Straight Pride Week

Salvete. I'm back from a big long break, in which I got a new job, et cetera. I hope the three of you following this don't blame me. That said, let us continue, as we approach the one-year anniversary of this very blog.

As with most new jobs, I went to a safety course. It was bland and had offered nothing that the online orientation didn't offer, but I was able to meet quite a few fellow employees and observe the building. I noticed that on the tables of the classroom was a shockingly large amount of glitter. Along with several of my peers, I was slightly perturbed at the glitter catching onto my business attire, and during my break I decided that I would ask the safety instructor about the glitter. She responded promptly that they had recently been making tutus. I asked the obvious follow-up question: why on God's green earth would they be making tutus en masse in an official business environment? Why, it's Gay Pride Month, of course! So, seeing as the first post talked about the California debate on gay rights, and seeing that we're rounding the full circle with the first anniversary of the blog, I dub this week Straight Pride Week on Plaustrum20 Politics (not the people, the concept). Why? Because every argument has an opposite, though not necessarily equal, counterargument

Let's address the tutu thing first. Clearly I am not gay, but if I were, I would be insulted. The one thing that the staff could come up with that affiliates with gay people is a tutu? It would be like saying that Black History Month should be full of hoodies, or that females should show their pride by waving shoes [my apologies in advance; I really couldn't think up something better on the spot for stereotypical African Americans]. It's contradictory, fighting prejudice with stereotypes. Granted, I'm all for satirical jests now and then, but not when you're honoring the target in a solemn manner.

Also, why should there be a gay pride month in the first place? It's as preposterous as, as the YouTube comedian Jack Douglass says, "White History Month." I shouldn't care whether I'm white, black, red, yellow, or purple; it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't need other people telling me that simply being white is good or bad; I know exactly what being white entails: nothing [another slip-up; I guess you know I'm white. Go figure for a Jeffersonian]. That's exactly what being gay entails for the homosexual: nothing. If homosexuality is a choice, then there is little point, and if homosexuality is a genetic flaw, then there is little point. Perhaps Gay Pride Month would be homosexuality's defiance against anti-homosexuality, but it comes off as undeservedly rubbing it in the face of anti-homosexuality.

That, to a degree, is the problem: a big misunderstanding of the conservative view of homosexuality. The left thinks that the right is full of hate for and fear of homosexuals, when in reality we are concerned far more deeply than that. There are very few conservatives that passionately hate specific homosexuals. Rather, we are concerned about the degradation of society and the soul of the homosexual. If the nuclear family is not respected, what is? In this way, we consider divorce in the same way; we want a pure, God-fearing society, but the recent revolutions have tossed that vision aside.

However, the social liberals often don't recognize this claim as legitimate. Without the background motivation for social conservatives, social liberals can only see mindless hate, assuming that conservatives are not socially advanced enough to see their perspective. In a way, they may be right, but the progression of this society doesn't seem to be good, to say the least. Like I said before, conservatives are the brakes, while liberals are the gas.

That's my opinion. I welcome counterarguments and (logically-based) contrary opinions. Expect more later this week.