[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
If it helps, as a married heterosexual I support your right to get married and I don’t even think you are going to destroy the souls of my children in the process! [/quote]
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion. – G.K. Chesterton
When I see homosexuals protesting unequal marriage laws (I don’t consider any marriage a right.) I see an overwhelming lack of knowledge of the history, use, and institution of marriage. Instead, I see illogical ‘race to the bottom’ comparisons that is very much meant to convey marriage as a senseless monstrosity, except, even more absurdly, the motive is to erect a second or broaden an already senseless monstrosity. I look, I see people claiming ‘homosexuals aren’t equal’. They don’t seem to realize some inequality has a purpose and some is intrinsic. We discriminate against parents for not tending their children the way we BELIEVE they should all the time. We discriminate against women firefighters who can’t carry equipment up stairs or handle a hose. They don’t seem to grasp that Communism has killed some 50 million people in the quest for absolute social equality. Most exemplary, I hear ‘The Nazis persecuted homosexuals too!’. Some of the Nazis WERE homosexuals and the Nazis persecuted EVERYBODY and WTF relevance does Nazi persecution have on gay marriage? If gay marriage weren’t such a lightening rod for mutated logic AND poor moral (again, not in the religious sense) decision-making, I wouldn’t pay attention.
Personally, homosexuality is a quintessential non-issue. If you look at anyone from Alexander the Great to Alan Turing and pondered their value to society or history, if their homosexuality is near the top of the list, you’ve missed a few things. To me, in 200 years when being human no longer implies actually having a physical human body, lots of this bullshit is going to seem really narrow minded (except the soul part, that will probably be EVEN MORE relevant). If that doesn’t happen, we’re going to have a hard time not discriminating against homosexuals when we want to colonize a planet. I think, pretty clearly, my concern isn’t about forlife destroying my children’s souls.[/quote]
Listen we are on the same page when it comes to getting the government out of the marriage business. I think that is the source of the inequality everyone is so worked up over now.
Discriminating against women firefighters, women in the infantry, old men joining the service, etc. there are at least justifiable reasons for doing so: they cannot perform the required tasks. I see this analogy of discrimination thrown around a lot (ZEB most recently) and it is a very poor one. To have it be analogous or appropriate you would have to show that homosexuals are, barring outlier cases, incapable of being married effectively at least as compared to heterosexuals (who are allowed “in”). This is clearly not the case. It is also a bad analogy because it presumes marriage to be on par with a job or some task with clearly defined necessary requirements, but it is not at all.
I also agree with your final paragraph, which is why I find it interesting you oppose gay marriage in the first place. Homosexuality pretty much is a non-issue. There have been loads of great gay men and women throughout history. There have been more than plenty who weren’t. The Greeks and Romans, cradles of Western civilization, all were more or less fine with homosexuality PARTICULARLY among the elite class. If that doesn’t show us that it basically doesn’t fucking matter if you bone other men or not I am not sure what does.
So why do we really give a shit if gay people get married? If being gay does not preclude you from doing great things, being an admirable person or a society from doing great things just what exactly are we so terrified is going to happen to society if we admit gay people have a right to exist unmolested?[/quote]
An excellent post as it forces the light weight thinkers who come late to the party poke their heads and stupidly say “duh i don’t see nutin rong wid dem dar homosexuals getin hitched” to think beyond the face of the issue. To examine it at a deeper level relative to why change, which they do not understand, may very well effect them much later on in ways that they will not like.
Really great job!