Steroid wrote:I don't think they were bad things. I am saying that if I were around during them, I would have thought that they were bad things. If, in a hundred years, homosexuality is mainstream, I will stop opposing it. Blacks, women, and homosexuals should all have their rights. But whites, men, and straights should not lose their privilege in order to accomplish it.
Why is "mainstream" relevant? Is a McDonalds burger an objectively superior product because everyone eats them? Why should I care at all about what is popular? If the dude's lifestyle includes marrying another dude...why would I care? Or hell, if his lifestyle consists of wearing seventeen hats at all times, why is that my problem? I mean, I'm not gonna start wearing a bunch of hats, because I don't particularly want to, but if their differences are harmless, why attempt to "fix" them?
If everyone slavishly followed the mainstream, we'd have a pretty boring, stagnant culture.
No, that's not "only" what they're saying. If that were the case, they wouldn't have pride parades, they'd have "equal legal rights while maintaining the same level of shame" parades. They wouldn't be asking for more homosexuals on television. They wouldn't be publishing books with gay characters. The homosexual lobby is in large part a social lobby. They're trying to make people in general accept them. Christians don't want to do that. Doing that destroys their status as Christian, according to them. QED, homosexuals are saying that a Christian can't be Christian.
They can ask for whatever they want. They can print whatever they want. They can be proud of whatever they want. All of these are things Christians and basically everyone else does too. Seriously, none of that is special. However, there ARE legal differences in the area of marriage. So, you sort that out, and really, it's just a social thing, and everyone can happily support whichever ideals they want. Not liking/wanting to be gay? Whatever. Have fun not being gay. Trying to use law to force people into your preferences? Not cool. That's the line.
And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.
I don't care about people disliking others. Hell, people can dislike me for all manner of stupid reasons. But, yknow, if you are free to publicly dislike me for stupid reasons, I'm certainly free to publicly dislike them and their stupid reasons. That's fair play.
And, of course, if the contract law point got fixed, then we'd be to equality under law.
Steroid wrote:Well, I'd like it to happen with as little upset to the status quo as possible. Build recruitment and make money and advance as a society without upsetting the current society, until the minority has enough strength to form its own society where what was its deviance is now the norm. Practically, I expect them to commit the wrong and oppose the existing order. But why should I join in with something that I think is wrong?
You've defined it as wrong, but not outlined why. You've also described this "wrong" as a necessary part of social change. Unless you think all social change, ever is wrong, then the necessary steps of enacting it should not be wrong.