>> |
No. 375547
I used to believe gay marriage was wrong, only because of three things. A.) It was an attempt by pedophiles and pro-gay proponents to adopt children and indoctrinate them to believe homosexuality was not different from heterosexuality, as well as get easier access to children. This counts as one thing: Child Abuse. At the time I did not understand pedophilia crossed different wires than homosexuality, given how congruent you heard stories of pedophilia involve male perpetrators and male children. B.) It was an attempt to use the illusion of civil rights to change the church, or punish them for not doing what the secular, legal world wanted. I had little love for the church, but I hated the idea. I believed that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, because we got our rights to marry from a questionable, traditional marriage of our secular and religious cultures. That businesses and the government, having similar origins and culture with religion, intersected in this one area. That the definition of marriage, the heterosexual union of one man and one woman, was defined as such because that's how religious culture defined it. For better or worse. C.) It was an attempt by homosexual enthusiasts to have what amounted to gay pride parades in EXACTLY the places that they weren't wanted. Not much different from when an obnoxious child irritates and aggravates a larger child, but only when a parent with the larger child on their shit list is around. They act all innocent and playful as a cover, then harass and instigate as much as possible while making it look like they're just playing. "Play with me and act like you like it, or I'll tell dad and he'll restrict and whip your ass."
As I grew up, I learned there are way worse places to be than raised by two homosexual parents, be they male or female (though I still misogynistically believe two women make better parents than two men) and that both the overall population of homosexuals who'd want to both get married and adopt kids are very small, and the likelihood of them being 'pedo-farmers' was so astronomically unlikely that it would at best be indistinguishable in numbers from the horror stories of heterosexual adopting homes. And as for being indoctrinated to believe homosexuality was just as valid as heterosexuality? Whether it's a biological benign skin tag that's an error but so innocuous as to ignore, or just another equal sexuality, doesn't really matter. So the legalized child endangerment issue and the indoctrination issue go out the window. It's not child abuse nor opens the window to legally sanctioned brain washing or rape.
I also learned that the church does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage, and in fact the religious involvement in the states is largely relegated to a ceremonial function. That when a religious person objects to gay marriage, they're objecting to it under the pretense that marriage, the secular and religious wholesale, is the domain of the church alone. They aren't using the actual legitimate definition of marriage, but the optimistic, idealized lenses. No different than if they held up a rock, and you said, "That's a rock." And they'd reply, "That's GOD'S rock." Well, okay dude. That's your opinion. But the reality is, it's just a rock. So the idea the state was infringing on the domain of something solely religious falls. That they don't want to change the definition of marriage forcefully to include homosexuals, they want to return the legal language to equal opportunist ambiguity compared to what it is under that filth that is DOMA. And change the legal definition, not the religious traditions. Which we, as voting, tax paying, progressive people have every right to do.
And once you take away the misunderstanding that you have to make the church cooperate and change its values in order to marry people, the entire distinction between a legal civil union and a legal marriage goes out the window. The need for civil union no longer exists, and the clarification the state isn't trying to strongarm the church to its social agenda as part of extending civil rights to homosexuals changes everything. Being in favor of civil unions as an alternative vs. giving gays the right to marry no longer holds as a valid logical or ideological position.
This is all it took to convince me that gay marriage was not a big problem, nor inconvenience, for anybody that wasn't gay. But since I were 13, absolutely no gay rights progressive would speak to me on this issue without barking at me what I SHOULD believe and what I MUST believe, or else I were a stupid bigot. And that even if it did inconvenience a religious culture or tradition by strong-arming them to conform to whatever the state wanted, they deserved it anyway for all the harm they've done over the centuries. Every single time I tried to have a conversation on the issue with somebody pro gay-marriage, not once was it pointed out to my younger self that religion has almost nothing to do with the definition or application of marriage in the USA, or that churches would not be affected, but it was always "churches SHOULD recognize gay marriages" and "it doesn't matter if the church doesn't like it."
Knowing what I know now, the communication breakdown and the clashing of the ignorant and religious vs. the knowlier-than-thou erudites preaching progression or social ostracism, we could have had gay rights and gay marriage ten years ago if they'd just addressed these concerns of the silent majority, instead of pretending they were going to judo-flip the majority into enlightenment by force or pretending the distinctions didn't matter.
|