Nerve Endings Firing Away

This is a veritable first, considering that I don’t usually carry on my debates infinitely and tend to move on quickly. But considering the extent of comments my earlier post on attitudes on homosexuality evoked, I would love to extend the discussion for argumentative sake (just this once though).

I think gay marriages is on top of everyone’s mind right now but I feel that the whole issue is extrapolated to the Bible and other moral or ethical (this one beats me too) issues whereas the underlying currents suggest a more serious impact on the civil liberties due to its legal implications on other relevant issues Quizman mentions like adoption, property rights, tax deductibles. The inherent unacceptability of gays into society prompts the conservatives to keep them out using legal constraints. So all said and done, let the gays marry. If two individuals are in love that’s the only reason enough for them to tie the nuptial knot. We simply cannot use a religious edict to bar people from exercising their individual freedom. To support the Bill of Rights (US Constitution Amendment) and contemporaneously oppose the very emancipation inspiring-thought that motivated its formulation is paradoxical to say the least. To give an Indian context, freedom of religion aka secularism is as personal to any individual as sexual orientation. To express your moral disagreement and to disallow the action under the legal banner are two different issues. The United States has expressly separated the church from the state and hence any arguments using the Biblical disavowal of homosexuality are rendered null and void. When you understand the basic inspiration that prevent the gays from enjoying the same freedom that straight people take for granted, you will be horrified at the blatant disparity. Admittedly, the sexual behavior patterns tends to dominate the distinction, somewhat perpetuated by gays themselves. This is akin to basic group psychology or behaviorism, known more to the organization behavior majors out there wherein a group tends to highlight the single most differing factor that sets them apart from the madding crowd. Blacks refusing to be smart, “ghetto-ing” themselves in inner-cities, attempting to create a distinct black culture by talking, eating, dancing, singing distinctly different from the predominantly white population is a prime example. This distinctive behavior helps amalgamate the black population in lobbying for historic constitutional amendments like the Civil Rights Act, Brown vs. Board of Education (desegregation of US schools) and Affirmative Action.

I see the same trend in the gay population that would prompt them to press for equal status since the government does not take less taxes from them because they are gay (vis-à-vis taxation without representation debate). As for doomsday thoughts of “Romanesque decadence” are unfounded since legalizing gay marriages is not reason enough to prompt a shift in ones’ sexual preferences. Genetics and nature’s selection has estimated the gay population at about 10% and I don’t think, unless a major Darwinian-level evolution cycle occurs, we are likely to see rise in the gay population and a subsequent drop in the familial unit due to human non-reproduction. There are hundred other economic and personal issues causing the drop in population in nations like Italy and Australia, which are unrelated to the gay-phenomenon. Although the jury is still out on the emotional dependence of children on their gay caretakers but I am willing to give the gays the benefit of the doubt right now. Also, do you think you will be a convert if you live amongst homosexuals? I guess not. The argument is as pertinent as the nature-nurture debate.

P.S. This is the last of the gay-debates post for reasons of overexposure; and blame my graduate education for the tilt towards American examples.