Homosexuality: Why Conservatives Should "Get Over It"

Question: Is there any real legal grounds on which to outlaw same sex marriages, health benefits for same sex partners or adoptions by same sex parents?

Scenario: Your son is born gay. You don't know it yet, but he will as soon as his hormones kick in. While some boys in his class will be chasing the girls and making out valentine cards to them, he will be doing the same for his very own boy crush. It's just as innocent and just as harmless, but he will be chastised and teachers, parents and communities alike will be seeking a scapegoat to blame for his "weirdness".

Thoughts: Fact is, as much as people keep trying to deny it, homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. I never "decided" to like boys. I just always did so because my body was wired to react chemically to them. That's it. The same goes for every human being. In recent news, scientists even pinpointed the genetic makeup which predispositions one to be attracted to one sex over another. Of course, conservatives took this opportunity to try and construe homosexuality as an abberration that we can now "cure" instead of embracing the scientific proof that now shows homosexulaity as the natural instinct that it is.

In the end, they seem to forget that we have known for quite some time what genetic change makes some babies (whom ALL start out as females) into males. So, by the logic of many conservatives who have openly admitted they would change their babie's sexual preference in the womb, one can also easily change the SEX of their baby. And we've had that technology for quite some time. But does that really make it "okay"? The same people who are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research are advocating the alteration and biochemical manufacturing of children? Something looks off here.

Is it really doing the right thing for your child or is it for yourself? If the child was diagnosed early with a disease or a physical ailment which could be cured through bioengineering, then I would be more open and understanding. But to tell me that you would risk your child's future on the weak excuse that you are "protecting" them from mockery and ridcule just screams of selfishness. What's next? Are we going to engineer our daughters to be better cooks and our sons to be better at sports? These sort of ideals are erasing the very beauty of individuality. The fact is, you may think YOUR perfect child, all star football champ or hometown beauty queen isn't being mocked or made fun of but, they are. There will always be that one child who was raised not to accept people who are different thatn them. Whether it's race, class or sexual preference. ALL children will be teased in their life. What you are trying to "protect" your child from would be better built in a home of loving and understanding parents and friends. NOT by forcing the child into a box or altering them to your skewed view of perfection.

Scenario 2: Now your son is a grown man and found another man with whom he is happy and would like to spend the remainder of his life. In a desire to declare his faithfulness and undying love for this man, he wants to get married. Explain, in completely secular terms, why this act should be illegal?

Thoughts: It's not. The precedent was already set with this case. The same Supreme Court ruling which banned all miscegenation laws in this country should also apply to same-sex marriages. It is an act between two consenting adults. There is no reason for any state to deny people this very basic of human rights. And since it affects their tax standing and their medical insurance it has very real affects on the lives of those denied their right to marriage. Now, don't think for a second that I am saying a church should be forced to honor or accept a couple with whom their faith disagrees. This is their perrogative. If a non-profit organization wishes to exclude certain people from their buildings and their ceremonies, then that is their right to do so. However, this act does not excuse the actions of legal unions sanctioned in a courthouse. ALL non-religious marriage ceremonies deserve equal respect in the secular eyes of the law. There should be no debate on this topic.

And before those of you who desire to go back on my first scenario and point out that homosexuality has been shown to be a "mutable" trait and therefore not comparable to race, may I remind you that "mutable" just means changable. So by your logic, it's okay to ban the marriage of people in wheelchairs or on crutches. Hey, it's a temporary trait, so it's not covered, right? Wrong. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. period. There is no mutability in that law and there is no room for biased laws based on any trait, whether alterable or not.

Scenario 3:

Thoughts:

Closing: