Pardon my weak attempt at inputting some humour in the title and thus imputing some humour in the entire matter I wish to discuss in the first place. It somehow fits my mood better than my darker musings as to how twisted some reactions to certain issues seem to be. More as a matter of how it would benefit me to write about them, at least.
The issues I am talking about are primarily concerned with how to deal with people at large and in particular when it comes to the differences between individually defined but closely situated groups of vastly differing beliefs or positions on just about anything that is of import to them. Sooner or later, as both logic teaches us constantly and history has taught us consistently, there are bound to be conflicts of interest, which is normal, because the parts that society is made up of are those self-same groups, and their interests differ — thereby, society cannot prevent those conflicts of interest from occuring. Heraclitus was quite right about that, as in many other ways.
However, while change occurs constantly and conflict is inevitable, we should strive to find that logical outcome which people typically miss in the pursuit of their beliefs and convictions.
A deeply-unsettling aspect of that matter is the constancy which defines the presumption of the "truth" of the various political movements, religious in their own manner and thus religions, not entirely unlike those that pervade the rest of the societal structure; for just as dogma defines an essential part of all religion, even in an arbitrary and vacuous form at its least of all forms, so it is that political movements are defined themselves by their own core of beliefs, their own dogma, a set of propositions that can sometimes be so manifestly metaphysical as to make utterly absurd the fact that so few people dare call them religious in the long run.
Take for instance the passion of the Left for avant-gardisme at the face of reason: how often it fails to achieve betterment for all, its true goal, in its fixation with going forward with change; or the passion of the Right for preservation at all matters: how often it fails to preserve the good in its pursuit to preserve everything, even the gangrenes that eat at the entirety of society.
In the case of sexual identity, I hardly need present the abuse many "traditionalists" have made possible. It would be irrelevant and a waste of time. Rather, I'd like to insist on presenting what errors the "supporters" have managed to score.
Let us take, for starters, the insistence about the notion of marriage. Perhaps it has to do more with who I am and where I come from, but it amazes me that so much energy is spent on what anything is dubbed, despite the power semantics have. Allow me to be clear: I understand that desire to be united with your partner equally with other people, but the pursuit of "marriage" I cannot condone, because, by definition, "marriage" is a contract or union in English, anyway. At least, in legal matters. Where I come from, the term has its own weight and is used in its sense, prerogatively, without requiring a definition (which is inevitable for some terms, but causes just enough trouble with some particular terms). Whereas the English-driven dispute in the USA is primarily based on whether "marriage" can allow for same-sex couples or other deviations from the man-woman scheme and whether any change in allowable meaning, if it even be so, should be made in order to better facilitate egalitarianism, where I come from, the disputation of same-sex marriage is that it cannot happen, because "marriage" is all about a reproductive company commonly referred to as a genus under the same home, in common parlance terms. A family... Rather debatable, considering that reproductively incapable men and women can still marry...
Still, the point to be raised here is this; that it makes no sense to ignore the gorilla that thumps its chest defiantly in the room, when it comes to gender-sex concerns. I frankly believe that the fights broken to deliver the people in the ranks of the "LGBT" movement (I hate the acronym with a passion and can expounded on that hatred in several occasions, so I want warrant those quotations marks or give credit to a question about them any further than this parenthetical note), no matter how well-meant, have caused far more strife and damage than they have cured overall... I stand to be corrected on the matter of the amount of damage, but damage that could have been prevented they have caused numerous times already, and that troubles me; for part of the reason that damage wasn't prevented is the fact that the aforementioned gorilla is being consistently and constantly ignored.
Recently, an adolescent was murdered, by all senses of the word, most likely, by another one; a youngster of 14 by another youngster of the same age. The deed was carried out with a gun in a classroom. I could expound on the many other issues at this point as well, but I want to focus on the gender-sex related issues that pervade this particular matter.
The offender is said to have specifically stated that he had severe negative feelings in the face of sexual confrontation by other people he recognizes as male, even as a thought. The words he did use are unimportant in my opinion, but the point here is this: why did nobody consider that? No person should be left to just mull and accept that another might approach him sexually if that is something that even mildly frightens that person. It should be something that should concern us and we should approach as a psychological situation the person should not find oneself in. That is of the essence in a number of legalistic and societal principles our societies have constituted. The fact that this has been a point of inconsistency is of some import.
Likewise, the victim is reported to have harassed the offender, a victim in this sense, by making sexual advances, mock or intended, and that he enjoyed causing and observing the emotional distress he caused to others by approaching them sexually — both a form of sexual harassment. The malginant cause of emotional distress is yet another activity that is deemed detestable and inexcusable. It amazes me, yet again, that this was deemed irrelevant and without consequence.
To be perplexed and confused about something you don't agree with, and to challenge those in those positions, both are the in principle acceptable. What is not acceptable is the outrageously accepting and overlooking attitude to extreme forms of the above that should have signalled out to everyone: "Do something quickly."
There is more I meant to write here, and I will do so later. I want to mull over this later, though, in contrast to this message. Posting now...
