On December 3rd, 2007 the Center for Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), publisher (I think) of Free Inquiry and the Skeptical Inquirer two fantastic magazines, released a position paper on same-sex marriage. The following quote sums up their stance on the issue :
LGBT people have the same hopes and desires and the same capabilities (and failings) as heterosexuals.Many of them want to take part in a stable, loving, committed relationship, and those who want children have proven that they are as fit parents as heterosexual couples. They are entitled to enjoy the same social and economic benefits and privileges that married couples possess. Anything less unmistakably brands them as second-class citizens. (page 32).
The paper itself deals in length with the usual arguments given to support not giving gays the right to marry. As such I will not repeat the effort. Anyone interested in a detailed rebuttal of these usual arguments can download and read the CFI position paper.
I would like to concentrate on one specific issue. I think that denying any human being the right to marry the person of their choosing is immoral if it be done in an effort to stop them from engaging in immoral, or sinful, behavior. It is of course acceptable when the idea is to protect the vulnerable (such as is the case with polygamy, not allowing children to get married until they have reached a certain age etc).
At this point I would like to draw a distinction between people who oppose the idea of gayness in general and the ones who not only oppose it but also believe they have the right to legislate it away. It is OK for someone to think that being gay is immoral and gay sex is immoral. Everyone has the right to adhere to whatever set of moral values pleases him. What is not OK is for someone to try to force his moral beliefs on other people. That is stepping over the line and that is what is currently happening. You cannot legislate morality!
I submit that any person who supports legislation that would make it illegal for same-sex partners to marry, does so solely from a dogmatically held set of moral values. It is only people who hold dogmatic views that believe they have the right to impose these views on other people, because they know that they are right and everyone else who opposes them is wrong. And it is not only religious dogma that I have in mind, even though in the USA that is the most vocal dogma opposing gay marriage,in the name of "family values". In fact, I know non-believers who dogmatically write off gay sex (this is really what this whole discussion boils down to isn't it?) as immoral. It is just that instead of saying that "God created man and woman to be together" they will invoke Nature, and how it is "unnatural" for people of the same sex to engage in intimate activities with each other. Dogma is a disease that everyone can catch, including yours only!
Whenever people think of gay marriage, they are really thinking about gay sex. That is the sacred cow, that is what they are really fighting. A lot of people find gay sex immoral, bestial, unnatural and they cannot get themselves to allow the idea of gay marriage, because that would mean that gay sex is OK, and they just can't accept that. So they oppose gay marriage. But let's think for a secon. What is it about gay sex that people find so unacceptable? Quite honestly, there is no single sex act performed by gays, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that is not available, and being practiced, by countless heterosexual couples all over the world. So it is not the specific acts that are being carried out that bother some people. It is who is involved that bothers them. Just like interracial sex bothers some people, not because of the act but because of the people involved. But no one in their right state of mind would go out there trying to come up with a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages. So why should we do this for gays? We've been down this road once. It is the same game, just the players have changed.
A lot of other people simply cannot understand gay sex. I am part of this group. I cannot understand, or imagine, how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Having never experienced it, I find it impossible to imagine. However, we must be aware that the set of experiences the average person goes through in life is quite limited as compared to the total set of experiences available. We cannot experience everything! We cannot understand everything! But we must not be afraid, or oppose that which we do not understand.
No one has the right not to be offended. No one has the right to impose his moral beliefs on other people. It is a fundamental human right to live a happy life, any which way the person sees fit, as long as that happiness does not cause harm to others (and "I am offended and shocked by your behavior" does not qualify as harm!). All people are equal in dignity and rights, as such creating a second-class citizenry, by withholding rights from some that others enjoy, violates this principle. It is immoral to try and impose one's own moral beliefs on other people. It is arrogant to try and legislate your beliefs into law. Eveyone has the inalienable right to live his life according to whatever moral system they favor, and that includes people that do not act like me or believe the same things I do. And that is moral!
0 comments:
Post a Comment