As the title of my blog suggests, I am not a conformist. Most of what you are about to read may offend you, your religion, and your political viewpoints. If so, then please direct your attention away from your computer screen and go cry about it. If not, then please enjoy and leave feedback.
The topic for the this post is homosexual marriage and the arguments against it. Supreme Court is questioning whether homosexual marriage should be legalized as a constitutional right. Supporters have been speckling the Internet with red and pink equality signs while the anti-gays have been plastering the web with Biblical verses, "morals," and argumentation fallacies in response.
If my word-choice did not make it clear enough, I am all in favor of homosexual marriage being legalized.
If that statement was not enough to make you hate me, then you should know, first off, that I am an agnostic-atheist. The name may sound a bit strange, but it basically means that I do not believe in the existence of any god; however, I do firmly believe in the possibility that there is some higher being. We, as humans, just won't ever know for sure.
I grew up being very open-minded and was exposed to homosexuals when I was fairly young. It did not seem strange to me for a woman to love a woman or a man to love a man. It correlated with how I was also frequently called "color-blind" by members of my family in regards to how I viewed people of different races. I was not only exposed to homosexuals, but one of the most influential people in my life is a homosexual. She married her partner in New York last year before coming back to Texas. Once back, they began the tedious process of adopting a child and succeeded in adopting a teenage girl who has been living a normal, happy lifestyle. This woman acted as a mother-figure to me numerous times whereas my own biological mother was never around. I couldn't find any reason to be disgusted with her throughout my life despite being raised and taught in a Christian environment up until high school. To this day, I still don't see any logical reasoning behind banning homosexuals from marriage. All the states are doing is making it harder for homosexuals to be happy and raise children who are rotting away in orphanages and adoption clinics.
Now that you know a little bit about where I stand, I'll start by addressing the governor of Texas.This first part is in response, specifically, to governor Rick Perry's statement on how the residents of Texas feel in regards to homosexuality. If you did not know, Perry took the liberty of speaking for "the people" of Texas at a Faith and Family Rally in Austin. I read an article concerning his statement on the Huffington Post's website. I won't go into detail on his statements, but his primary announcement was that the people of Texas and himself believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Quess what, Perry? I am the people. My homosexual and bisexual friends and family members are also the people of Texas that you so proudly spoke for. I don't know what your problem is with homosexuals beyond what you can quote from a book that was written by people thousands of years ago, but please refrain from speaking for the very people whose human rights you disagree with.
Now that the rant based on local politicians is out of the way, I'll continue on with the argument refutation. The arguments I'll be refuting contain copious amounts of religious standards, fallacies, and butt-hurt responses to vilification.
The most often used argument is that regarding homosexuality in the Bible. It clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination--a sin. Because of this, for some reason, many Christians believed that they needed to take action against homosexuals. God forbid they roam the streets, happily married, and raising unwanted children.
First of all, people need to realize how long ago the Bible was written. If you logically think about the human population back then, it was a goal for every man and woman to help create children to populate the earth. Does this standard of pro-creation really apply nowadays? Is allowing homosexuals to marry truly going to detriment the amount of people roaming this pitiful, overcrowded planet? No, all they'll do is adopt unwanted children from overcrowded clinics.
Next, believe it or not, religion is not supposed to govern the lives of everyone. Some crazy people, like myself, do not believe that a book that was written by some guys thousands of years ago should become the law for how I should live my life. Nor do I believe that what is written in said book is grounds for denying people rights in their pursuit of happiness. I also firmly believe in the separation of church and state.The world would be a much better place if people would learn how to keep their noses and their beliefs out of other people's business and their relationships. The only reasoning for interference in the relationships of others is if there is any harmful actions taking place. These harmful actions include physical or mental abuse, not the fact that their relationship goes against what you personally believe is wrong in the eyes of any church.
Next is in regards to homosexuals raising children. Anti-gays argue that children raised by homosexuals are often abused, most likely in a sexual manner, and that these children are actually taught to be gay. They spout off some nonsense about "statistics" proving that some lofty percentage of homosexuals are pedophilic deviants. These accusations lack credibility and are psychologically unfounded. Most articles that contain such "statistics" rarely ever cite a credible source and should be largely ignored for the most part. I personally have never come across a credible source stating any clear ties between homosexuality and pedophilia. That's not to say that some pedophiles aren't homosexual, but saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles is incorrect. Using the same logic in the first place would give grounds to say that all straight people are pedophiles since many pedophiles are straight which is also incorrect.
Now, I believe that homosexuals are typically born that way. If any choice is made, then its one in which a curious person tries having a relationship with someone of the same sex. This could lead to a revelation about their own sexuality. However, I definitely don't believe that homosexual parents purposefully teach their children to be attracted to people of the same sex. They either are, or they aren't. They try it out, or they don't. The same can be said about a straight couple producing a gay child. They did not purposefully raise their child in this way. There are lots of occasions in which a straight couple tries to raise their child to be straight, but that child ends up being gay. I don't think that a person's sexuality is something that a parent can, or should, control. Typically, even if they tried, the child grows up to love whoever they please.
Next up is the most prominent pair of argumentative fallacies I've seen lately. These are the slippery-slope fallacy, and the false analogy fallacy. These fallacies are displayed in the "first we allow homosexuals to marry, next people will want to marry animals and their close family relatives" arguments. The analogy being drawn here is that someone marrying another person of the same sex is the same as someone marrying their pet or engaging in incestuous acts with close family members. Honestly, I can't see how the pet conclusion is drawn. The person is marrying another person, just of the same sex. What does that have to with trying to marry an animal? Also, I'd happily marry my cat if he could, you know, sign the legally binding contract that is marriage. If anti-gays believe that homosexuals redefining marriage will lead to me marrying my cat then I'm sure all the people who were against interracial marriage back in the day are still dumbfounded as to how marrying an animal hasn't been legalized yet. After all, African Americans, in particular, were no better than beasts back then. The thought of them marrying white people was the same as someone marrying an animal. If we managed to redefine it back then without Abraham Lincoln wanting to marry his pet turkey, I'm sure our pets will remain as such.
Incest is a subject that I'm not too familiar with. There are been laws banning it dating back to the Native Americans who would banish any man who chose to marry within his mother's clan. However, going even further back in history, Egyptians considered incest the only way of keeping their heritage pure. In modern times, not only do many forms of religion forbid it, incest is known as taboo due to the genetic blending that occurs. Birth defects, retardation, and psychological problems are often present in children who are the products of incestuous relationships among close family members. The same conclusions that were drawn in the refutation of the pedophilia argument can be sketched once again in this situation. Some people who engage in incestuous relationships are homosexual, but not all homosexuals are incestuous. Therefore, using that logic, homosexual marriage contributing to the legalization of incest is unfounded. As far as I know, there are few to no connections to be drawn between people who engage in incestuous relationships and homosexuals wanting to marry. Homosexual relationships do not breed children with physical and mental problems. Laws all over the world are very strict in regards to incest, much more so than to homosexuality. I highly doubt that homosexual marriage will cause people to want to marry their close family relatives or will cause the laws to change in favor of such people.
The next argument is that allowing homosexuals to marry will cause schools to begin teaching homosexual practice to children. I personally don't see a problem with such a notion. My reasoning also connects to another "statistic" about homosexuality which states that homosexuals are much more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases. I'm not quite sure if this is credible or not as most sources that I find this statistic on are all sites run by conservatives and religious fanatics. I haven't been able to find a credible, medical study on the percentage of homosexuals with STDs. If anyone knows one, then please share it with me, but I don't need a statistic for this refutation. If such a statistic is true, then I think it may contribute to the fact that there is no sex education relating to homosexuals being taught in schools. There's barely any sex education being taught to children at all. For some reason, parents get outraged at the thought of their innocent son or daughter being taught how to engage in safe sexual acts that they will inevitably experience in their future. God forbid little Tommy learns about condoms or sweet little Sally considers birth control. The world will fall into chaos. Especially if homosexuals are taught how to protect themselves from catching STDs. No, no, no. If that happens, the percentage of homosexuals with STDs will go down and then we'll have to revert back to the whole God hates homos argument again. Seriously, sex education is essential in any child's life. No matter what gender their partner is, they should learn how protect themselves.
Finally, I'll tie this blog post back to my good old friend Rick Perry. In the article, Perry was directly quoted in saying that he cannot believe the fact that people who defend the idea that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman are being vilified by homosexuals and their supporters. Seems like some politicians need another lesson in American history. The way all of our rights have been attained in the first place is through vilification. We gained our independence as a country through vilification. We did not stand idly by while the British decided what rights we had. No, we lashed back and demanded them. African Americans and their supporters against racial discrimination did not break free from the bindings of slavery or claw their way up to the equality they should have already had by allowing their captors to do as they pleased. They took action. They did not accept the beliefs of bigots. They vilified those very bigots who claimed that their beliefs were more important that the rights of the colored man. How is their situation any different from the situation homosexuals face now? When should homosexuals fight for their rights? Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry? Because the Bible says its immoral? It should take more than a dusty old book written thousands of years ago and a personal religious belief to detriment the rights laid out for Americans in the Constitution. America began growing off the the idea that every man should be equal and that no one should be persecuted due to the religious beliefs of others. From there, we grew to accepting colored people as equals, not slaves or beasts of burden. Now, we are struggling to gain the equality homosexuals deserve. Now, we are once again fighting the persecutions of religion so that Americans can marry the person they love, no matter what gender. It's funny how the persecutions we fought so hard against in the beginning end up being the very persecutions against Americans in the future.
In conclusion, homosexuals should be allowed to marry freely without any form of religious persecution looming overhead. Please note that when I mention religion in this post, I am fully aware that not all Christians share the same firm beliefs as others. I am fully aware that there are religious homosexuals and religious homosexual supporters. These people are to be respected as they can maintain a strong faith in their god while also responding to the call for human rights. Even though I don't hold the same beliefs you do, I thank you for being a logical thinker in regards to the rights of many people I love. Finally, if you are homosexual or bisexual, take these words to heart, no matter what your family, religious officials, or what the government may say about you. You are human. You are equal. You are loved.
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Follow LovinglyJaded