Sometimes, when I am trying to figure out what my stance on an issue is I will put myself in a situation revolving around said situation and then gauge my reaction. That's what I did with this whole imbroglio about the rights of homosexuals to be in relationships with other homosexuals.
Here's how I couched the situation to myself:
- A married hetero-sexual couple with two pit bulls who run a meth lab in their basement moves in next door to me.
- A single young mother with seven snarling, rotten, kids and no visible means of support move in on the other side of me.
- A gay couple of unspecified gender who like gardening move in across the street.
- A married couple of opposing sexes and a fondness for really loud music at 10 PM on Sunday nights move in to the house behind me.
- I cursed my luck for living in a neighborhood that was so crappy it had a meth lab in it.
- I cursed my luck for living next door to a government-sponsored family with poorly behaved children.
- I wished the idiots behind me would be respectful enough to turn their frigging music down.
- I felt sorry for the same-sex couple of unspecified gender for having to live in the same crappy neighborhood as me and me opposite-sexed wife.
Until you do something that affects my pursuit of happiness you, sirs and madams, are none of business, nor I yours. And certainly, none of this is the government's business. At all. Ever.
A marriage in the church is the church's business, and if your church wants you to marry only people who are differently sexed than you, that's your church's business (including **gasp** if you want to marry several women at one time). In the eyes of the government a marriage is a property contract. The government can only involve itself in property contracts. The day the government involves itself in who you love we are all screwed, and not in the fun way.
Note: I don't want to hear the non-sensical argument that I am therefore allowing pedophiles to engage with children because it's "who they love." Stop it. We're talking about adults. How about doing something to stop the scourge of child abuse that is darkening our land instead of engaging in stupid hypothetical arguments that solve nothing?
Q: I think part of the problem is the same-sex community seems like they will accept nothing less than total capitulation to their demands regardless of the personal beliefs of others.
A: Well that's not really a question, it's more like a statement, but I get your point. Yes, I think there would be less strife regarding the issue if the same-sex community just said, "hey look, we're not asking you to date me, we're just asking you to accept the fact that we don't need your approval to date whomever we choose to date." If people feel they are being painted with a gay rainbow into a corner they are going to bitch about it. How about less corner painting?
Q: I believe the children are the future. What about the little crumb pickers?
A: There are a lot of miserable people out there who shouldn't ever be around children (my first wife being one of them), regardless of choice of gender partnering. If a same-sex couple can raise a child to not install a meth lab in the house next door to me, or to not have seven government-sponsored kids in the house on the other side, then I say go for it. But, let's let the kids choose their futures by not forcing Heather to have two mommies or Cody to have two dads. The different-sexed people already own the mom-dad thing for naming parents, so instead, how about being creative and coming up with new names? Dads drink beer, fart, pick their noses and spill their salsa on their tee-shirts. Who the hell wants two of them anyway?
Q: But shouldn't people who believe in and support 'traditional marriage' be dipped in honey and tied to a stake so the ants can eat them alive?
A: Well, according to the most vehement and narrow-minded people out there, yes, but that's just as idiotic as thinking same-sex people shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices. If a person chooses to support traditional marriage (between a beer-swilling fat dude and a chick with an unfortunate tattoo on her bicep, for example) then isn't that their business? As long as the opposite-sex people don't burn the good-looking same-sex people at the stake of governmental intolerance (or any other stake for that matter) then they should be allowed to believe what they believe.
Q: It seems like this is sometimes more of a struggle to change the way people think than it is to just let people go about their business.
A: Again, that's not a question. Yes, many people are confusing this with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s when people were trying to change a national mindset that believed certain races of people couldn't do things like eat lunch with other certain races of people. A person can't hide his race, but sometimes same-sex advocates think that applies to sexuality too. It doesn't. Remember that horrible GoDaddy commercial with the fat ugly red-faced kid swapping spit with the model? Seriously, do us all a favor and stop being so overtly sexual. Please. That goes for all of you. It's unseemly and quite frankly unnecessary. Plus, the kids are watching, and regardless of how many mommies they have we don't want our kids growing up to think they extract their personal value solely from their sexuality.
Q: That seems somewhat homophobic there. Is it?
A: No, it's douche-chillophobic. When I see a grown-up person flaunting their sexuality in an attempt to get me to accept their sexuality, I do the opposite and refuse to accept anything about them because I tend to gravitate toward adults and away from people who give me douche-chills. It works like this: Go do your thing and leave me out of it and in return I promise not to legislate you into conforming to my own beliefs.
Q: I heard the single greatest anti-poverty program is marriage. Is this true?
A: Yes and here's why: If you commit to someone because you love them and you want the best for them you will do what is necessary to make that someone happy and secure. If that someone is named Herb or Delores is not germane to the issue. It's about commitment to the love you have for someone. How many young men knock up a girl and then go about their business without committing to the new child and new mother they created? I'd rather have a national dialogue about teaching people to be responsible with their sexuality than waste more time talking it. Immature fools knocking up other immature fools and bringing children into a world of dysfunction is narcissistic and immoral in the extreme, yet the country seems more interested in preventing a guy from visiting his terminally ill partner who also happens to be a guy. We have a skewed set of priorities anymore.
Q: So you're for same-sex marriage then?
A: From a government point of view, yes. From a spiritual point of view, yes (I'm pretty sure God is a deeper thinker than we give Him credit for being). From a biological point of view, well, I have to admit I'm a little perplexed, but then again I'm perplexed about a lot of things. My perplexity should in no way reflect on you and your life.