At least part of the problem in the debates over allowing gays to marry is a failure to understand the different positions. On the one hand, homosexuals feel unfairly discriminated against for something that is nobody's business but their own. This is perfectly understandable to me. I fully agree that any sort of "bedroom behavior" or whom we choose to socialize with should not be subject to regulation, but what many "homosexuality activists fail to understand is the opposing position.
I grew up using the word "marriage" in only one way. It describes a commited, romantic relationship between two people. Romance is by definition heterosexual. When I later had these feelings myself I understood what others meant. The whole point of marriage is tied to it being permanent, monogamous, and heterosexual. When one falls in love, they do not want the relationship to end. Who goes into a marriage expecting it to fail? The very meaning of romantic love is its exclusive nature. Whoever goes into a relationship while still considering others is not truly in love. Likewise, a romantic relationship that is not heterosexual makes as much sense as a square circle. What is it? What does that even mean?
Such was they way I thought. Understandably, I was confused when I heard of men wanting to marry men or women wanting to marry women. It didn't make sense to me. When I learned of homosexuals, I was under the impression that they were those that were not attracted to the opposite sex - in other words, they did not want to marry - at all.
Having a common lexicon is important to communication. If I suddenly started captain umbrella mashed potatoes garden, nobody would know what I was saying. Go back and read the last sentence again. Furthermore, I always took it as a bit of an insult that something as appealing as marriage was being equated to something that I not only didn't care for, but felt a certain natural revulsion to. I suppose the same thing happens with football (american) fans and football (everybody else) fans. Many people love one sport and hate the other. Having to specify which one they mean when talking and so protect their image must be awkward and annoying. As for me, I don't follow sports much, but I think I understand why so many resist calling homosexual relationships by the same name as heterosexual ones.
Still, there is free speech in this country and if people want to use marriage to refer to a wide variety of things, that is their right. I won't use it that way, and that is my right. If things were left at that, I would be just fine with homosexuality, but it isn't. There are activists that want to redefine marriage through state law and force their version on the rest of us. Of course this bothers me. It forces me to invent a new word to describe heterosexual marriages, so I don't always have to actually speak all those syllables every time and so be reminded of things I would rather not even know about.
I never believed it was my business (and by extension, the state's business) what people did in the bedroom. In fact, I would rather it wasn't my business; I don't want to know, but it is the gay-rights lobby that is making it my business, by trying to force their words on us. Of course, in the big scheme of things, this matters little. I care more about taxes and terrorism, but still, I hope you can understand why I might have some resistance.
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.