One more discrimination straw man

Yesterday I posted a long article addressing some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage, but left (at least) one out. So, in the interests of completeness, I hereby provide my take on the following:

"Being gay is a choice; we don't have to permit these people to choose"

In some respects I can't believe I didn't think of this when I was running down the list. But let's take a look.

First, I would assert that being gay isn't just something you choose. But that's just my belief, based on my experiences with friends and family members. Yeah, I know gay people. And there are also those who are, at heart, bisexual and capable of having relations with persons of either gender. But for the purposes of this straw man, we assume being gay is choice, and an invalid choice according to some.

I can think of many things that are choices, but it's difficult to fathom a choice that would cause such difficulty, engender such discrimination, and/or isolate and alienate the one making the choice. I may be willing to accept that one's sexual preferences are simple preferences, but how far would you go in order to ensure your choice is realized? Seems to me that if a gay man could simply choose not to be gay, then in public he would do just that. What he does in private is nobody's business. But, he doesn't choose that. In fact about 10% of us don't "choose" that. Gotta be a little more compelling than mere choice, if you ask me.

So, if choice is all there is, then the case for permitting same-sex marriage is weak. A scam, perhaps. Maybe that's what I thought before. I'm not sure; I really hadn't given it that much thought. And that's the basic problem.

Now for the second part of the argument, that of not having to legitimize the choice. Other than the "moral implications" that some see, I'm having a really hard time finding fault with choices in human sexuality that don't harm anyone. Pedophilia and the like are clearly harmful, as children are not capable of giving informed consent. But adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves. And should. I can think of many sex acts heterosexuals routinely perform with each other that wouldn't be allowed if some folks had their way. I mean, no one should ever tell me what I can and cannot do with my wife, who certainly consents to our actions. I'm not doing it out in public and stopping traffic, etc., so what's the deal? For me, and I may be thoroughly amoral from your perspective, I really can't see the essential difference between various sex acts, whether the persons involved have penises, vaginas, or some combination of the two. Your equipment is just an accident of how you're made. All you really need to do is find someone else with the kind of equipment you like, and that likes the equipment you have. Period. Everything else is mechanics.

So, since the choice is as legitimate as any other, I'm hard-pressed to deny someone the right to marry any other kind of human adult that they choose. It's not a moral decision; it's no longer a matter of the impact on me (since in some situations children are involved, and they trump everything else). What I mean to say, if we must allow same-sex parents to marry so their children are taken care of, then the issue of choice becomes irrelevant.

Now, my argument may be specious because I'm using something I argued previously as "proof" in my current argument. Begging the question, as it were. But I still would fall back on the idea that being gay is not really a matter of choice. You either are, or you're not. Everything else in between is a choice. I won't even get into multiple marriages. That's another argument for another time, and the decision there is probably just as surprising.

My last point about not permitting choice is a fundamental part of my beliefs. Obviously there are choices that are harmful to others. But even the notion of "harm" can be a matter of opinion. Some feel "liberals" (a choice of political philosophy) are harmful to the political health of the country. Others might feel the same way about conservatives. But we still do need both sides of the debate. Governing in a democracy should be a balance, a compromise between extremes. You need dark for light to be important. Because the acts we perform legally with our spouses don't appear to rip the fabric of society, I can't really see how having a spouse who happens to have the same equipment as me is any more damaging. Not harmful if I don't have to see actions I don't like. And that's a choice I can make that no one is trying to inhibit. No one.

Denying choice for what are harmless relationships between consenting adults is not a strong argument. There are just as many currently legal choices that are clearly much more harmful, yet no one is proposing to limit those. Call it what you like, legally enabling parental partnerships is essential. The law must be clear and non-discriminatory, which implies that if we allow marriage between people of the same sex for parental reasons, we have to allow it for any other reason (or no reason), as well, OR we must limit marriage between heterosexual couples for the exact same reasons. No discrimination can be permitted based on sex, race, or sexual preference. What's good for one is good for all--or for none.