August 21, 2014 by JImbo
To borrow a phrase from the President… “Let me be clear.”
I’m not pro-gay. I’m not anti-gay. I simply don’t CARE if you’re gay or not.
That’s all you. Mine isn’t to judge YOU. That’s the job for the big guy upstairs.
However, having said that we all have our actions judged. It’s human nature and necessary. As such, we often label people for their good and bad actions.
A person who drinks a lot is a “drunk.” A person who gambles a lot is a “gambler.” A guy who has sex with other guys is “gay.”
“Good” and “Bad” of course are moral attributions. They depend on your belief system. To some people being gay is a sin. To others it’s not.
Likewise, heavily drinking in Russia is “normal” while polygamy and child marriage/rape is “normal” in many Arab countries.
Not judging, remember?
“Gay” is a choice. It can be a DESIRE too or an inclination, but in the end since sex is an act, then being gay MUST be a choice.
You can’t CHOOSE to be black.
You can’t CHOOSE not to be old.
You can’t CHOOSE to be disabled.
Those are protected legally because there is no choice. You can’t help those things. Therefore, you can’t really judge people for those “conditions.”
On the other hand, sex is an act.
Drinking is an act.
Smoking is an act.
Gambling is an act.
Those you CAN discriminate on.
Some people ARE more prone to gamble.
Some people are born to be more addicted to nicotine or alcohol.
Scientifically those are proven by more studies than there are about being “born gay.”
So, scientifically if you demand “gay rights” then you MUST demand “smoker rights” and “gambler rights” and “drinker rights.” Because they’re BORN that way right?
Again, I’m not judging and saying gay is “good” or “bad.” It is a choice. The morality of a choice depends on your beliefs and point of view.
I’m not saying smoking, drinking or gambling are “good” or “bad” either.
The person that DOES decry those acts and still demands special “gay rights” is logically a hypocrite. They aren’t truly concerned about EQUAL rights. They are truly concerned about SPECIAL rights for what THEY AGREE WITH.
That’s why I’m neither for or against gay rights. I see it simply as a choice for an individual to make. So, the same standards apply:
If it is a free choice by a consenting adult and harms no one else, then why should we support or ban it? It’s the individual’s choice. Keep government out of it.
That’s the real key to this. I don’t want EITHER side (Left or Right basically) to use government and the law as a sort of sledgehammer to beat the other on the head to accept their particular bias.
Tolerance is NOT acceptance and shouldn’t have to be. There is no reason a non-drinker should have to ACCEPT as GOOD a drunk’s lifestyle choice. There’s no reason the opposite should be the case either. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to drink what they want, where and when they want? They shouldn’t have to accept as “Good” the non-drinking prohibitionist’s view either.
The Gays have no right to impose ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle as “normal” any more than Christians have a right to impose ACCEPTANCE of their beliefs as “normal.” Fair is fair. TOLERATE others sure but you can’t demand ACCEPTANCE as “correct” behavior.
Don’t fine people for not holding your wedding or baking your cake. That’s silly and petty. It’s childish.
You can’t find ANY other place in the WORLD to do it BUT that ONE place that tells you “no?”
If you start demanding crap like that, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Is it illegal for a black caterer to refuse to hold banquets for the KKK? For atheists to refuse to do Catholic events? Can a smoker demand that they be allowed to smoke anywhere they want at THEIR wedding?
That’s just crazy. All of it. Include the “gay rights” bullshit.
There are RIGHTS. Period. Not “Gay” or “Black” or “Christian”… JUST Rights.
And those rights are for the individual to express fully, not for the government to hold hostage. By all means LET gay people get married… in a gay church. However, don’t DEMAND that a non-gay church do it. Don’t demand they have a birth certificate from the County Clerk.
At what point is it any business of the Government? There are two people involved there. Three if you include a priest. Why does it require “approval” from the government?
That again is “acceptance” and not “tolerance.” It’s forcing the government to recognize ONE side’s position on a social issue that is truly up to the individual.
Yes, there are tax breaks and things from marriage. Why? The GOVERNMENT WANTS THEM.
Screw that. No special rights for anyone. No joint tax returns. No tax refunds and breaks.
Get the government OUT of personal lives and there won’t have to BE any Supreme Court decisions on this. Forcing the Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage is like demanding that they decide “Which is better? Vanilla or Chocolate Ice Cream?”
It’s not their job to decide that for everyone. EVERY advantage of marriage beyond that (inheritance, next of kin, hospital visits, etc) can be written into a simple cohabitation contract or power of attorney or will. It doesn’t require pissing off half the country to please the other half.
Why is it such a big deal to be “accepted” anyway? Why does it matter if others don’t AGREE with you? That’s what FREEDOM is all about!
I’m sure many don’t agree. Please tell me how I’m wrong. This is my considered opinion. I think it’s open minded enough to encompass everyone getting along, while protecting individual views.
Here’s to hoping I don’t have to see any more of those inane “I might lose friends on Facebook for posting this, but I support gay marriage!” signs. Name ONE person who has EVER been unfriended because they posted that. ONE.