But here's the problem: instead of pointing to this as examples of an activity they find undesirable, my dropped links claim it's part of a conspiracy. An attempt led by "the gays" to destroy their church or Christianity in general. This is highly unlikely, and would come as a surprise to those L/G people I work with who happen to be good, church-going folks (and no, not Metropolitan Community Church, either). But it's more than unlikely: it's pernicious. It's a Glittering Lie on the order of the one that, back in the Dark Ages, claimed Jews caused the Black Death by poisoning wells. It's the kind of lie that violent fools use to justify harming others -- and I don't mean by making them bake a cake.The lie that there is some Vast Homo-Wing Conspiracy to destroy marriage and/or the church is a pernicious piece of shit that lets people shore up their naturally-occurring bias with "evidence" that they're not really bad folks, just protective of...something.
However, what I really want to address is this, which was raised in the comments:
None of this would be an issue if there were not financial benefits available only to married people. It's clear from the whole gay marriage debate that it's all about the bennies.There is more to the comment, by the way. And I'm not hating on him, or even completely disagreeing with him. I just want to draw a line.
The fight to legalize gay marriage has hinged upon the benefits available only to married couples because that is where the inequality in the law is, and where there needs to be a change because--as mentioned repeatedly in the comments on the post--that is the only part of marriage the State deals with.
But please, don't think that gays get married just for those sweet, sweet tax breaks. I mean, I am sure some do. Just like some heteros get married for monetary reasons.
Most gay people get married--and I am sure this will come as a shocker to some people--for the same reason straight people get married:
Because their love is so big and so special and so overwhelming they want the world to know that it exists and they have chosen to bind themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.
Really, is it that hard to figure it out? The legal rights only matter because of love.
If Jim and Joe have been a couple for 25 years and Joe has a heart attack and is in the hospital, Jim cares about the legal right to be with Joe because he loves Joe and because it is a scary fucking thing when someone you love is in pain and possibly dying and if God forbid that person does die, you want the last thing they are aware of in this world to be your love for them.
And you know what? I am fairly certain the people who are against gay marriage know this.
Exactly why they want to denigrate the love any two strangers have for any other two strangers is beyond me. I think maybe these are the people who are constantly comparing themselves and their stuff to everyone else to begin with. If Jim's Ferrari makes you feel bad about your Corvette, if Jim's Victorian with an historic landmark plaque makes you feel bad about your McMansion, if Jim's VP job makes you feel bad about your middle management position, I guess it only makes sense that Jim and Joe celebrating their silver anniversary would make you feel bad about paying alimony to two ex wives. (You can probably tie the religious aspect into this too. Jim and Joe potentially going to service every Sunday and Bible study every Wednesday and tithing and serving on the vestry kind of makes your biannual Christmas and Easter trips to the big see and be seen service pale in comparison, eh?)
Of course, the natural, sane fix for that problem is to address it within yourself, not try to stop other people from succeeding where you have failed, but I'll admit it's human nature to try to bring others down to your level.