Introduction:
These following musings will likely result in accusations of hate. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you disagree with my arguments, please do be the favor of addressing the arguments instead of calling names or making absurd accusations. I am also well aware that I am assuming of a certain degree of reader knowledge, and skipping over a lot of foundational arguments. I also assume you are smart enough to connect the dots and fill in the details without further strawman and ad hominem nonsense.
Principles
All humans are created equal. By this, I do not mean that all people are identical or interchangeable. We have unique talents, capabilities, interests, value scales, goals, backgrounds, et cetera. No one has a magical authority over anyone else.
The individual is the foundation for any discussion of rights. Only individuals reason, choose, and act. Only individuals are in a position to claim rights.
Lockean principles of life, liberty, and property. These define a universal and reciprocal sphere of individual authority, defining the point of committing or being subject to trespass.
Judeo-Christian theology. I know. Many, if not most, people don't like this, and I am already treading on thin ice here by citing libertarian principles. But it is part of my worldview, too.
Application in general
Race, nationality, gender, etc. are irrational ways to decide who has what rights. Any right one would claim for oneself must be universal and reciprocal. What rights I would claim, I must also be willing to grant to my most hated adversary.
Society is a shorthand term for an aggregate of individuals, and not an entity with any claim to rights. Society cannot be a victim of trespass or be owed a debt. Only individuals can suffer trespass. Governments can only recognize and respect rights, or trespass against them. And they only do the latter, because governments do not represent society as a whole or any specific individuals outside the political class.
It is absurd to claim a right to commit trespass against life, liberty, or property while claiming a right to the same yourself. This is why political action is antithetical to peaceful, productive society because it necessarily infringes upon the very individual liberty governments claim to protect.
There is a higher power that has established rules that promote better human lives if we choose to follow them, and if we have divine immortal souls, then He has offered a path to a fulfilling spiritual life as well.
Application to LGBTQWTFBBQ
OK, time to dive into the minefield of gender identity and sexuality as it intertwines with politics, theology, and individuality. Left-wing politics has turned any discussion into a morass of virtue-signalling and self-righteous indignation.
Oh, boy. I mean, uffda. Can't use gendered words in anything lest some special snowflake get butthurt, amirite? Oh, wait, I'm not Scandinavian. Now I'm guilty of cultural appropriation? No, it's probably OK since I am white, and Scandinavians are extra-white.
Yes, the above is patently absurd. But there is just enough of an element of recent real events to make it slightly plausible, and that is why serious discussion is difficult. It's why I use a pseudonym for serious online discussions. There is a minority of people who do become vindictive when confronted with dissent. This is where questioning any pronouncements of the LGBT movement results in accusations of hatred, too.
So, what are "LGBTQ rights"? Life, liberty, and property? OK. Don't murder or imprison gays for being gay, and don't steal their stuff. Equality means they aren't subhuman, and should not be treated as such. Self-defense, freedom of association, freedom to form contracts, etc. should be embraced. Voluntary associations of which I don't personally approve, including LGBTQ relationships, don't require my approval. Live your life. This is the baseline measurement for tolerance, right?
HOWEVER...
That kind of tolerance should not then also require me to accept such behavior as entirely appropriate and worthy of celebration. I don't agree that it is 100% natural, and I am deeply suspicious of the political machinations of the self-appointed LGBTQ "leaders."
The debate over marriage licenses isn't about equality, it's about begging for government permission. A license means only that you have been granted a political indulgence to do something that is otherwise illegal. That isn't fighting for equality as free people, that is fighting to be subservient, and it is quite undignified.
The demand for recognition of gay marriage or gender identity at the point of government guns isn't about equality, it's about imposing violence upon others. It isn't the use of reason to support your argument, it is the use of violence to quell dissent, which makes you look like you have no rational argument.
I am as disgusted with the "straight pride" efforts in response to Gay Pride Month as I am with gay Pride Month itself. Why do you demand public acclaim and adoration? Just be you. No need to be obnoxiously confrontational. Definitely don't demand political favors or privileges at the expense of anyone else.
As for theology, we are called to a higher standard by Christ. We are not called to impose that standard upon others at gunpoint, but to be a beacon that guides those who also seek something more than what the world offers. We can't try to use politics to create a Kingdom of God on Earth, because politics is antithetical to Christianity. It is wholly of this world, not of our kingdom. Christ offers salvation from damnation, not damnation itself. Governments seek to damn all men who do not obey their arbitrary edicts. Christ's example was charity and ministry to the sinner, not hatred. His rebuke was an offer to embrace the repentant, not threats of punishment.
Conclusion
I'm sure this rant has been rather disjointed. It's a complicated matter where emotion and prejudice reigns, but I hope these musings have offered a new perspective. And if you really, truly disagree, the downvote button and comment editor are right below.
I feel like I'm missing something, @jacobtothe. Can you elaborate on this? Because for my LGBT family and friends, I can assure you this is absolutely about equality from where they're standing. Could/would you make the same argument vis-a-vis an individual's right to vote, which was currently being denied them due to gender or racial differences, for instance?
I'm failing to see the 'violence at the point of a gun' you mention with regards to marriage. It seems to me to fall under the voluntary ability to enter into contracts as you point out with regards to equality.
I can't tell if your thesis is "gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married", or if it's more along the lines of "the government shouldn't be in the business of determining who can get married", or if I'm just way out in left field here. Help me out? :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A license is, by definition, government-granted permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. It means, in the case of marriage, that government has usurped the authority to grant permission to engage in a ritual that has existed in various forms since prehistory. The origin of marriage licenses around the world is based on class and race segregation, not some social need. Getting equal permission to marry misses the point, because the permission doesn't need to be granted in the first place.
As for the gun, just look at the gay wedding cake debacle from a while ago. Government guns were brought to bear against someone who didn't want to make an exchange. No one was shot, but the implication of "comply or die" is always present with police and courts. All because one baker declined to bake a wedding cake? Hostile discrimination is real, but in that case, the LGBT crowd were the bullies using government against someone who as exercising his right, whether rightly or wrongly, to choose how to operate his business. Had the courts agreed with the couple, the guns would have been brought to bear in a much more real sense.
Gay marriage? Fine. Do what you want. Call it what you want. It doesn't threaten me. But when you demand that a church allow you to hold your ceremony in their building and provide and officiant regardless of their doctrinal objections, and demand government enforce that, it isn't equality anymore. It's not fairness or justice. It's violating the rights to freedom of association you want for yourself.
As for voting, no one has a right to vote. I have written at some length on that topic elsewhere. Here, for example.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can see your point, but at the moment, we live in a society which, for a variety of reasons, has decided to place 'marriage' in a special category. Whether or not the permission needs to be granted in some philosophical sense appears to me to ignore the very real fact that right now, in our society, based on our laws and our social structure, 'marriage' is a thing. What, then (I ask in all seriousness, not in an antagonistic fashion), is the alternative? :)
I currently know of no one demanding specific churches use their buildings and/or employees and staff to conduct weddings. Doesn't mean it's not happening, just that I'm unaware of it and every gay or lesbian I know is opposed to the idea of forcing someone of a particular religion to officiate their wedding. That's counter-productive--the other side of that coin, however, is that right now, marriage confers a plethora of rights to individuals that they do not otherwise have absent that contract: law, medicine, property rights, and so forth. What, absent the contract of marriage, is the alternative for ensuring people receive the rights to which they are due? That's where I'm confused--if not "marriage", then what? The free market, voluntaryism, libertarianism...I presume they offer answers that I'm unaware of, so I'm curious what those are. :)
Again, I hope this doesn't come off antagonistically. I'm genuinely interested in the discussion here, not having a comment war. Your linked post, for instance, ends with:
All I'm seeing is the mythology. I'm looking for solutions. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Society decided nothing. Appeal to status quo is not an argument.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not appealing to the status quo. I'm saying, "This is how things are now. What are the options for changing it?" Where do we go from here? What are the solutions proposed by Voluntaryism, Libertarianism, etc...? If the status quo isn't desired, then how did it get that way to begin with? And if society decided nothing (which, if not society, then whom? The church?), how are we where we are now?
Hand-waving away inconvenient elements doesn't get us anywhere...it is what it is, how do we change it?
Does that help? I'm trying to be as clear as possible, but I'm not sure I'm succeeding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We disobey and live as if we are free. Instead of asking for permission, we assert our liberty. Look at what homeschoolers did in the 1970s and 80s. Hell, look at pot smokers. Most just smoke weed regardless of whether government will grant permission or not, and the best government will concede is "we get to tax and regulate the hell out of it," which means the black market continues. The Underground Railroad was literally a criminal conspiracy to violate state and federal law because the law was in the wrong. That is a far better model than petitioning the government for permission like subjects of the crown.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't find that disjointed or "offensive" in any way.
Although I'm an atheist, I can respect those whose faith helps them respect the rights of all others.
Even if I don't like something, I am mature enough to know that doesn't give me the right to use force to stop it when it doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of another.
I was recently told that my believing "Pride Month" is silly is hateful. I have no desire to use force against them, but feeling pride in something like that (or your nationality, your "race", or whatever) is just absurd. You be you, and don't demand others bow to your quirks.
A person's sexual orientation doesn't affect their natural human rights one iota. This means it also doesn't entitle them to "extra rights" (no such thing).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit