Friday, June 13, 2008

random bob's stance on the "Gay" issues

Speaking earlier of Kern County’s halt of ALL marriages, I thought that maybe I should clarify where random bob stands on all the related issues. Because you would read that and think that I’m pro something all the way and be only partially right, and for the wrong reasons, too.

DO support gay marriage. And it’s not because I’m gay and want to get married, either. It’s because I think it’s highly unfair to say that “marriage is between two people who love each other*” and then prevent two people who love each other from getting married and having the same rights as others. What it does is create a situation with second-class citizenry. It’s the same issue that the civil rights movement was based on, namely that if you create two separate institutions or ideals, but call them different things and allow only certain groups to participate in one or the other based on some trait, then regardless of whether you say they are equal, they are inherently not.

One of my greatest heros,
Chief Justice Earl Warren, used this logic to strike down the “separate but equal doctrines” of our racially-segregated past. And he was right in doing so. The conditions of the African-American’s “equal” facilities were anything but. They may have had a coach car, but it was not the same as the white’s coach car. And this idea is important to you, and you should support it, regardless of whether or not you’re gay or not gay, black or not black. The logic here that sends us into descent stretches and encompasses situations in Nazi-era Germany, as well…

Hatred is wrong. Institutionalized hatred never has a good side. The folks in Nazi Germany didn’t bat many eyelashes as the “others” were ostracized from society. They were safe, after all, because they were the same as those making the decisions. Or at least they were for a time. It’s a long idea that to be fully-developed I’d need active debate to provide counterpoints to, which is a little hard on a one-sided blog. But the idea is
captured well in this poem from that era. Read it. And then think about what it really means.

You see, we’re all different in one way or another. People often are quite alright with “others” being singled out and denied rights that they themselves have. This isn’t important, because after all, you’re not gay, right? Right. But then at some point, later down the road, when other people’s rights have been trampled on and no one speaks up, you’ll find that you’re on the receiving end of the hate and the denial of rights. Green-eyed? Sorry, green-eyes aren’t allowed service here, move on freak.

Yeah that sounds extreme, but the Jews were persecuted for a
faith – that thing that cannot be proved right or wrong to begin with – and nothing more. Your green eyes? We can see those. You can’t fake that. And you’ll be on a list someday for it, perhaps.

People need to spend the time to critically assess things like this. No, you’re not gay. But does it harm you to let gay people get married? And more importantly perhaps, could your ideologies allow the impingement of your rights if the tables were turned? Because no matter how white and protestant you think you are, if you’re not the one making the rules, eventually they’ll come for you. And if you are making the rules, eventually there will be mutiny and you won’t be making the rules any longer. We all need to support free & equal rights
for everyone, if only for the cause of our own self-preservation.

Because at some point, you’ll be different, too.

I do NOT support gay adoption. It’s nothing personal, my homo peeps, OK? But here’s how I look at it: I remember being a kid. It was hard. Not like, “go break rocks or DIE” kind of hard, but a “man I’m so confused about life” kind of hard. And for the most part, I’m normal. Sick & perverted yes, but still fairly normal.

And to me, knowing how difficult childhood can be when you supposedly have all the socially-acceptable faculties, I cannot see putting a child into a possibly more confusing situation, expecting of them to grow up to be “normal.”
Why is daddy kissing daddy? Because they love each other? Should I kiss my boy friends? What’s acceptable? Why are MY urges different from my parent’s urges? I am so out of place… Why do I like girls? I am so ashamed of myself…

Now some are going to read that and say “well that’s how gay children feel, so what?” Well yes, that’s valid. But the difference is that homosexuality ISN’T biologically normal, and is thus the smaller percentage of the population. More children are going to grow up to be heterosexual, and ‘normal’ as defined by that social norm is what we see day-in and day-out. They need to be prepped for that, even if to the detriment of the small percentage of homosexual children that do and will continue to come into being.

The idea of society is to raise a well-adjusted, well-prepared “next generation.” Putting kids into a home that is quite contrary to everything that the world is supposed to be built on is – in my estimation – quite a disservice to that next generation of individuals, regardless of their orientation.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that my wish to deny homosexuals adoption rights is not rooted in some weird hatred or ignorance; it’s rooted in what child-rearing is actually about, and a belief that childhood is hard enough to navigate when you’re normal and in a normal environment, and that perhaps we should not make that more complicated than it already is. Normalcy should win out. It’s not a case of denying people rights, it’s a case of protecting the impressionable from ideas they’re not even aware they’re in the midst of.

We should raise our young to be tolerant of different lifestyles for sure, but they need to grow up “normal” and have a basis for what that is to even appreciate what “different lifestyles” really are.

Having said that, it’s not as though I’d deny a child to live in a homosexual home at all costs; if the choice were a safe, stable homosexual home or The Orphanage, then yeah: put them in the home and give them a chance, whatever chance that is. But if there’s ever any hope that they could be placed in a stable, heterosexual environment instead? That first, every time.

No, the ‘bob is not ignorant. Opinionated yes, but not ignorant. He’s given the sh!t some thought, folks.

*Marriage revisited
If you caught the asterisk in the first section, here’s where I explain that away. Many people who support the denial of equal doctrines for marriage for all will fall back to trying to change the definition of marriage to suit their ignorant purposes. Changing the rules of marriage “back to what it was originally intended for” is the common line. But what they don’t understand is history. This is truly an ignorant thing to say, as it shows that they really have no idea what marriage was “originally about” to begin with.

Marriage was not “originally” between a man and a woman who love each other very much and want to live together forever and ever in love. Nope. Marriage was the alignment of two families, to join their resources and form a larger, more powerful clan, by joining their children in ‘wedlock’ to produce offspring and solidity this union into the future.
That’s what marriage was originally about. That’s what its intention was. No mention of love. Most of the time those locked in wed had not met before the fateful day. Original definition of marriage ≠ love.

So to try and fall back on that defense is to nullify what the arguer thought marriage was about, as well. It doesn’t support their cause, it shoots them in the face and voids everything they have propped up their lives with. If they were to succeed in rewriting “marriage” into what it was “originally intended for,” then really, their own marriage and the institution that honored it would have to dissolve, as it was not formed in the original intent of marriage.

And what’s more, any definition between that and today’s standard goes right back into the “separate but equal” ideals above, or if they deny it all together, the whole “Nazi” ideals mentioned above as well. It just doesn’t work, sorry, no matter how you spin it.

This, I find funny. That people would begin to argue a point that really amounts to the cutting of their noses, to snub their face. It’s so priceless. And yet, so classy!

About the ‘bob
The idea of the website is to keep some amount of anonymity about myself, because is who I am really as important as what I stand for? Well, anyone with some technical knowledge could find out who I am rather quickly, as obviously this is a personal domain name and is registered to someone, probably even me! But I rely on you guys to give that annonymity to me; I keep the name and the face to myself, but I give you what I stand for regardless, and that’s what I think it should really be about anyway, this whole exchange of ideas…

Anyway. In the vein of full-disclosure, I should give you some info as it might be relevant to how you accept the ideas printed above.

I’m close to being a buzzing, stinging kind of guy. I’m kind of a
WASP, but not really. I’m anti-religious, though I am not anti-something-bigger-than-we. You might say I am a WAS, which isn’t to say I’m a has-been. No, just the plain-vanilla, everyday White Anglo-Saxon. Male even, if you believe that. And on top of that, I enjoy sexual encounters with beautiful young women (OK OK; woman). And in all reality, I would just really hate to see that someday be outlawed, too.

So you see, my personal policies are based in considerable thought, and in what I would say is a concern for fairness. For all except the ignorant & hate-filled.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for commenting! You get a cookie.