' and families' rejection and condemnation.
The film argues that of the Biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality, from Adam and Eve to the writings of Paul, none of them hold any water. (Again you can find a snapshot of the film's arguments here.) It further asserts that Jesus always sided with the persecuted, hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors, and though Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, his teachings and actions indicate that he would only show acceptance and love toward the LGBT community.
Fish Out of Water uses animation, academic interviews, and solid logic to refute parroted, assumption-based arguments against the morality of homosexuality. It's earnest and humble, and has the potential, I believe, to open eyes and hearts, and inspire people to form their own opinions about Christianity and the gay community, instead of the opinions and interpretations presented to them as truth and fact.
I recently had an extensive argument with my cousin about this video, which he posted to his Facebook wall.
The video essentially argues that a family is not complete unless it includes both a mother and a father. It features heterosexual couples and one single mother talking about how it's unfair to children to raise them without both a mother and a father figure. The video, part of the US Catholic Bishops' film series on the purpose of "true marriage" flashes phrases like "sexual difference matters," because without the mother providing the "feminine role model" and the father as the "male role model," a "serious injustice" is supposedly done to the child.
One guy, from "Pete & Katie, married 10 years," tells us that, "Studies show, so clearly, that children raised by a mother and a father do better in school. They're less likely to get involved with drugs or gangs. They thrive in many other areas of life."
Why, then, does this US News and World Report article report that "science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents"? Why do researchers conclude that "the gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter"?
Like most maligners of same-sex parenting, this video "cites research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents." In fact, studies show that, on average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes.
I agree with the USCCB on one point: two parents are better than one. This is the only claim in the video that is actually backed by the "testimonials." The rest of it is straight married couples giving their opinion that they are better parents than the other kinds of parents. Of course, everyone thinks they're a better driver than everyone else, too.
And the NYU and USC scientists who analyzed all available research on opposite-sex, same-sex, single-mother, and single-father parenting, also agree: "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one."
So why are gay couples in committed, stable, long term relationships (I know some who have been together much longer than "Steve & Heather, married 5 years" and "Pete and Katie, married 10 years," and even some whose relationships have lasted as long as the married-35-years couple who talks two whole times in the 10-minute video.
Many other things from this video incense me, including the other main argument, being "open to life," which is clearly aimed to discourage birth control and/or abortion. Notably, one couple is cited as being "open to life" through the avenue of adoption. Wait a minute-- most of the gay couples I know don't use birth control or abortion, and many of them are considering adoption, just like that heterosexual couple. The couple in the video says that the adoption "brought great joy to [their] lives." So gay couples don't deserve joy? That's a lovely undertext.
Also, the whole biblical grounding for openness to life is rather shoddy, in my opinion, as well. "Be fruitful and multiply" was an edict given, in a part of the Bible which the infallible Pope has declared to be metaphorical and not literal, at a time when the metaphorical couple Adam and Eve needed to populate the entire earth with their offspring, not in a time of overpopulation, and under which incest and polygamy were allowed.
