Tuesday, September 25, 2012

A Stone-Age Mentality

This morning one of the more than 400 people in my Facebook feed posted this sentiment: "Does that 'Vote YES, one man one woman' sign in your yard that shows your stone-age mentality give me the right to beat you with a stick?"  The post has so far received 19 "Likes"  and four comments that express agreement with the post, one of which reads, "perhaps it would be more appropriate to stone them."  Now there's certainly an element of sarcasm at play here, but I think this is worth thinking about in at least three ways.

First, let me express my agreement that a traditional understanding of marriage is, in fact, a "stone-age mentality."  In fact, it dates back to even before the stone age.  The traditional definition of marriage is, as Kirk Cameron said, "as old as dirt."  Marriage was instituted by God pretty quickly after the creation of the world.  So in a sense, the Poster is correct: one man, one woman is a stone-age mentality.

Secondly, the Poster implies that people who believe in the stone-age idea of traditional marriage should be beaten "with a stick."  Huh.  Yeah, that sounds like very sophisticated and modern way of dealing with disagreement.  "I don't agree with you; time for me to beat you with a stick."  How is that mentality any less "stone-age" than a belief in the traditional definition of marriage?  I thought beating people we have disagreements with with sticks would have been a trait we left in the stone-age, and not something we brought with us into the twenty-first century.  But apparently some people are still in the stone-age.

Third, I think it's important to point out the extreme hypocrisy of this post and the general way that the pro-gay agenda works.  For example, I wonder what would happen if the post went something like this: "Does that 'Vote NO, don't limit the freedom to marry' sign in your yard that shows your immoral mentality give me the right to be you with a stick?"  What would the public response to that be?  And what if someone similarly commented on such a post, "perhaps it's more appropriate to stone them"?  I imagine that if a person posted such a thing he or she would be accused of threatening violence to gay people.  Maybe even be charged with a hate crime.  Why is the same standard not applied to those who threaten violence (either legitimately or jokingly) against people who oppose gay marriage?  It's extreme hypocrisy, and it's astounding to me that people can't see it for what it is.

As I've said before, we can disagree about the issues - let's just do so in a civil and respectful way.  Can't we talk about this stuff without joking about violence against the other side and accusing each other of hate?  Here's to hoping people can get their brains out of the stone-age.

No comments: