How I Turned Against #Gay Marriage

Bob Elschlager, March 14, 2016 (added to March 15)

*

How I Turned against #Gay Marriage

Years ago in gay discussion groups, I was pretty neutral toward gay marriage. Sometimes a person visited from another area and parenthetically would add to whatever else they were talking about that they weren’t motivated in the direction of gay marriage. I probably went along with the same feeling. But at that time all the issues were pretty vague to me and not important.

Over the years, as the topic heated up in the larger political arena, I had to admit some things to myself, in spite of many religious people, and others too, being upset by this issue. I’m interested in truth and in the freedom to state the truth without being penalized, so I had to admit, at least to myself, as I calmly pictured the possibility of a future world were gay marriage was completely accepted, that it might not be a bad idea, though I still wasn’t sure it was necessarily a great idea, or that it would work out. But if a future world did completely accepted it, I wouldn’t want to risk going against the grain and it might really just be ok.

But in the here and now, other issues started to appear.

I didn’t like the way that that California judge, right after recognizing gay marriage, just happened to retire, which he did with the usual high pension and ultra good medical insurance and so on, and his safely retiring after releasing the bomb shell of his decision, and I couldn’t help seeing him basking in glee as he safely sceeerewd those hated people who were against gays. The technique of dropping the turd, just as you’re making your way safely out the door.

But again being a strong believer in truth, when I looked at the future, and pictured a (hypothetical) world where gay marriage was calmly and fully accepted, in truth – and that is what mattered to me – I could accept its existence or I could accept its non-existence. Maybe it would be a good thing.

It was only after I saw the following that I resolutely turned against gay marriage in the here and now.

It was the vicious, murderous, fully accepted and embraced, hate, very likely by too many gay people, toward those bakeries that refused to make gay wedding cakes, a murderous feeling to destroy these people business-wise, without the slightest bit of mercy or acknowledgment of the pain they were causing these business people. The new laws of legalizing gay marriage, made possible very nasty, hateful threats, and ruinous fines, if they would not back a cake for a gay couple. Even the vicious, hateful ruinous threat, hangs over a businesses, even when they haven’t yet refused any such request [put in some links to articles on this] (some more material developing in part 2 below.)

This is what turned me against gay marriage. I no longer saw these gay marriage folk, bent over in pain at their oppression, as so innocent. Their heartless cruelty deeply alienated me.

It was the same sort of thing that sickened me on a very different issue, but at a gay meeting, the one and only one I attended, the founding meeting of a group called something like “all under one roof” or some such name. It was that same glee, highly revolting to me, that I saw in one of the three or so founding people at the meeting. It wasn’t the same issue of wedding cakes, but it was the same merciless excited glee.

In our awful age of lawyers and complex concepts of laws and judging, I want to stress that my comments about this “all under one roof” or whatever it was called, are personally what I saw and felt, and maybe if I had brought up the issue at the meeting, well, I am not so sure even there, but nevertheless, I am only saying that in this situation, it was what felt and saw, and I am not making claims as to what others would say they saw and felt.

About 2 hours after the meeting, I realized – and then asserted to myself – that I’m not required to go back to the meeting the next week just because I am a gay person. That group doesn’t own me. Nor does the larger gay group as a whole. After that occurred to me, my whole insides calmed way down, a really awful knot passed away, and I felt so relieved. I was surprised, wonderfully so. Free.

To slightly digress, I think of Khrushchev, after he took over the government and found out about the atom bomb. He could not sleep for several nights thinking about the magnitude of the issues involved for life on earth. Suddenly he decided that an atomic war must never be started under any circumstances. After that, he fell asleep. (This is in his autobiography smuggled out of the – at that time – Communist Soviet Union.) Me too, though on a much more minor issue. Once I decided I didn’t have to go back that meeting just because I was gay, a great burden passed away.

Getting back to gay marriage, it is merely one of the problems in our times. Political correctness enforces a lot of ideas into our mind which are not true.

* * * *

After writing the above (March 10, 2016) I suddenly came across all kinds of related issues.  For instance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJxnYgP6D8    “kids react to gay marriage”  (13 million views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNsIRDFJWC0   Children in gay parent family   (67 thousand views).

Aside moral. In a PC society, cutesy, happy, PC stuff, gets the views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM  “Modern Educayshun”  Anti-PC. Pretty strong, but maybe there indeed is some not nice stuff in PC.

Important observations on truth and dealing with disagreement, for example pro and anti gay marriage, or in fact, for all disagreement of any kind. I’ll call these observations “The Table Principles.”

In disagreements, all parties must be allowed to put facts and issues on the table. The parties may certainly disagree on how to use these. Importantly, what one party lays out, other parties cannot remove. Furthermore, a party is not required to instantly respond to something. Science can take centuries to make a statement. So parties are definitely not required to come up with a response right away. PC screams at non-PC people to answer “accusations” instantly right on the spur of the moment, they must have instant responses. Bull. Science is one of the main avenues of truth, and science is exactly the opposite. These are important principles.

*

ursm/is     what?

*** end part 1 *** start part 2

Concerning businesses not wanting to make gay marriage cakes. The fines for not doing so can destroy a business. This is awful, But it also a ruinous situation for the image of the gay group. Although doing something solely for your public image is better than doing nothing. The current situation does not speak well for the forces that (currently) dominate the gay group. But at least they should consider the harm to the gay group for committing such a nasty piece of legislation. I don’t want to be associated with these aspects of the gay group.

What is the ideal way of handling this situation? Some people don’t have time to look at the ideal, or possibly, they don’t have the brains to deal with more factors than one. I’m a little blunt here because I am getting so tired of dealing with certain people on the right or the left, who are, well, spoilers.

Ok, the ideal.

(a) Let N be the degree of reasonable effort it takes for gays to find and go to a bakery that willingly, without pressure from the outside, makes gay wedding cakes.  Each society, or region, must decide, what value of N is to be be enforced.

Turns out we didn’t particularly get to an ideal. But it turned out to be an excellent goal because just the idea of thinking about an ideal did lead to lead to the previous paragraph (a).

Do the laws of a society or region allow (a)? Some absolutist type people will say the laws don’t allow (a). But don’t be psyched out by these people trying to get you accept the idea that (a) is not possible according to your system of laws. The legal system, with the court precedences, masses of laws and concepts and interpretations may mean if you have a will, there may very well be a way.

Another approach is, if the law doesn’t allow (a), then ask, why not? You can certainly question a law without violating it. You can even start a campaign as to why a law is wrong, without violating the law. The totalitarianism and fascism creeping into the US and the West, tries to make people think that they are violating the law if they question it or campaign and work to have it changed. This totalitarianism and fascism must be fought tooth and nail. It is a terrible thing.

Another issue around the gay wedding cake. Why can’t people have some degree of choosing their people environment, ie the people in their environment, and in this case, that includes not only non-gays but gays too. If a government is doing its job, which is making a better world for its people, then it should look at this issue. And as pointed out earlier, don’t let the creeping forces of totalitarianism and fascism trick you into thinking there is nothing you can do to change these things or to work to change these things. As always, you start with the idea that there is an ideal.

Why does the same law regarding gay marriage have to be enforced everywhere and on everyone in a country? Is the government doing its mob if it does such a thing. How did judges get such screwy ideas in their heads to enforce such things? Again, don’t let he creeping forces of totalitarianism and fascism trick you into thinking there is nothing you can do to change these things or to work to change these things. As always, you start with the idea that there is an ideal.

We have touched on some trans-formative points. For now that is enough in this post.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s