I went to a Portland Witches Meetup at a coffeeshop on the west side of town. Being my second meetup with local witches, I am still learning who everyone is. So I sat down at a table, drank some coffee, and read some from a book while scanning people as they entered. While I could, I didn’t really feel like going up to people and saying “hey, are you here for the Witches Meetup?” Anyway, I had noticed that over the span of about five minutes, six people had entered the coffeeshop from various directions. They all gave visual clues as to meeting each other. And as I’ve said countless times, contrary to popular belief, most witches simply don’t stand out all that much, they look pretty “normal”. As I was watching this group I decided that they weren’t the group that I had come to meet with. One was carrying a large bible, and another’s car had a cross hanging from her rear-view mirror.
I didn’t see anyone else that might be waiting for a group, no pentagrams or moons to give away one’s identity could be seen. So I considered talking to the bible group. It would probably be a safe guess to say (though I could be quite wrong) that they were conservative on some issues and I wanted to compare notes. But also, I wanted to reach out from the pagan community and to take one more step in abolishing the stereotype of the liberal, pot smoking hippie witch.
And for some reason I thought of the O’Reilly No Spin Zone show that was on Fox News the day before. On this program they interviewed the governor of Massachusetts who was active in getting an anti gay marriage bill passed in that state. He was asked why he was seeking to establish by law that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. His answer was that growing up in a household where the parents are of both sexes helps give the child a stable environment where he/she can better choose his/her sexual identity.
I gather that he presupposing that homosexuality is 1) a choice and 2) an odd personality trait that is likewise impacted from a perverted family environment, and 3) that if a child grows up in a more stable and natural environment it will be more likely that the child chooses to be heterosexual.
At least this is what I gathered by the statement, a statement that I found problematic, ignorant, and assuming too much about human personality. (Liberals too make such a grand sweeping fallacy concerning human personality when they believe that all we have to do is distribute wealth and property to the masses.)
So while I was sitting there in the coffeeshop with these thougths in my mind, I thought then of one of the loudest arguments for the anti-gay side, namely that it is un-natural from a Christian perspective. I might add here that I did move into the ‘marriage is outdated’ realm of thoughts for a while, but now I am back to the idea that marriage is an institution that brings a great deal of good to society. Just as we are not psychologically able to handle world peace and altruism, so too are we not able to handle polyamory. I understand that it is natural for us to screw everybody, and this lends ammo to the discussion that polyamory is the better means, but emotionally and socially we aren’t there and marriage is not a failure as an institution, but a failure in the values that we’ve enforced of giving up, not bucking down and working things out, of non-committal.
Back on topic. I believe that the dominant argument against gay marriage comes from Christians. Looking at the entry before this one that showed the poll where most Americans are in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, and knowing that Christianity is the dominant religion in America today, this lead me to another thought.
If the primary group against gay marriage is Christians, and if it is religious reasons for stating that marriage is in a specific form, then how, in the name of Church/State seperation, can there be a law inacted to abolish and make illegal gay marriages?
This does bring up a point that I remember from last year on a radio show. If gay marriage is allowed, what is then to keep someone from marrying multiple wives and stating that it is part of his religious beliefs? If we allow gay marriage, can we then say no to polygamy, and if so, on what grounds?
Not an easy question to answer, though I would like to state that I am for gay marriage but against polygamy, but this springs from my beliefs that marriage is benefitial to society in the form of two parent figures, but that homosexuality, while it might be a choice in some aspects, I believe it to have some biological basis or that people are born that way. A person can likewise choose to be a slut, virginal, conservative in sexual practice, or quite perverse, but there are also underpinnings of biology that fuel these things within the person, not only the biological need for procreation, but psychological needs as well, the wonderful complex world of cathexii.