Skip to content

‘I Do’

by on March 15, 2011

Homosexuality/Gay Marriage in 21st Century Political Discourse

  1. People are born gay; People choose to be gay.

This argument is thrown around without any side claiming victory. Without getting too excited, let’s speculate on the aftermath of one side winning this argument. Homosexuality will become no more validated to opponents of homosexuality/gay marriage if it is proven that one is born gay just as it will become no less supported by advocates if it is proven that it is a choice. There is yet to be a gay gene and with the numerous variables involved in a human being it seems impossible to show that it is a choice analogous to which superhero to dress up as for Halloween. To be a bit more blunt; if people choose to be gay or are born gay the immediate question that arises is the following: “Yeah? So what?” Homosexuality doesn’t become any more ‘natural’ or ‘sinful’ to answer this pointless debate. Regardless of the naysayers, I’m sure many would concede that there may in fact be a biological predisposition that contributes to a higher probability of homosexuality; just as there are numerous hypothesized social factors that may or may not contribute to someone ‘choosing’ to be gay.

Now concerning sexuality in general; if one is born straight but chooses to be gay, the same argument would apply to all sexual orientations (bi-sexual, necrophilia, pedophilia, and all the others). Notice the implications of this argument. The way this works is by claiming that heterosexuality is the foundation, the template, and the matrix out of which people can ‘stray’ from ‘what was intended as natural.’ The use of natural as a moral predicate is so common that it has become used as the closing argument in social debates. Here is the problem though; what is natural is whatever comes about without artificial or ‘outside’ influence; so you might think of rain occurring without man being present, you could also think of murder being natural because the inclinations are in our psyche and as long we have the capabilities and use our body as a weapon- what is unnatural about that? See, the term ‘natural’ is used today as a moral predicate attaching the issue to what was intended and from what was intended it doesn’t take long to from intended to morally right.   So to me, this argument is absolutely irrelevant and continues to blur what is really at issue. A side point, I myself am straight and cannot conceive of changing this orientation because the change does not excite me sexually (psychologically and physiologically) so to then ask those who are gay to make a change is to demand the same which is ridiculous. If sexual orientation is something one is born with then it is ingrained in their biological make-up and if it is chosen then it is ingrained in their psyche- to which a change is going to require a massive restricting of one’s psyche or a deconstruction of one’s biological makeup.

  1. I can defend my opposition to gay marriage without religion- marriage is a tradition defined by the union between man and woman.

Now, for those who pay interest to news and other social debates, the one concerning the beginning of America is right up there in line for dumbest arguments around. The right predominantly states that America is (or was) founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Let’s, for sake of argument agree with this and see what then develops. All vice-laws seem to in fact be based on religion. A wonderful and vulgar comedian once drew an analogy to enforce this notion by equating the mandatory tassels on American strippers with the ‘beekeeper’ suits that certain Muslim women wear. Liquor stores closed on Sunday, no serving of alcohol on Sunday before noon, drug laws, and the others are all vice laws and seem to have a strong foundation in religion. To connect these dots, if opponents of gay marriage are going to invoke ‘tradition’ to prove their argument- what other tradition are they going to use? Democracy?, capitalism? Religion is the founding tradition in which social issues are argued in this country. It is also due to this tradition that opponents use the line ‘Homosexuality is not ‘natural’”= “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Due to the rise of secular interest groups in this country, proponents of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are attempting to separate tradition from religion.  The argument of gay marriage and the ‘legitimacy’ of homosexuality are firmly based in religion. When your God tells you that homosexuality is an abomination- where do you go from there? See, the lack of rationality persistent in current social debates is structured around my God vs. your God, legal validity, natural vs. ‘mutation of intentions’ and other garbage frameworks.

                Foundation in which to address the issue:

It seems to me that the notion of marriage being a right is missing the point and intention of getting married in the first place. In US history, when marriage was functioning under tradition, numerous states (with Supreme Court rulings at hand) annulled inter-racial marriages and marriages involving two parties of different genetic makeup. Allowing the government (federal or state) involved in a union between two parties in love seems to discredit the whole idea of marriage itself. There are churches who marry homosexuals and churches that don’t- which is their business. But advocacy groups on both sides are waiting outside the closed doors for permission- for validation. Without the slippery slope arguments (inductive reasoning-purely speculative) and arguments based in ‘tradition’, what is at issue is the legitimacy of two consensual adults wanting to form a union-THAT IS IT. One’s religious inclinations should not exclude this ability. Those on the other side who proclaim that homosexuality is ‘beautiful, wonderful’ and illustrate this with ‘Pride Parades’ are as well missing the point by being merely reactionary. One’s sexuality is but a spec in the general makeup of the individual’s personality (excluding all the stereotypes paraded on TV). To illustrate the validity of homosexuality by having men wearing ass-less chaps as they march down a public street is only going to invoke more skepticism.


From → Philosophy

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: