There is a difference between not showing approval and making it clear that you disapprove at every turn. Take for example my fiance’s mom. She does not approve of us living together. She made her feelings known to him once and has made it clear that we cannot share a bed under her roof. We know that she doesn’t approve. But for the sake of being charitable and maintaining a positive relationship with her son and soon-to-be daughter in law she has left it at that. Harping, badgering, and making it clear every time she sees us that we are committing a grave sin would not make us any more likely to stop living together, it would only get her cut out of our lives. Or at least have her contact with us greatly reduced.
This is actually a very telling analogy because it highlights your position quite nicely. What makes it a good analogy, however, is that it also reveals something about the “gay agenda.”
The reason your future mother-in-law remains charitable is precisely because her son and you have let her be and not tried to persuade her that she is “in the dark ages” morally. Now suppose, instead that you decided that you could not be happy living as you do on account of your future mother-in-law’s irrational and biased sentiment towards you and her son’s living arrangement. You then set it in your mind to ‘change her,’ at least so that she couldn’t prevent you from following her rules if you didn’t agree to them.
Your plan of action included parading with other cohabitating couples in front of her house, phoning other relatives to let them know about her bias, refusing to go into her home and deliberately undertaking a program of ‘education’ by teaching young relatives about the joys and benefits of cohabitation.
Furthermore, you view her attitude as nothing more than a cohabitophobia, so to rid her of any moral pretensions she may have, you decided that lobbying to change the state’s understanding of legal “marriage” to include cohabitation by definition was necessary.
My point here is that the gay agenda presumes some kind of moral pretension to having the “correct” view precisely because they are trying so hard to foist it on anyone who disagrees. There is an assumption that anyone who does not see it their way must be morally deficient and must be taught that by being “forced” to agree under the law.
This is the position that raises my dander because I do not agree that engaging in same sex behavior is a morally justifiable position just as prostitution or adultery are not morally justifiable. My concern is against those who are attempting to promote it as such.
If same sex attracted individuals were content with viewing it as a condition with which they have to deal, just as we all have difficulties with immoral or illicit tendencies that would be fine and I would feel very empathetic towards them because I know what a condition like that is like to deal with and battle against.
The problem is when same sex attracted individuals attempt to promote a certain lifestyle or behavior as morally laudable and do things to try to convince others of that fact, then they have surpassed moral bounds. They are promoting a behavior that is not a morally licit one as if it were.
To return to your analogy, that would be like, not your future mother-in-law abiding by certain bounds, but you attempting to change her deeply held moral beliefs by holding her
head, literally, to the fire until she “came around.” The fact that you would try to “change her” would require two presuppositions on your part: 1) her moral beliefs are simply wrong and yours are superior, and 2) her moral beliefs are so odious that you have a moral duty to “straighten her out” by getting her to change her mind.
My question to you is, why are you respecting her beliefs when they are in contrast to yours?
I have some possible reasons and I put these forth only as possibilities. You, I am sure, being the thoughtful person you are, may have others. Most people do have a multiplicity of reasons for holding any position. In any case, these are a few:
- You believe moral perspectives are part of who someone is and these should be respected even when different from yours.
- Moral beliefs are of no real consequence and therefore ought not become a basis of contention in an otherwise good personal relationship.
- The ultimate morally defensible position is 'live and let live."
- It’s just not worth it so why try.
Ultimately, what it comes down to in the “gay rights” agenda is the promotion of a moral position, one that is being pushed until it is accepted by all. Proponents will not be satisfied until anyone holding an opposing view has relented their view and the telling sign, the indicator, will be when moral “sensibilities” such as aversion and disgust about same sex behavior has been neutralized. This isn’t about accepting same sex attracted persons as persons, it is very much about accepting a behavior as a morally acceptable one.
In your analogy, the gay rights “agenda” is like you and your future spouse hammering on your future mother-in-law and not relenting until she has accepted cohabitation as being no different, morally speaking, from marriage, not merely because you believe it to be, but because you believe everyone, including your future mother-in-law must agree with you to hold enlightened moral values. Your motive for changing her would have to be that you are disgusted by her bias against cohabitation. Why do you not have these feelings about your future mother-in-law’s attitude?
Continued…
Yep.