I've avoided this topic for a long time because I'm really sick of it. I'm actually sick of romance in general at this point. I even find it hard to think of a movie or book that has no aspect of romance at all. The only one I can think of at the moment is The Hobbit (the book and part one). However, I don't think we'll be rid of the topic for a while so I might as well contribute to hopefully helping people from both sides have a better understanding of each other. Perhaps if we limit the amount of "hate" from both sides, there will be actual progress.
Some people might think that the rise of the "Gay Rights Campaign" is just the latest of the "Civil Rights Movements." This is understandable because the core issue pretty much started at the same time, but it wasn't about rights, it was about the meaning of sex. Both sides of the homosexual debate boils down to how one views sex. Is it for pleasure or for procreation? That's how simple it is and is the answer to why some groups will never approve of "gay marriage."
That issue reveals that the idea of homosexuality is just the recent culmination of the debate on abortion, contraception, and the purpose and practice of sex. To be honest, I'm still surprised that homosexuality has taken the stage before incest or polygamy. I would have thought those would be harder to argue against but we'll see those arguments eventually. Anyways, I am wandering off topic. Let's look at the opinions.
On the homosexual side, sex is meant for pleasure. This would mean that it would logically have the support of those who are in favor of porn, those who are okay with contraception and free sex, and the media that likes to promote those ideas to make money. Also, it can be a form of intimacy. So I can somewhat understand that those heavily invested and moved by romance tales can support this side.
For the people on the other side, sex is for procreation and the effects of pleasure and intimacy are effects to serve that goal. Seriously, sex rationally sounds gross. The guy uses the thing he pees with to mate with the girl who bleeds in that area? If it wasn't pleasurable, mankind probably never would have had sex and considering how hard it is and long it takes to procreate, we would be extinct. As for intimacy, it's a necessary to keep the parents together to raise the weak and helpless child as well as give themselves to each other. These people view that taking the procreation aspect out of intercourse results in an large increase of men being jerks and abandoning responsibility (I think this has proven true), the objectification of women (some of whom are partially undermining the efforts to limit this), an increase in divorce (rates have greatly increased over the last 50 years), and that people will grow up to be more childish than actual adults. So people who look at the results like these and those who are for "doing as nature intended" would hold this view. An example of this would be the Catholic Church which apparently produced a document called “Humanae Vitae” with these details at the start of the debate over 50 years ago and still has not changed its stance.
I can also understand that these people in the latter group have things to fear. Currently, the idea of voting has been attacked as many voter approved measures across the country have been overturned by the courts. The idea that things like this are state issues as expressed in the Bill of Rights and should be determined by the state and not the federal government also has been undermined. Soon enough, the First Amendment will be under fire as gay couples will demand that they can get married wherever they want to be, at the expense of people practicing their own values. This includes a few Christian Denominations, Conservative Jews, and Muslims, and so on. What I can see is that this group sees that if the foundations of all rights are taken away, there is no guarantee that any rights will be protected (unless it helps someone gain power/money for the short term). America has one of the oldest current governments, but it almost looks like it's doomed to collapse as people sacrifice the foundations for their rights for things they consider rights (but what is a right?).
Personally, the thing that upsets me the most is the value that appears to be overlooked and yet attacked very stealthily. I fear that the next generation will be afraid of or not know real friendship. Every deep friendship that I can think of in the media or stories is somehow being subverted. It's a running and overdone joke in Sherlock that people think Holmes and Watson are gay despite their own words. Even longer, people played around with idea for David and Jonathan. We are even at the point where two teenage girls hold hands and we can immediately think they are lesbians. That's sad considering that that last one was not even a thought a few years ago. I just saw a TV show that featured holding hands as just excitement for seeing a good friend, just as little girls who don't know about sex would. Unfortunately, we've turned hand-holding into a sign of romance now, and soon we'll start teasing/bullying people that they "must be gay" (which is the case in Sherlock).
The idea of being "bullied into being gay" does strike a big chord in me. This actually does happen and cause so much trauma for these kids. When everyone around you says it must be so, you start to wonder if it's true. Can you imagine if it comes from your family as well? As much as you fight with your siblings and parents, they do have a big impact on your development, especially during the confusing adolescence period, which makes them the most vulnerable and anxious as well as easy target. The only reason I was spared this is because I didn't understand the insults I was given. To me, the definition of "gay" was "happy," as in the Christmas carol Deck the Halls. I remember it being explained to me, but just like when my father tried to explain the concept of sex and where babies came from, it did not click in my head. All I remember was having one of my favorite drinks and just nodding along.
Unfortunately, I think we will only see an increase of these attacks on friendship and bullying. Soon, people are going to just assume that your best friend will always be your romantic partner. After all, it's always the close friendships we see that people speculate about. This might also be in part to blame about how girls nowadays refer to marriage as "a sleepover with your best friend every night." It's an ideal to some that your spouse is also your best friend, even though that doesn't have to be the case. Actually, I've started to wonder if doing so actually ruins your friendship. It's a subject I'm currently pondering as I wonder if it's supposed to be the reverse. Maybe the true ideal is not that your good friend becomes your spouse, but that your spouse becomes your great friend. I'm thinking about this because a true friend is someone you have common interests and respect but at the cost of nothing in return but respect and love (not the romantic type). Meanwhile a romantic love is normally complementary and demands some sort of exchange in order for it to continue. Anyways, I still need to think about that more. As it is, I have taken enough of your time. I hope this helps both sides get a better understanding of each other and lead to more peaceful discussions instead of heated and angry fights.
N. D. Moharo