The gay community is slowing growing impatient with President Obama, who opposes gay marriage, and is now starting to apply the pressure to have their agenda addressed. So it’s time WEP re-addressed the issue.
When I discuss gay marriage in these forums I like to leave religion out of it. My personal beliefs are set aside and I’m still able to argue my points. This drives the other side nuts because the basis of their counter-argument is the whole “separation of church and state” myth. So, religion won’t apply here.
First, homosexuality is not the issue. So do I support civil rights for gay people? Absolutely. I support civil rights for all law-abiding citizens and that certainly includes those who engage in atypical sexual acts. People are free to have sex with whomever they choose, so long as their partner is an unwed consenting adult. The caveat is that I don’t want to be held financially responsible when someone who engages in such behavior contracts a disease as a result of that behavior. So I will support someone’s right to have sex with any unwed consenting adult of their choosing if they in turn support my right to NOT pay for medical care that is necessary for diseases they contract when engaging in such behavior. I think that’s fair and reasonable. For that matter, I don’t want to pay for healthcare for those who drink too much, eat too much, smoke too much, or don’t exercise enough. Their behavior has consequences and they should not expect others to shoulder the load of those consequences.
Is homosexuality a natural act? Gay advocates will say that homosexuality is genetic, that people are essentially born straight or born gay. As a man of science, I don’t see any evidence of that. Humans are the only animals that engage in recreational – rather than procreational – sex. And since homosexuality is not procreational, what else can it be but recreational? We have mapped the human genome and have yet to discover the “gay” gene. And if someone believes in Darwinian evolution as I do, then how could such a gene survive the survival-of-the-fittest test? It would certainly not be passed from generation to generation. So in order to believe that such a gene exists, you would have to also believe that every homosexual is due to the exact same spontaneous DNA mutation that occurs randomly at the same moment in each homosexual individual. You don’t have to be a geneticist to realize that the chances of that are slim…very slim. Plus, such a claim would essentially label homosexuality as a genetic disease, or maybe a birth defect if you will. This opens a whole new can of worms.
Instead, I see homosexuality as a product of one’s environment. It is atypical sexual behavior likely the result of a pathological psychiatric process related to sexual abuse in one’s past. We know that women who were sexually abused tend to be much more promiscuous, a misguided expression of sex that developed from their traumatic past. I think something similar is going on with homosexuality. Does this mean that everyone who is abused becomes gay or promiscuous? No. But it does mean that sexual abuse increases the risk of such behavior in the future because the victims view sex much differently than someone who was not abused. But that’s just a theory.
Now, on to the marriage issue. There are two schools of thought here. I believe that marriage is defined by a particular culture. Our idea of marriage is much different than in Asian cultures, or Middle Eastern cultures. There is also a wide variation among different religious groups. The point is that marriage is a product of culture and therefore is defined by the society within that culture. Which means the people decide how they want to define marriage.
Some contend that marriage is a right. I have a problem here. When I here “right” I think of voting, peaceful assembly, free speech, no illegal search and seizure and so on. Those are rights. I am apprehensive about elevating marriage (or healthcare for that matter) to such a high level because rights are things that can’t be infringed upon by others. If we were to say that marriage is a Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment, then we will be dealing with many other problems because immediately there will be claims of civil rights violations. Suppose a man wants to marry his daughter. Or wants to marry 8 different women. Or wants to marry his pet goat. If we try to make laws against this we will then be flirting with civil rights violations. And what about divorce? Suppose one spouse wants a divorce and the other wants to stay married. Will we deny the divorce in order to protect the other’s right to marriage? The point is that calling marriage a right gets very slippery. It’s a cultural tradition defined by the society within that culture. It is not a Constitutional right.
So I support civil rights for all, including homosexuals. But when it comes time to define marriage that must be done by the people, NOT the court system. I agree with President Obama’s position against same-sex marriage, but that’s not the relevant point. Obama should instead articulate that the definition of marriage should be decided by the people and not the court system. This would keep his personal feelings out of it and would possibly keep the homosexual special interests from hassling him too much.