"It is about who gets to officially define human nature more than anything else"

From a comment of the article's author in this thread...

Leaving the morality and religion out and only the politics in, JC in KZ probably has it right. Marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is part of something that sits underneath the civilizational rules. It’s rooted in biology. In the statistical distribution of human genes. It’s like VmWare running under a number of different operating systems. It is argued that the practical problems of homosexuals can only be solved by getting the OS to take over the VmWare. But that makes the solution far more complicated than it has to be or maybe even infeasible.

[read on...]

It is politically difficult to sell a solution stated in terms that are intuitively — I will not say rationally but intuitively — repellant to 90% of the population. There are other ways to meet the practical needs of homosexuals without resorting to cramming it down the majority’s throats in this particular way. But the Left will have this way and no other.

There’s a certain petulance to this insistence which goes far beyond the actual scope of the problem. In fact, it’s not a debate about homosexual rights at all. It is about who gets to officially define human nature more than anything else. Human nature must be made infinitely adaptable to the requirements of the planners. Otherwise there would “high beauties forever beyond their reach”.

I’ll wager that one day the Left will decide gays have no rights. And on that day they will have none.

I don’t think this is about “legislating morality” either way. It is about power. It is an unnecessary, gratuitous and pointless dispute in a world where it is easier to live and let live. And that meaninglessness is the reason it is so compelling to the left. What is power but the ability to insist on the pointless?