So what are the objections to gays marrying or adopting? Frankly, that can be difficult to articulate because objections or aversions often spring from instinctive feelings rather than rationally considered explanations. That, however, doesn't automatically mean that there are none, merely that the subject is being approached from another (but not necessarily unreasoning) direction.
For example, what's the rationale for not allowing siblings to marry? I'm sure there's a reason, but my objections spring primarily from a feeling that it just doesn't seem right, though I'd have to sit down after the fact and think about the intellectual argument. Many paedophiles can offer a seemingly rational, intellectual justification (in their eyes) for what most Western people see as a repugnant act. How many of us would actually appeal to logical or reasoned argument to refute their attempts at validating their unwholesome desires? Very few, I'd venture. We'd simply rely on our 'gut instinct' that such behaviour in a civilised society is just plain wrong.
I should add, before I'm accused of equating homosexuality with paedophilia, that I'm doing no such thing. Activity between consenting adults is patently different to the other scenario, but the two topics provoke a similar kind of discussion as both acts were once considered 'outside the norm'. (It's to the type of arguments in support of them that I draw a comparison, not the acts themselves. What do I mean? Merely that proponents of both cases claim that their desires should be considered as completely natural and in no way disturbing, as they both once were.)
So why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Sounds like a reasonable question, right? Well, why shouldn't siblings be allowed to marry, potential congenital abnormalities in offspring aside? Not that I'm advocating such a thing; the very idea is deep-down disturbing and disgusting, but the point I'm making is that for almost every reason gay couples can give for being allowed to wed (inheritance and property rights aside, perhaps), siblings could give the same argument. It's still wrong though.
Marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals, and we shouldn't be ashamed about feeling territorial over it - it's ours. If homosexual couples want to celebrate their love for one another, then that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hijack our rituals and ceremonies and force us into accepting gay 'marriage' as 'normal' if we don't feel comfortable with the idea. When it comes to same-sex unions, while society may be prepared to tolerate them, that doesn't mean it should have to approve or pander to them, or legislate in their favour merely so that a minority group can feel 'good' about themselves.
Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt then? Does that make those who disagree with gay adoption bigoted? I personally question the wisdom of allowing single people (gay or straight) to adopt, but that doesn't mean I'm bigoted against the unmarried. I just happen to believe that children, where possible, have a right to be raised by both a mother and father, as opposed to two mums or two dads. Those opposed to gay adoption aren't saying or implying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed near children. Not only is that absurd, but it's impossible to enforce even if that's what they were implying (which they're not).
Gay people have brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews, and of course no one is suggesting that they should be isolated from children. I'm sure there are many fine gay uncles and aunties who brighten the daily lives of their siblings' offspring. But to allow gay couples to adopt is to allow them a role that Nature itself denies them. It's in the best interests not only of society but also of children to be brought up (where possible) by 'mothers' and 'fathers' - not by same-sex couples or single people of either sex who want to adopt. Let's put the children first for a change and try and replicate natural conditions, rather than ones imposed on us by experiments in sexual, social, and societal engineering.
Now, I'll be amazed if the usual insinuations aren't made in response to this post, the ones frequently resorted to by militant homosexuals intent on rubbishing opposition by casting doubt on the credibility of their 'critics'. You know the sort of thing: "Those who are vocal in their criticisms of 'gay culture' obviously have problems with their own sexuality." Although that's bound to be true in a few cases, it simply cannot account for every instance of objection made on moral, religious, or cultural grounds. It's mainly a ploy to silence opposition and thereby create the illusion that there is none, or that those who oppose it are an unreasoning minority.
But, the point of this post is not to rail against homosexuals; I don't have an axe to grind over what consenting adults may get up to in their own bedrooms. I'm not on a mission or a crusade to convert anyone to my point of view. Nor do I go on anti-gay marches (if there are such things) or sign petitions calling for homosexuality to be banned. For the most part I ignore the subject and it accords me the same courtesy. Until, that is, someone implies that anyone who holds or expresses any kind of reservations on the issue, or with the infiltration of overt homosexual propaganda into all aspects of our culture (movies, books, magazines, TV, etc.) is a hate-filled, ranting, unthinking bigot who should be ignored and whose opinion (and, indeed, them) should be held in utter contempt because it's out of step with current trends in our 'there ain't nothing bad, anything goes' society these days.
So, finding the idea of gay marriage or adoption difficult to accept, and wishing that such things weren't so, doesn't in itself make you unenlightened, bigoted, ignorant, prejudiced or intolerant - or deserving of pity, contempt, or patronising condescension by those who consider themselves intellectually superior. I recall the time I heard BOB HOPE say that he had nothing against homosexuality being legal - just so long as it didn't become compulsory. As TV stations announce plans to make more gay-themed programmes aimed at mainstream audiences, you can be forgiven for wondering if it sometimes looks like that's the way things are going. However, as long as you aren't engaging in any hate-speech, violence or illegal activity in holding or expressing your point of view, then you have nothing to feel guilty for, or ashamed of. Your opinion on the matter is supported by the weight of centuries - at least in the way such behaviour was regarded by Western society, even if not always in the way it was responded to.
Many people will disagree with me of course, and I'm not perturbed or annoyed by that in the slightest. I have friends and acquaintances who don't see things as I do (on a wide variety of topics), yet we remain friends and acquaintances. No one is about to remove anyone from their Christmas card list just because we don't see eye-to-eye on the matter. That's the way civilised, sensible people behave. I'm well-aware, however, that things often don't operate that way on the Internet. Those who are intolerant become incensed by anyone propounding a point of view not in accord with their own. Then you're dismissed as a bigot because you don't think their way, and they block you from their blogs and remove themselves from your list of members.
A true bigot is someone who is determined to isolate you for daring to have a different opinion to theirs. Don't be bullied or cowed into silence by insults or attempts to shout you down. You are every bit as entitled to your opinion as they are to theirs. I'm not expecting too many insults since disabling the anonymous comments option (and cowards usually shy away from responding when the cloak of anonymity is denied them), but it will be interesting to see just what type of replies (if any) are made.
So, which brave soul - either for or against - is going to be first to stick their head above the parapet? Go on - lead the charge!
******
I see one member/follower has bailed out on me, presumably because he didn't like this post. I'm probably a member of his blog (if he has one), but I'm not the type to cancel my membership just because someone holds or expresses a different opinion to mine, even one with which I firmly disagree. (Not to worry, he'll probably ban me.) So, if the definition of a bigot covers someone who's intolerant of another person's point of view, who's the bigot?
