Maverick Philosopher makes an excellent case for cultural appropriation. I am here to make a limited case against it.
There is an eons-old tradition that marriage is a union of man and woman, which was shared by all religions and ethnicities until yesterday, on the time-scale of human existence. Then along came some homosexual “activists” and their enablers (mainly leftists, always in search of “victims”), to claim that homosexuals can marry.
This claim ignores the biological and deep social basis of marriage, which is the procreative pairing of male and female and the resulting formation of the basic social unit: the biologically bonded family.
Homosexual “marriage” is, by contrast, a wholly artificial conception. It is the ultimate act of cultural appropriation. Its artificiality is underscored by the fact that a homosexual “marriage” seems to consist of two “wives” or two “husbands”, in a rather risible bow to traditional usage. Why not “wusbands” or “hives”?
Related posts:
In Defense of Marriage
The Myth That Same-Sex “Marriage” Causes No Harm
Getting “Equal Protection” Right
Equal Protection in Principle and Practice
Politics and Prosperity 
This came up in my WP feed below your comment. I’ve never been much of a Whoopi Goldberg fan, but at least she seems to deserve some credit here for noting glaring inconsistencies, saying that if black women want to complain about cultural appropriation they have to give up straightening their hair. https://majicatl.com/2213708/whoopi-goldberg-draws-criticism-for-her-stance-on-cultural-appropriation-surrounding-pepsi-ad/
LikeLike
And, of course, she’s criticized for being consistent. Which just goes to show that “cultural appropriation” is nothing but a phony political weapon contrived by “minorities” and their white enablers for use against the “white oppressors”. It’s an old game; blame others for one’s own failings.
LikeLiked by 1 person