Macasaquit Gets Last Word In Gay Marriage Feud

Friends, it seems that each new issue of The Cowl is the Gay Issue. Lately, ever since I “Out[ed] the Gay Agenda,” the Commentary section has been bombarded with the issue of gay rights. We should look at this flood of responses as a sign of the times. Gay rights is today’s issue, and in light of its continuing debate, it is only appropriate that we ourselves address it. Reading Mark Scirocco’s two articles on the rights of homosexuals, one in response to my satirical article, the other in response to others’ responses to his response to my satirical article, it has become apparent that this issue is far from being resolved.

I will start my commentary by making one point completely clear: Despite my best efforts to make my satirical piece ridiculous enough to be considered satire, I have been made aware of people reacting negatively towards it thinking that the satire of conservative views reflected my own opinions. They do not. I am a firm supporter of the rights of homosexuals and particularly am in full support of Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

Let’s begin with the basics. Biologically speaking, there is a list of about 1500 species that have been found to exhibit homosexual behavior. Not only does this contribute to the biological nature of homosexuality, but it aides in refuting any claims that homosexuality is a choice. Concerning humans, biological differences that have been found between homosexuals and heterosexuals of the same gender indicate once again that the claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” is baseless. In the same way that the majority, heterosexual individuals, do not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, neither do homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. I’d like to reiterate my point from my first article that choosing to be gay is like choosing a life of overt prejudice, marginalization, and discrimination.

Secondly, an argument that Scirocco adamantly clings to in both of his articles concerns America’s apparent superiority in the treatment of homosexuals. Particularly, he challenged me in his first article to “point to a culture which treats gays with more respect than America does.” The fact that the rights of homosexuals are being placed to a vote, states Scirocco in his second article, deems America the best possible environment for homosexuals. While I often agree with arguments in which the quibbles of Americans pale in comparison to injustices of the rest of the world, the attitude that “at least your life is not in danger” does not lessen discrimination. Scirocco’s argument can be summarized as such: “Homosexuals should not complain about the discrimination they face in America. At least they’re not being tortured. They should be content with merely not having the right to marry. The injustices homosexuals face in other countries trumps theirs.” I would reply, however, by stating the fact that many other countries, such as Canada, Iceland, and Sweden, have granted same-sex couples the right to marry. America has only partially done so, and in only a select few states. Evidence for negative impacts that same-sex marriage has on society has been heavily refuted, and some studies even suggest an improvement in the institution of marriage in terms of lessening the divorce rate and increasing marital satisfaction. Entire countries grant same-sex marriages, an ultimate act of compassion in the world of gay rights. This is arguably far better a treatment of homosexuals than what our country has achieved.

Concerning the issue of family, we can turn to science. I argue that what Scirocco mistakes for “imitation” is a natural inclination to raise a child. First and foremost, science proves that children of parents who are of the same sex do not suffer any negative effects from such arrangements. In fact, children of parents of the same sex are, in the long run, found to be better adjusted in some cases, and even more tolerant and accepting of others. I sincerely doubt that same-sex parents do not spend their days attempting to imitate a nuclear model, in the same way that different-sex parents don’t imitate the family dynamics of other families. The fact of the matter is, all families differ, and to imitate the “nuclear model” is futile, as it doesn’t exist in reality.
Concerning polygamy, we can also talk on scientific terms. Biologically, humans are monogamous. The fact that humans get jealous in relationships, when one party prefers the exclusive company of another, exhibits this monogamous tendency. Additionally, civil liberties cease to be a right when others are harmed. If polygamy allowed one to treat each party entirely the same, then no one would be harmed. However, this situation is completely impossible. Advocating for polygamous marriage indirectly supports the harm of at least one party. Because polygamous relationships result in a volatile atmosphere, it becomes more difficult to create a healthy, family environment. However, homosexual relationships have been proven beneficial for both parties, and children raised by homosexual couples are not negatively affected. In the end, the institutional uniting of same-sex couples does no harm to anyone. If you bring in infringement of religious freedom, I could easily create a religion in which same-sex marriages are mandated, and thus my religious freedoms would also be infringed upon by the lack of same-sex marriage a civil right.

The fact of the matter is, marriage has never been a static institution. Opponents of the marriage equality movement argue that denying same-sex couples to marry is a direct defense of marriage as an institution. Marriage, however, has changed drastically through its history. Opponents of marriage equality must therefore look closer at what exactly they are even trying to defend, before they vote on the rights of a minority. Scirocco’s argument fails in the fact that, though reproduction is involved in one definition of marriage, it is not found in others. For some, marriage is for the purpose of uniting two individuals who are in love, and I firmly believe that love should be the root motivation for any couple to marry.