I do care about the future of children, though, who in theory are under the protection of “society”, of which I am a member.
Here are my two issues:
1) The debate is not a debate, in the sense that both sides treat the other with civility and respect. What has happened is that one side–well organized, and well funded, presumably by radicals–has initiated and sustained a campaign of relentless attack against anyone who still believes, now, what nearly everyone believed 15-20 years ago. We are called bigots if we even question the idea that homosexual couples are in EVERY respect identical to heterosexual couples. We are called hateful.
We can legitimately question any popular narrative which uses the category “thought crime”, which this movement clearly does. They don’t have the power, yet, to arrest and “educate” people who disagree with them, but I get the clear sense that if they did, they would do it. That is the level of hatred, and narrow self righteousness, and intolerance.
And I was thinking the other day that all you need to indoctrinate/propagandize a population are two things: an Other-Directed populace, and control of the information sources, which in this and most countries would be the universities and mass media. The churches would be nice, but they aren’t there yet, although the current Pope seems willing to play ball on some issues.
How do you create Other Directed people? Eliminate moral principle. Moral Relativism is both necessary and sufficient for this purpose. Once you cannot reason your way to a moral conclusion based on basic principles which are unquestionable, then you are cut adrift. The only principle, really, that remains in play for these people is conformity. I have said this often. They claim to hate hate, but if they use the vehicle of hate–which they plainly do, as you can see in less than a minute if you visit any hard core left wing website–then hate, per se, is clearly not something they reject, or really even have the psychological sophistication to recognize. If somebody tells them to shout because someone is being “oppressed”–even if that alleged oppression is actually the long term outcome of policies they are touting on other days–then they do it.
This is an ugly dynamic, and should be opposed for that reason alone. I say this based upon the principle that mutual respect and toleration and peaceful dialogue are essential elements in a truly Liberal order, and are necessary for the maintenance of personal and political freedoms. I can derive this principle from observation. I need appeal to no immanent element in Reality. I need appeal to no God. Simple contemplation and reflection offers this up readily.
And we need to be clear that on the reading of nearly all Christians homosexuality is wrong. Historically, the wickedness of sodomy was understood clearly. This makes homosexuality very different from racism. There is nothing in the Bible that says black people need to be persecuted. It does reference slavery in the Old Testament, but in those days most of the slaves would have been Semitic, and even those were to be released into freedom every 50 years. You cannot reference a Bible verse saying a black man cannot marry a white woman, or vice versa.
Thus, the entire enterprise RESTS on an assumption that Christians have NO RIGHT to practice their religion as they see fit. It seems obvious that some of these gays SEEK OUT Christians–PERSECUTE Christians–not because no one else has an interest in practicing their business and making the money their business was set up to make by baking them wedding cakes. Making the cake is the most obvious thing. Like every other small business in the Obama Economy, I would assume cake decorators are facing tough times. The overwhelming presumption is that absent STRONG objections, they will take gay cash as equal in every way to any other cash.
But you really can’t compare this issue to the civil rights movement, for these reasons. This entire issue is very plainly a wholesale and State-sponsored assault both on religion, and the right to freedom of speech and conscience.
2) The violence of this non-debate prevents the very important discussion of whether or not gay-ness tends to be a function of sexual or other trauma. I personally think it does, in a very high percentage of cases. This does not make it wrong or right, but it makes it a symptom of something which, in itself, creates unresolved unhappiness. If you take some other symptom, say cutting, there is no moral content to it. It is a reaction to something that person cannot process. This does not make it healthy. It is unhealthy, not in the sense that it does not provide relief to that person, not in the sense that it is not in some respects a healthy reaction to the situation, but in the sense that it indicates something deeper is not right.
I read this study, which could only be published somewhere like this: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/
Identical twin studies, in my understanding, are pretty much the gold standard for teasing out genetics versus non-genetic correlations. You can compare it with, say, this study which no doubt sought to address it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VWBuQ9JViko
But brothers have different DNA. Non-identical twins have different DNA. The New Scientist has a clearly left-wing bias. They still believe in global warming, which in this day and age is farcical, in my view. The SCIENCE does not support it.
So our best evidence, in clinical work done in the face of an enormous lobbying and bullying machine which no doubt opposed it, seems to be that homosexuality is the result of ENVIRONMENTAL factors. Given that, as I have chronicled, homosexuals are prey to nearly every negative more than heterosexuals–emotional problems, substance abuse problems–is it not reasonable to at least SUPPOSE that we are dealing with the after-math of some traumatizing event?
And I will speculate what it is: a young 12-14 year old kid, alienated from family and friends, is seduced by an older gay man. I have read articles by gays–current and former–who have said this was the mechanism of their own sexual imprinting.
Self evidently, child abuse can cause this.
Overall, what I want to say is that no good ever comes from suppressing ANY truth, no matter how painful or difficult, because in the end YOU CAN’T. Truth always outs, even if in distorted, weird ways. It can out through pervasive violence against those who disagree with the idea of gay marriage. This is a psychological defense mechanism: violent suppression of difference.
Goodness is being able to live happily on your own, and taking genuine pleasure in the happiness of others. What it is not is angry screaming, shaming, threatening, and suppression of honest dialogue.