The marriage debate has proven to be different than the general fight for “gay rights”, and this causing a lot of people to go bonkers, and exposing homofascist tendencies in some of them.
Why? Perhaps the answers can be found in recent history.
The "gay rights" movement has had astounding success. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal and was prosecuted. There were raids on places where homosexual people congregated. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the APA. Entertainers (and many others) hid homosexual behavior for fear of career loss. Kids were warned to beware of homosexuals, with such warnings equating them with pedophiles. Many people didn’t even know the word "homosexual".
Things have changed.
Homosexual behavior is treated like heterosexual behavior by the law, in that private consensual behavior is legal. Raids on "gay bars" when they happen (which is rare), can only be done under the same reason any other bar would be raided. The APA has not only reclassified homosexuality away from being a disorder, but it advises against telling people they can change their behavior away from homosexuality. Some entertainers make their careers out of being proudly "out", and other out entertainers have thriving careers. Homosexual characters and reality show contestants are overrepresented on television. Homosexuality has long had its own media segment in the form of cable channels and periodicals, but it is also a regular part of mainstream media. Now, major companies are placing ads on television for their products in which homosexual behavior is presented as normal and common. There are legislatorsand other elected officials who are openly gay and it isn’t even an issue (except that homosexuality advocates and other Leftist activists act like these people have cured cancer). Kids are taught in schools that there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that is just like heterosexual behavior.
Saying "that's so gay" to a coworker can mean punishment by your employer and sensitivity training. Some religious groups, such as many denominations claiming to be Christian, have switched to celebrating homosexual behavior, in contrast to Biblical teaching and church traditions.
Laws (or proposed legislation) and court decisions at the state and federal level protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. HIV/AIDS was even singled out in the American's With Disabilities Act. Domestic partership and civil union laws in many states have recognized same-sex pairings as legal arrangements - California's law, for example, treats domestic partners as spouses. Even where not mandated by law, many employers and others recognize domestic partnerships.
"Hate crime" laws and programs track, and in many cases, add extra penalties for crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s sexual orientation.
Homosexuality advocates have even managed to get a lot of otherwise reasonable people go to along with the idea of "transgenderism" – simply because they have asked them to. This is the catch-all phrase assigned to dressing so as to appear to be the opposite sex, or going so far as to surgically remove healthy body parts and get shot up with hormones to further the pretending. So now, if Fred announces to his employer that he's now Jane, the employer is supposed to pretend that he's a woman. If "Jane" comes back from vacation and says he went back to being Fred, the employer is supposed to go along with that, too. Something like this happened at the Los Angeles Times not long ago, with one of their journalists . The news media referred to a woman as a "pregnant man" because she'd gotten enough hormone treatments to grow facial hair. These are just two recent examples. In comparison, while there is an active and ardent "deaf pride" movement, what do you think the reaction of most people would be if a man with otherwise good hearing had his ability to hear intentionally removed through surgery, because he's always felt like he was born with hearing he shouldn't have?
While there are families that shun or disown any member who "comes out", more families are accepting a member’s homosexuality (and partner) and do not attempt to discourage homosexual behavior, or even happily celebrate the situation, doing whatever they can to suppress or get over any negative feelings about the idea of their family member partnered with someone of the same sex (and not someone of the opposite sex).
California has Harvey Milk Day and requires school textbooks to feature the contributions of LGBT people in a way that points out their LGBT status.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was abolished as miltary policy.
Obama became the first President to adopt the homosexuality advocacy agenda and admit his support for the neutering of marriage (Hey Michelle: be careful of a husband who don't think being married to women is any differen than being "married" to men.")
Many supposedly Christian churches have completely abonded the very clear Biblical concepts that sex is for marriage and marriage unites the sexes, and make a point of letting people know, even devoting a large percentage of the websites, that that publicly unpretent fornicators are welcome to fully participate in their practices and leadership, at least as long as the fornication is with someone of the same sex.
It's gotten to the point where, as far as I can tell, the changes to society most sought after now by "LGBT community" are, in no particular order, 1) Getting schoolkids to stop saying "that's so gay" or using slurs and to make sure they have no negative thoughts abut homosexual behavior whatsoever; 2) harassing churches that want their leadership to adhere to Biblical standards of behavior; 3) harassing the Boy Scouts of America because the organization does not want kids having to share tents with peers or adults they know are attracted to their sex while on camping trips; 4) harassing fast food franchises because a mother-company leader makes donations to Christian ministries; 5) neutering marriage; and 6) getting everyone to pretend that it is perfectly okay for a man to crossdress on just about any job he has and that it is fine for a boy to use the girls' restroom. 7) Banning therapy that would help young a young person not engage in homosexual behavior, no matter how badly the person wants it, no matter how many people swear by the effectiveness of such therapy in their lives.. Even HIV/AIDS has faded from the spotlight, though there are official government programs and agencies geared towards funding research, educational outreaches, and treatments.
That's a lot of "progress" towards their stated goals.
To sum up, just about everything homosexuality advocates asked for in the public square, they've gotten. Perhaps they took this to mean that more of their friends, family, coworkers, neighbors and others they know were willing to go along with everything the activist groups demanded, simply because they asked. It was "yes, yes, yes", for the most part.
So at last we've arrived at the marriage issue. The activists groups have been spoiled for so long. And then, they started hearing a strong "no" for the first time, and like a spoiled child, they were throwing fits. Some marriage neutering advocates are only pretending to be surprised by the opposition, playing to the audience so as to position the opposition as extreme, bizarre, and outrageous - or perhaps doing a little self-deluded projecting. They thought we had followed them through the looking glass, and so they expect us to fall into line and see it their way. But despite their compusively repeated insistant of inevitability, momentum. and dramatic polling swings, many of us don't see it their way. If they'll feel more comfortable there, we're not going to stop them. But we're not going there ourselves.
Even those of us who were happy to go witness commitment ceremonies have balked at removing the core meaning of marriage.
When it comes to acceptance and support for how you live your life from your family – whether or not you get a state-issued marriage certificate with your partner won't matter to most of us. Family members who hate you will still hate you. Family members who disapprove of homosexual behavior will still disapprove of that behavior. People who understand marriage as uniting a bride and a groom will still continue to think that way. People who support whatever you do will do so regardless. Government force should not be brought in to force your family to pretend they approve of the behavior or think a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, so this is a personal matter on a case by case basis.
Marriage is different from the issues dealt with before because marriage has been a core building block of our society. Marriage and marriage laws have an impact on all of us, whether or not we ever get married. Marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, so it isn't just a private, individual matter.
So there are even those of us who see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior but still believe it is important to acknowledge the difference between heterosexual behavior, which is how we all got here, and homosexual behavior; between marriage and other kinds of relationships. We are tolerant. But tolerance doesn't include abandoning our own convictions about the nature and importance of marriage, and distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage in the law.
This is different because this is not a denial of rights to homosexual people – homosexual people have the same rights as anyone else, even if they don't want to exercise them as they are. It is protection of the best way we know how of creating a microcosm of society for the purposes of perpetuating it.
If we, the people, do not see brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, we're not going to roll over and allow miniscule percentage of the population to impose a change on us.
Personally, being a believer in the inherent worth of every human being and the principles of individual liberty and limiting government, I'm in agreement with the true human rights aspects of the "gay rights" movement. Consistent to that philosophy is opposing the forcible neutering of marriage licensing against the will of the people of a state.
Disclaimer: I don't believe I can know with certainty a person's intentions or thoughts or feelings. I can only make guesses based on behavior and what I know about human nature.
(This is a modified message originally posted at The Opine Editorials.)
Why? Perhaps the answers can be found in recent history.
The "gay rights" movement has had astounding success. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal and was prosecuted. There were raids on places where homosexual people congregated. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the APA. Entertainers (and many others) hid homosexual behavior for fear of career loss. Kids were warned to beware of homosexuals, with such warnings equating them with pedophiles. Many people didn’t even know the word "homosexual".
Things have changed.
Homosexual behavior is treated like heterosexual behavior by the law, in that private consensual behavior is legal. Raids on "gay bars" when they happen (which is rare), can only be done under the same reason any other bar would be raided. The APA has not only reclassified homosexuality away from being a disorder, but it advises against telling people they can change their behavior away from homosexuality. Some entertainers make their careers out of being proudly "out", and other out entertainers have thriving careers. Homosexual characters and reality show contestants are overrepresented on television. Homosexuality has long had its own media segment in the form of cable channels and periodicals, but it is also a regular part of mainstream media. Now, major companies are placing ads on television for their products in which homosexual behavior is presented as normal and common. There are legislatorsand other elected officials who are openly gay and it isn’t even an issue (except that homosexuality advocates and other Leftist activists act like these people have cured cancer). Kids are taught in schools that there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that is just like heterosexual behavior.
Saying "that's so gay" to a coworker can mean punishment by your employer and sensitivity training. Some religious groups, such as many denominations claiming to be Christian, have switched to celebrating homosexual behavior, in contrast to Biblical teaching and church traditions.
Laws (or proposed legislation) and court decisions at the state and federal level protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. HIV/AIDS was even singled out in the American's With Disabilities Act. Domestic partership and civil union laws in many states have recognized same-sex pairings as legal arrangements - California's law, for example, treats domestic partners as spouses. Even where not mandated by law, many employers and others recognize domestic partnerships.
"Hate crime" laws and programs track, and in many cases, add extra penalties for crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s sexual orientation.
Homosexuality advocates have even managed to get a lot of otherwise reasonable people go to along with the idea of "transgenderism" – simply because they have asked them to. This is the catch-all phrase assigned to dressing so as to appear to be the opposite sex, or going so far as to surgically remove healthy body parts and get shot up with hormones to further the pretending. So now, if Fred announces to his employer that he's now Jane, the employer is supposed to pretend that he's a woman. If "Jane" comes back from vacation and says he went back to being Fred, the employer is supposed to go along with that, too. Something like this happened at the Los Angeles Times not long ago, with one of their journalists . The news media referred to a woman as a "pregnant man" because she'd gotten enough hormone treatments to grow facial hair. These are just two recent examples. In comparison, while there is an active and ardent "deaf pride" movement, what do you think the reaction of most people would be if a man with otherwise good hearing had his ability to hear intentionally removed through surgery, because he's always felt like he was born with hearing he shouldn't have?
While there are families that shun or disown any member who "comes out", more families are accepting a member’s homosexuality (and partner) and do not attempt to discourage homosexual behavior, or even happily celebrate the situation, doing whatever they can to suppress or get over any negative feelings about the idea of their family member partnered with someone of the same sex (and not someone of the opposite sex).
California has Harvey Milk Day and requires school textbooks to feature the contributions of LGBT people in a way that points out their LGBT status.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was abolished as miltary policy.
Obama became the first President to adopt the homosexuality advocacy agenda and admit his support for the neutering of marriage (Hey Michelle: be careful of a husband who don't think being married to women is any differen than being "married" to men.")
Many supposedly Christian churches have completely abonded the very clear Biblical concepts that sex is for marriage and marriage unites the sexes, and make a point of letting people know, even devoting a large percentage of the websites, that that publicly unpretent fornicators are welcome to fully participate in their practices and leadership, at least as long as the fornication is with someone of the same sex.
It's gotten to the point where, as far as I can tell, the changes to society most sought after now by "LGBT community" are, in no particular order, 1) Getting schoolkids to stop saying "that's so gay" or using slurs and to make sure they have no negative thoughts abut homosexual behavior whatsoever; 2) harassing churches that want their leadership to adhere to Biblical standards of behavior; 3) harassing the Boy Scouts of America because the organization does not want kids having to share tents with peers or adults they know are attracted to their sex while on camping trips; 4) harassing fast food franchises because a mother-company leader makes donations to Christian ministries; 5) neutering marriage; and 6) getting everyone to pretend that it is perfectly okay for a man to crossdress on just about any job he has and that it is fine for a boy to use the girls' restroom. 7) Banning therapy that would help young a young person not engage in homosexual behavior, no matter how badly the person wants it, no matter how many people swear by the effectiveness of such therapy in their lives.. Even HIV/AIDS has faded from the spotlight, though there are official government programs and agencies geared towards funding research, educational outreaches, and treatments.
That's a lot of "progress" towards their stated goals.
To sum up, just about everything homosexuality advocates asked for in the public square, they've gotten. Perhaps they took this to mean that more of their friends, family, coworkers, neighbors and others they know were willing to go along with everything the activist groups demanded, simply because they asked. It was "yes, yes, yes", for the most part.
So at last we've arrived at the marriage issue. The activists groups have been spoiled for so long. And then, they started hearing a strong "no" for the first time, and like a spoiled child, they were throwing fits. Some marriage neutering advocates are only pretending to be surprised by the opposition, playing to the audience so as to position the opposition as extreme, bizarre, and outrageous - or perhaps doing a little self-deluded projecting. They thought we had followed them through the looking glass, and so they expect us to fall into line and see it their way. But despite their compusively repeated insistant of inevitability, momentum. and dramatic polling swings, many of us don't see it their way. If they'll feel more comfortable there, we're not going to stop them. But we're not going there ourselves.
Even those of us who were happy to go witness commitment ceremonies have balked at removing the core meaning of marriage.
When it comes to acceptance and support for how you live your life from your family – whether or not you get a state-issued marriage certificate with your partner won't matter to most of us. Family members who hate you will still hate you. Family members who disapprove of homosexual behavior will still disapprove of that behavior. People who understand marriage as uniting a bride and a groom will still continue to think that way. People who support whatever you do will do so regardless. Government force should not be brought in to force your family to pretend they approve of the behavior or think a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, so this is a personal matter on a case by case basis.
Marriage is different from the issues dealt with before because marriage has been a core building block of our society. Marriage and marriage laws have an impact on all of us, whether or not we ever get married. Marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, so it isn't just a private, individual matter.
So there are even those of us who see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior but still believe it is important to acknowledge the difference between heterosexual behavior, which is how we all got here, and homosexual behavior; between marriage and other kinds of relationships. We are tolerant. But tolerance doesn't include abandoning our own convictions about the nature and importance of marriage, and distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage in the law.
This is different because this is not a denial of rights to homosexual people – homosexual people have the same rights as anyone else, even if they don't want to exercise them as they are. It is protection of the best way we know how of creating a microcosm of society for the purposes of perpetuating it.
If we, the people, do not see brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, we're not going to roll over and allow miniscule percentage of the population to impose a change on us.
Personally, being a believer in the inherent worth of every human being and the principles of individual liberty and limiting government, I'm in agreement with the true human rights aspects of the "gay rights" movement. Consistent to that philosophy is opposing the forcible neutering of marriage licensing against the will of the people of a state.
Disclaimer: I don't believe I can know with certainty a person's intentions or thoughts or feelings. I can only make guesses based on behavior and what I know about human nature.
(This is a modified message originally posted at The Opine Editorials.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.