Recently, state legislatures have been introducing and passing laws banning same-sex marriages. All of this has been a response to one Hawaiian judge’s ruling on the issue.
Circuit Court Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the state’s government had failed to show a single compelling or logical reason for denying homosexual couples the freedom to marry.
And each argument that is proffered as “proof” of the insidiousness of homosexuality only furthers my distaste for the current state of some “American” ideals. Examination of some of the arguments reveals them to be fallacious and downright discriminatory.
What I’ll attempt to do here is present a point-counterpoint discussion and expose some inherent weaknesses in opponents’ arguments. I’ll give a brief synopsis of what an opponent might say, then how I think the argument carries no weight.
Argument No.1: Genetic cause
Homosexuality may be genetic, but it doesn’t mean we have to accept it — since there are many other genetic disorders (e.g. Alzheimer’s, heart disease, etc.) that modern science is trying to alleviate. Just because it is genetic doesn’t mean we have to accept and live with it.
Initially, this might seem to be an argument that would dissuade someone from supporting homosexuality and same-sex marriages.
However, the way I interpret this argument is that science wants to eliminate some of these diseases. And that’s what they are — diseases.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not a condition in which one’s life is at stake — in the same sense of heart disease.
Moreover, finding a therapy for Alzheimer’s disease would not be the same thing as “curing” homosexuality. Alzheimer’s disease, or any other disease, changes who you are. It transforms you from “Being A” to “Being B.” On the other hand, homosexuality is who you are.
Although it does not compose your entire makeup as a person, it is part of your being. Being homosexual is analogous to being born a male or female, or being born white or black. It would be ridiculous for someone to say that genetic therapy should be used on these particular segments, as it would be “something one shouldn’t accept or live with.”
Argument No. 2: Procreation
Homosexuals cannot procreate. The intention of marriage is procreation, therefore, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.
Ridiculous. There are married heterosexual couples out there who, through no fault of their own, biologically cannot have children. Shouldn’t we — to be consistent — deny them the right to marry? Of course not.
But the opponents’ counter-argument usually states that these couples’ intention was to procreate — they just can’t — so it would be acceptable for them to marry.
OK, but what about couples who choose not to have kids? Some of my friends are married, and they have professed to never want to have kids.
Whether this becomes a reality is irrelevant, but the fact of the matter remains that they don’t want children. Should they have been stopped before they were married? No.
Argument No.3:Crumbling of civilization
Homosexuality has caused the downfall of great civilizations — like that of the Greeks. Same-sex marriages would just cause the further crumbling of American morality and put our civilization into a downward spiral.
This is political scapegoatism at its finest. Politicians in this country no longer have communism, Japan or any other foreign element to point to as a threat. So in an effort to have an agenda, they have chosen a group that much of society is all too ready to blame.
And to say that the Greek civilization collapsed because of homosexuality is as ridiculous as saying the Titanic sank because it was transporting rich people.
Although homosexuality was a part of Greek civilization, it wasn’t the cause of its demise. Wouldn’t a more probable cause be the barbaric hordes and the rise of the Romans?
Argument No. 4: Civil rights
This seems to be an argument that opponents tend to gloss over or ignore.
They attach disclaimers such as, ‘I’m not in favor of discrimination, but I am in favor of preserving the sanctity of marriage.’ But when you deny a segment of the population the right to legally be joined, it is discrimination, just as it was once true, and is partially true today, that interracial marriages were not accepted. But we don’t discriminate against such unions. So why should homosexuals not be allowed to have same-sex marriages? Allowing same-sex marriages would not ruin the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals have done a good job of destroying the covenant of marriage — without any help from external “forces” like homosexuals. In a country where more than half of all marriages end in divorce, I don’t think we need to be blaming same-sex couples for our disintegrating values.
And isn’t encouraging monogamy among couples the ultimate goal? Encouragement of monogamy could only strengthen families — increasing the viability and “sanctity” of marriage.
Regardless of the behavioral, religious or genetic aspects of homosexuality and same-sex marriages, it all boils down to the legal and civil issues. Is there something wrong with same-sex unions? No. When two people enter into a relationship whereupon they state their intention to be together forever, I find it commendable in any regard — whether it be a heterosexual or homosexual couple.
Additionally, there are other laws out there that you might not support — perhaps the speed limit — but try to follow. Shouldn’t same-sex marriages be legitimized under the law at the very least? The civil rights of a segment of our great democracy are at stake here. Are we willing to discriminate against people — who pose no threat to our own families — because of a few politicians who buy into the hysteria created by a few ultra-conservatives? I can only reiterate that this is political scapegoatism. Who would be next? The buck has to stop here.
Allow same-sex marriages — it’s the right thing to do. Love and understanding is what we all need.
Anthony Nguyen’s piece originally ran in Friday’s issue of The Daily Nebraskan at the University of Nebraska.