Me vs. The Liberals

I do find it somewhat funny/ironic that I fancy myself as an artistic type, am studying liberal arts, and hang out with a lot of liberals, but am myself rather conservative in my scope and reasoning. As well, it's not unknown that I have a fair amount of dislike for the left-wing. Why? Because they take the easy road of attacking religion as a reason (earlier today I read an article that called faith and "infantile concept") rather than admitting their own unhappiness.

Earlier today I was pondering the gay-marriage debate and was once again struck by how proud and stubborn humanity is as a whole. I do see the legalization of gay marriage as being damaging to society, but I now see how it will damage society. Often, and I have myself iterated these ideas before, the ultimate social decay will come in the form of the eventual legalization of prostitution, child-exploitation, bestiality, necrophilia, suicide (more a stemming from the abortion issue), &c. While these may happen, the real social decay will be much more subtle, as the aim of it is to destroy religion. Years ago changes were made to the laws that would allow businesses to be open on Sundays. The idea that was presented at the time was that if your business wanted to be open on Sunday and your employees were willing to work on Sunday, then you were free to do so. No one would be forced to work on Sunday. Today Sunday availability is the difference between having a job and not having a job. Presently we are being fed the line that religious societies that oppose homosexual unions for moral reasons "won't have to perform the unions if they don't want to". In the not too distant future, if homosexual marriage is permitted, these societies will be criticized, ostracized, and punished in various forms, legal, political, and social, for not participating.

A few weeks ago in my communications class we covered Queer Theory. The idea was, roughly, that all definitions for gender and sexuality can and ought to be decoded and recoded without meanings, or that the recoded meaning would be a sort of reflecting pool of self-definition where just because two men have sex, it doesn't make them gay. In attempting to find the aims and purpose of this theory I was told that there doesn't need to be a purpose and was criticized for "the need to see progress" after asking why it would be better. When I continued to press for some indication of how a society without names is better a question was thrown back at me along the lines of "who would be ostracized in a society like this? Isn't that better?" While I had no ready response, I realized later, as I pondered on it, that the people who would be cast out, the new fringes and outsiders, would be the people who believe that humanity has its source in the divine, that God has expectations for our behavior, and that some things are actually wrong.

In the end, abortion, gay marriage, drug use, corporate cover-ups, they're all just ways we attempt to legitimize our actions in an attempt to fill the loneliness in our souls. We're too stubborn to admit we're unhappy because we're doing things wrong. If there wasn't a need to legitimize things, if the secular liberal community really is content to free themselves of shackles and chains of preconcept and names, then why would the idea of marriage even be an issue? Why not dismiss marriage as an "infantile concept" left over from the barbaric eras of religious tyrany? It is, after all, a convention of relious patriarchal heterosexual society.

We all want to be loved.