I have a question for you, Thrash. I ask that you not take this in the wrong way, as it's not my intention to be rude, and if you find it to be such, I do apologize in advance.
My question is, 'What is it about gay marriage being accepted that threatens you?'
I'm picking on you to ask simply because yours is the most prominent voice I know speaking out against it, but I ask because I really want to understand your position. To me, the debate on gay marriage has always seemed to me to be... somewhat silly, I guess. I think a lot of this stems from the religious roots of the debate, because people speaking out against it seem to go back to the 'marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so' argument. The reason this seems silly to me is not because
it's not the whole story, but because the Bible would also see gays executed for their actions. Yet, it seems as though very,
very few people who actively oppose gay marriage would also advocate recriminalizing homosexuality. This speaks to some sort of cognitive dissonance, as somehow there's been an acceptance of the societal shift away from homosexuality being a deep cultural taboo, but some collective decision to hold onto the word 'marriage' as though it's some sort of floodgate, and without the sanctity thereof, all will be lost.
This also leads me to think that it might be less about marriage itself, and more about the so-called "gay culture", or, more broadly, "queer culture". An objection thereto certainly exists, regardless of the marriage debate, and I find it far more understandable. I can see that one's "utopia vision" is fundamentally different the image of "gay culture". Mine certainly is. My feeling is that, perhaps at the heart of the opposition is a fear which is less religious, and less even about marriage, but just that perhaps there's some image of the "white picket fence" neighborhood of yore, with one house on the block draped in rainbow flags with a twelve-foot inflatable penis anchored on the front lawn: that is, marriage is thought of as a bulwark around which the rest of Western society is built, and so by extending it to gays, all the most foreign parts of "gay culture" will be incorporated into what is seen as normal society.
Now, the following is my own opinion only; I'm not a sociologist, and I don't identify with "queer culture" despite my bisexuality, so take it with that disclaimer. It seems to me, though, that "queer culture" is artificial. What do I mean by that? I mean that it has none of the hallmarks of what are traditionally viewed as cultures, which grow out of shared circumstances such as language, geography, history, and the common experiences of the masses, into which religion generally plays a big role. "Queer culture", on the other hand, exists (by appearances, anyway) solely to differentiate itself from what is seen as the prevailing culture of the region in which those who identify with it live. This creates an interesting situation, as what is called "gay culture", or what is seen as its hallmarks, is different in every part of the world in which it can be seen. The "hijra culture" of South Asia, for example, is fundamentally different from what Americans or Europeans probably think of most when considering transgender people: flamboyant crossdressers such as Dame Edna or Conchita Wurst. Is there a "gay culture" in North Korea? I don't know, but if there is, I can guarantee it's not going to be the same as America's. You get my point, hopefully.
So, why do I bring all this up, or even think it's relevant to consider its similarities or differences? Because of how and why "gay culture"
developed (and for simplicity, I'll focus on "gay culture" rather than "queer culture" in this paragraph). The reason we see gays identifying with a culture which distances themselves from the prevailing society isn't because it's inherent to their sexuality. These sorts of identity choices developed because of how homosexuality was marginalized and seen as taboo by society at large. "Gay culture" developed
because gay people were seen and treated as freaks and perverts,
because there were no protections for them against discrimination, and, yes,
because they weren't afforded the ability to express their love and commitment to members of the same sex through what society itself saw as the center of family life, the marriage.
Because gays were shunned by the prevailing culture of the societies in which they lived, they sought refuge with other gays, and formed communities which looked upon the culture from which they were exiled and, seeing that they were excluded from that culture, formed their own in response.
It is fully my belief that if queer individuals had always been afforded the same rights as everyone else, and treated as equals in society, what we see as "queer culture" and its various facets and hallmarks
would never have developed. So while I understand the fear that whatever you view as traditional American culture, or whatever you see as your "utopia", may be threatened by "queer culture", and I posit that this might have a lot more to do with an opposition to gay marriage than religion itself does, I also feel that the best way to encourage the integration of queer individuals into the larger cultural of your "utopia" would be to treat them as equal members of society. This view is probably heavily-dependent on my view of "queer culture" as artificial, or being fundamentally different from other cultures, being correct, of course, but it seems to me that that's also a view a lot of people opposed to gay marriage tend to share, consciously or not.
