Talking yesterday with the Liar Cubana at lonche, she related to me a story from this past weekend, where she and her husband were at a restaurant watching basketball playoffs and were treated to some Sapphic public displays of affection at the bar, which, unfortunately, was between their table and the TV screen.
It reminded me of the story I heard last week about the outrage expressed by a lesbian attending a baseball game in Seattle after an usher at the stadium asked her to stop kissing her girlfriend when other fans complained. In response to that, said a spokesman from Equal Rights Washington, "Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something."
Back to yesterday's lunch . . . one of our mutual observations was that the recent decision by the California Supreme Court will have an effect beyond wedding licenses in that gays will expect that their lifestyle must become part of the social fabric and setting, which means for those who find it distasteful, we are the ones who "have not yet caught up." We are not entitled to protest homsexual behavior in front of our children. Instead, tolerance will become acceptance and anything less will not be, well, tolerated.
Anyone want to weigh in?
7 comments:
The issues raised in gay marriage are ultimately non-marital in nature, it is easier to understand why marriage as a public policy is limited to heterosexual activity when we look at how other relationships truly effect us, which is not our own relationships but our parents.
If we look at our parents' relationship with each other (for many of us, which were poor or non-existence) we see how other people marriages or lack of marriage has deeply affected us, while not everyone openly engages in procreative activity, we've all been created from it, even if it was in a lab we acknowledge origin and ancestry (our family tree) has deep meaning of who we are. It is something that can not be willed out of existence.
I agree. The day is fast coming when everyone will be *forced* to accept and approve of homosexual behavior - even in our parishes.
Hell, look at what's happening in Canada. Catholic Answers was recently submitted as evidence of a "hate site" in a trial before a Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Or in New Mexico, where a Christian photographer was fined $7k for refusing to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.
Or in New Jersey, where a Methodist church lost its tax-exempt status for not allowing a same-sex commitment ceremony to take place on its property.
That entitlement is already here, and it won't stop until those who "have not caught up" are penalized, legislated, and harrassed into doing so.
Excessive PDA's of any combo are not appropriate, especially with kids present, IMO, and I've politely asked people to dial it down in the past, dinosaur that I am. Same thing with really really bad language (which I use all the time, hypocrite that I am, but not with the young'uns around if I can help it).
You're right. Neither you not I can stop the overall erosion of cultural morality, but I say be a bulwark, call it out, and stop it where you can. If it causes even one person to be a little more circumspect, it's worth it.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if 'alternative disapproval methods' emerged.
In other words--while one cannot disapprove due to Gummint restrictions, some cars may be damaged.
The Law is well on its way to being a laughingstock, which does not portend well.
Arguments for same-sex marriage conflict with one another, one moment it is about gay people having children then the next the argument is that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It is a bit of a laugh when equality in matrimony, completely unaware the word matrimony literally means (the act of becoming a mother. Most people don't have a beef against gay people, but I have a problem when someone (gay or not) who says fertile aspect of sex and children should not be relevant to the well being of society.
My only hope is that ultimately, with same-sex marriage on the horizon, lesbians and gays will be eventually subjected to the same PDA standards that straights are.
You know, like how if I were to be draped on The Canuck and we were about one layer of cotton away from outright public sex, people would say something. It'd be publicly unacceptable.
Equal rights? Equal responsibilities. Keep it tasteful.
(I'll admit it's a small sliver of hope, but it's better than nothing. Ultimately, you're right there with Mark Shea: "Tolerance is not enough. You. Must. Approve!")
Excessive PDA are not anything I would want to see no matter who the people were.
My parents geeration would have never done anything like that in public - gay or staight!
Post a Comment