Gay Rights

I used to be a devout, sincere Christian. Even then, I did not understand the desire of some people to withhold rights from a section of the population. Let’s say that homosexuality is a choice. (I no longer believe this, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is.) It’s still two consenting adults choosing to do something that doesn’t affect me. Legislation of morality is in no way acceptable.

The argument says that “civil unions are fine, but don’t call it marriage because that’s always been between a man and a woman.” Actually, that’s not true. Ancient Romans allowed marriage–and they did call it marriage–between two members of the same sex. You may think they shouldn’t have, but the fact does negate your “always has been” argument.

However, if you wish to work with semantics, that’s fine too. If you say marriage is a holy institution, I can accept that. I say the government should only be involved in civil unions. If you want to get married, then find a church who will marry you. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals will have much trouble doing that. It should be mentioned, though, that the fact that marriage was practiced in ancient Rome before Christianity existed should indicate that marriage may be used by the church, but it is not exclusively a holy institution.

I am baffled by the constant reminder that it is a choice. It’s not, but so what if it is? It’s a choice to be Christian, a choice to vote for the Green Party candidate, a choice to pray to the Virgin Mary. Should people who choose these things have to work for equal rights?

The thing that irks me the most–because it is, frankly, an idiotic argument–is the one which says, “If we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what’s next? Men marrying goats?” It’s absolutely absurd to jump from allowing two consenting adults to marry to allowing adults to marry (non-consenting) animals. Furthermore, that very same argument was used when people were working to have repealed those laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been legal and common for quite some time now, and I haven’t noticed an increase in people lobbying to be allowed to marry Rover.

Finally, it amazes me that the people who primarily oppose this—conservatives—don’t see the inconsistency between that and their other views, specifically their financial views. Most conservatives believe that government support to individuals should be limited, if not eliminated, and taken over by churches and other private organizations. Why? Because they don’t think government should require people to do what’s right—even though, they are quick to point out, they give plenty on their own. Well if it’s wrong to legislate morality when it comes to the pocketbook, shouldn’t it also be wrong to legislate morality when it comes to the bedroom?