This is your zeitgeist speaking.

A young couple who go to my grandparents' church recently decided that, since I know Chicago, and since they will be in Chicago in a couple of months, they would take me out to lunch and in return I would tell them what is good to do in Chicago (Orange for breakfast, Icosium for crepes, fuck the Sears Tower, try the cocktail lounge at the top of the Hancock Tower instead, Shedd Aquarium is kickass, Adler Planetarium is, like far too many museums these days, almost exclusively geared for children, because apparently adults don't want to learn things?) and somehow we got on the subject of homosexuality and therefore I had a lot to say. Two major points from that discussion:

1) One of the couple brought up a member of her family, who was gay, and sketched out in brief the fact that they loved him but disapproved of his"lifestyle choice". So we talked about the hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner dichotomy so common to discussions with Evangelicals on this subject. I should note that I rather approve of this attitude, when directed at things that could legitimately be termed "sins" - theft, for instance, or alcoholism. But, and this is the point I made, no such dichotomy is even possible when discussing homosexuality. The "sin" in this case is an essential and inalienable part of the "sinner's" identity. If you claim to love someone while hating their homosexuality, you are wrong. You can't love the "non-gay" parts of them because there are no non-gay parts: identity simply does not compartmentalize that way. So you both hate and love this person, and let's call that what it is: fucked-up.

2) This couple was very gracious throughout the conversation, even though I was rambling on about gay rights while eating a very nice meal they had paid for. They had every right to ask me to stick to more comfortable subjects, but instead they listened and asked questions and made points. They were members of the very, very right-wing church I spent my earliest years in, yet they were perfectly willing to agree that homosexuality was neither a choice, nor even remotely comparable in its effects to, say, alcoholism. That may not sound like much to you, but to someone who grew up marinated in the conservatism of that particular subculture, that's the roar of progress, which I hear everywhere echoed: the thoughtful Christian kids I grew up with are waking up, and realizing that the current attitude of Evangelical Christianity towards homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with a just and free society. Given the conviction inherent to being a committed Evangelical Christian, I should not be surprised if, in a generation, the Evangelical Churches were among the strongest supporters of equality in this country. For the old have wisdom: they see the world as it is; but the young have vision: they see the world as it should be.

After lunch, the woman mentioned in passing that talking to me reminded her of an old friend of hers, the one who had convinced her to take the one philosophy class of her life, and whose discourse often went over her head. I tend to get this a lot, I say not to my credit; often I am more concerned with backing up my opinions with the names of philosophers than I am with making myself understood. But what has been made abundantly clear to me over the past year is that what matters is not education or intelligence, but the ability to listen, the will to understand, and the drive to learn. The meek shall not only inherit the earth; they shall save it.