I'm not writing on same sex marriage in this post. It's my take on the "support" for it. This is opinion. It's what I think. I'm not saying "I know" this opinion is true. It's only an opinion. However, since it is my opinion, I think it is right. It would be tough to prove me wrong.
Have people's minds really changed quickly in just a few years? I think people have changed. They are more accepting of same sex marriage. It would be worth it to talk about why people are changing. I don't think they have changed to the extent we are hearing. I believe those reports are for the purpose of swaying people. It is a propaganda technique, called bandwagon. I believe that the reporting on the support, on people's minds being changed, is for the purpose of influencing people's thinking about it.
Here's what I think people are thinking. I believe a huge majority are against it. I believe this majority doesn't like it. They don't support it. They don't want it. However, they'll put up with it. Where we're at, more than people being for it, is that people care less. It's not that they don't care at all, but they do care less. So when someone asks them if they support it (if that's how the question is asked in a poll), I think they say it's fine. They aren't saying they approve. They are saying that they are not opposed to it, that is, they aren't going to do anything to stop it. "If that's what these people want to do, then let them do it. I'm not going to stop it." That's what I'm talking about.
The people being polled don't want to fight about it. They don't want the conflict. They don't want to have to deal with it. In a sense, this is the actual homophobia. The people that support it, despite being against it, are those who are actually afraid, as I would understand people being afraid (or phobic). Some might say the people I'm talking about are more libertarian. I would say they're just fearful.
Even people who are against it are more afraid to be against it. They don't want to be bothered by it. They don't want to get near it. They don't want to to have prove that they aren't bigots or that they don't hate people. If they say they're against it, they see a big waste of time in their futures. It's a similar reason why people aren't friendly sometimes. They think that if they are friendly, they'll be taken advantage of. It's like getting eye contact with a homeless person, somebody with one of those card board signs. If you get eye contact, you'll be approached. If you don't look at him at all, just stare straight forward or away from him, he'll more likely leave you alone. I think this is where people are at with the same-sex marriage.
The in-your-face brand of politics of sodomites is a form of terror. Terrorists want to change your habits. They want you to be afraid. The sodomites for the most part want to make you afraid. Their most avid supporters, the powerful ones who take up their cause, will do the same. If you don't support them, they will make your life miserable for you. If you argue with them, they won't play fair. It will almost never be a civil discussion. You are going to be dragged into the mud if you get into it with them. And if you don't go into the mud, you probably lost the debate. One comparison is playing a Big East team in the NCAA tournament. If you are going to survive against certain college basketball teams, you better get ready to get bumped, have someone with his hands on you, to get shoved around a little. You might not like that brand of basketball. It may not be how you want to play, but if you try to play the style you like, you'll lose. You've got to push back and make it a little ugly, just like they do, or you lose. Instead of doing that, people will just not play, and it is understandable. They won't even get involved in the game. They'll just give the opinion, or something acceptable, that will enable them to keep going along like they want. Their comfort is more important to them than fighting about this.
I feel the pressure the Supreme Court feels. They can't even come across like they want to make a legal argument. If they hint that some legal argument they are making will result in a less popular judgment for homosexuals, they think they'll be savaged in some way. It's one reason I think that Clarence Thomas just stays quiet in oral arguments. He doesn't need to talk in them. He's enough of a man that he doesn't have to have his opinion heard. He can keep it to himself until the vote. Why mess around with it? Why give the media fodder to take out of context to make him look like who they want him to be?
On a side note, Anthony Kennedy's little forays into protecting the children of "homosexual parents" makes me sick. I'm thinking, "Please shut up." You aren't protecting those children by allowing them in homosexual homes. Not only are they not the parents, but as everyone knows, they are missing one role in the parents, which as studies have been done, everyone knows that's worse for kids. Of course, that's an important way to look, like you care about children. And there's Anthony Kennedy for you. I don't believe he cares about those children when he hints at those points, that the media love quoting.
Do you know who people say that they like? They say that they like people who mind their own business. People like it when other people mind their own business. Allowing same-sex marriage means, I'm just minding my own business. I think that's how people think. They're not being nosy. Same-sex marriage? Sure. It's none of my business what other people want to do. And they feel sort-of self-righteous about leaving other people alone. They, my friend, mind their own business. Let's give everyone a big pat on the back who leaves everybody else alone.
There's a kind of contradiction going on with privacy. People expose themselves more than ever through social networking, and yet they feel less privacy than ever. People feel more intruded upon than ever, because of google, credit cards, online banking, identity theft, street cameras, government surveillance, drones, all of that kind of thing. People have this contradictory, schizophrenic desire both to be famous and also to have their privacy. They really do relate. Here's how. They coexist around one idea: elevation of self. Self being famous and self not being inconvenienced in any way. Part of the latter is, "I'm so important, I can't be inconvenienced, ya know." Which is, of course, why you've got twitter and facebook. You don't want people knowin' too much about you. What it really is with same-sex marriage is a certain type of inconvenience. They don't want to support it, but they don't want people thinking they don't support it. It's a tough call. It's part of the pressure, the terror, it's all related.
I'm saying "support" isn't support. People don't "get" same-sex marriage. They don't "get" what people like about it. What they do "get" is that it is unnatural. Despite articles (like one that I read today in the NY Times) that say it's natural because certain same-sex snails get together, with great common sense, they still don't get it. And when they start thinking about it in a way to try to "get" it, they start feeling sick to their stomach. Since it isn't natural, the direction it takes is like making your koolaid with your toilet water. Toilet water stays in the toilet. You get your koolaid water out of the tap. Making koolaid out of toilet water is about like same-sex marriage. Why does anyone want to drink his koolaid out of the toilet? I don't get it. Who would act like they get it? And yet they will on same-sex marriage, because they want to mind their own business. To each his own. What might people do to you who already drink koolaid out of the toilet? Maybe you don't want to find out.