This constantly on-going debate comes around to the point where people against gay marriage say, “I don’t agree with it but I don’t dislike gays.” and sometimes the extra zinger of, “I have friends/family members that are gay.”
Okay fine, you don’t get extra points for trying to sell me on gay people you know. You get extra points though if you can tell me how you can tell me why you don’t agree with it as a heterosexual person and why.
Wait, don’t tell me… the bible of the religion you believe told you so it’s wrong. Or as an oddly conservative science believer, you find it as a non-natural concept when it comes to sexual intercourse and reproduction. Well, yeah they’re not gonna make kids that way but other than that, homosexuals use sex the same way heterosexual people do. Not really consistent with my point so moving on…
Like I mentioned earlier, I’m curious as to why heterosexual people don’t agree with homosexual couples just getting the same full declarative title of “married”. I can understand when a heterosexual person, such as Miss California (of course this is why I started writing this), says that they disagree with it. They’re heterosexual. They don’t agree that as heterosexuals they should marry a person of the same sex. If that happened, they would not be heterosexual… duh. So is that why the people who disagree with it do because they think that if they did agree with it, they would be labeled as a homosexual? I really don’t think so but I can’t think of any reason that truly affects them enough where they should disagree with it.
I mean, everything where there is a disagreement usually has a reason on both sides that affect them personally. Usually.
If this is the case where the anti-gay marriage heterosexuals think that they will be categorized with homosexuals in some way, like it’s a bad thing, because they deduced that if you agree to let them then you’re one of them, do they then think they sound in the right by saying, “No offense, I don’t agree with it. I don’t dislike homosexuals but I don’t agree with them wanting to get married.”?
If you say you don’t agree with it, you’re saying there is something wrong with it. Because it is about homosexuals, then what you’re saying is that there is something wrong with those who want to marry within that group. Because you think there is something wrong with them enough to block them from doing it, you actually don’t like what they do.
Okay, so you don’t like what they do but you like them as human beings. Is that what these certain “non-offensive” anti-gay marriage people are saying or am I still getting it wrong?
If I were a homosexual and if I wanted to get married, I would be offended.
So, are these “non-offensive” anti-gay marriage people saying that, “I’ll let you live life because you’re a human and I don’t believe in murder. I’ll let you be homosexual because you’re a human, you are who you are and I can’t change you. I’ll let you fall in love because I’m human and I fall in love too. I won’t let you get married though because you’re… not human on a legal level?” Or no, maybe it’s, “I won’t let you get married though because you’re a human on every other legal level except for human relationships that involve paper.” because the paper might cause the heterosexual people filing these legal declarations to get… paper-cuts?
Maybe, anti-gay marriage heterosexuals that are (allegedly) NOT against homosexuality are thinking that if gay marriage were to be allowed, then homosexuals would come up to them and hit on them more, then they would be hypnotized to not reject them, then they would get married to them and then lose their heterosexual categorization.
Even I who thought of and wrote that thinks that that is ridiculous. So what is it that they disagree with?
If it’s a religious thing, then that means the anti-gay marriage person is straight and would not get married to a person of the same gender anyways and therefore would not be involved in a gay wedding as a bride or a groom. So no need to block gay marriage there.
If it’s not a religious thing and the anti-gay marriage person thinks it’s just not right, then they don’t like homosexuals in relationships even though that’s what makes them homosexuals. Though the anti-gay marriage people make it very clear, usually in a nice, clear, vocal disclaimer that they don’t dislike gay people but only disagree with what they intend to do. Once again, that means the anti-gay marriage person is straight and would not get married to a person of the same gender anyways and therefore would not be involved in a gay wedding as a bride or a groom. So no need to block gay marriage there.
Then there is that, “It won’t affect me, it will affect my kids.”
Nobody has forced kids to grow up and be gay before. How would this make that happen now? So if it’s not forcing, then they would have to choose to be gay, which a lot of anti-gay marriage people is okay because they don’t care that homosexuals chose to be homosexual (if they did choose)… or do they?
Maybe the anti-gay marriage people don’t like the choosing part at the start of those people being gay at all.
But still, what would that have to do with the heterosexuals when a homosexual couple get married?
I don’t know folks. I’m really trying to figure out if there is a logical reason, even if it’s not involving religion, that would explain how it affects heterosexual people enough for them to try and block homosexuals from getting married. Of course, if it did involve religion, provable logic would fall short by default. No offense intended to those I intend to disagree with.