Monkey Shines

My friend Scrap brought it up again. J sent me a message asking me to listen to a conservative talk show which he likes at www.pragerradio.com. (You can hear the broadcast by clicking the "Show Clips" link, and then listening to the "Liberal Arrogance" clip. He discusses gay marriage for about 20 minutes of the 34 minute clip.)
On the show, Mr. Prager discusses several arguments for allowing gay marriage, and dismisses liberal arguments in support of gay marriage.

He discusses the question "How will allowing same sex marriages effect YOUR marriage?"
Mr. Prager says it won't... Which is true. However, he suggests that same sex marriage will effect society as a whole. He doesn't really get into HOW, but I'll assume that he means by allowing gay marriage, more people will be gay. Which is an argument I've heard used often. Saying it's OK for gays to marry means that it's OK to be gay, which means that more people will be gay... This suggests that someone could CHOOSE to be gay. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, by the way. If you've ever read my previous posts on the subject, you'd know my thoughts on this... But, to recap...

• One can not choose to become gay. One is either gay or they are not. If someone TRULY believes that being gay is a choice, then they themselves are either gay and denying it, or they are bisexual and denying it. (See this post on the issue from my other blog for my "proof" on this subject.)

So, if one can't choose to be gay, then how will allowing gay marriage effect society? I mean, Mr. Prager himself says that only 3% of the world population throughout history was gay. How will allowing 3% of the world to have to suffer the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us do any damage to society?

Mr. Prager discusses the rate of divorce among gays. He says that one should assume that the divorce rate among gay marriages would be the same as that among straight marriages (I believe somewhere around 50%). This is probably true. So, he says that if a gay couple marries and is allowed adoption rights, and then divorces and remarries, the child or children could have 4 mothers or 4 fathers.

So what?

Shouldn't the rate of divorce be the issue? It doesn't matter who is getting divorced, shouldn't the focus be on how to keep anyone married?

Why would having 4 mothers or 4 fathers be any different than having 2 of each?

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that a kid with 4 gay fathers might face social problems at school and amongst his/her peers. But, that is the real problem. Isn't it? That there is such a stigma attached to gayness? That people are so hateful towards gays that they would ridicule a child of a gay marriage? Isn't that the problem?

And, there's the argument that allowing gay marriage will be an assault on the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Really? The sanctity? 50% of marriages end in divorce. Maybe that should be the issue focused on. Instead of disallowing gays to marry, maybe they should disallow those who repeatedly divorce from marrying. Maybe, you get two marriages, but after that, you can't marry any more. THAT would protect the institution more than disallowing people who are in love from marrying.

I have digressed... Back to Mr. Prager...

He then poses the question, "If we allow gay marriage, then why not allow any type of consentual marriage between two adults (paraphrased)?" He uses polygamy as an example.

Why not? Who cares who has the rights and responsibilities of marriage? Why would polygamy be a bad thing? One can make a scientific argument that it is the nature of an animal to desire more than one partner, and that denying that desire is unnatural. Maybe monogamy is the problem. By not accepting and nurturing our desires we are hurting ourselves and our society. I mean, even biblically, polygamy existed and was accepted. Maybe we've become to strict with our definitions...

I'm being a smart-ass.

Anyway, he discusses polygamy and incestuous marriage as similar subjects. He says that if one is going to allow legal unions because they are consentual and between adults, then they open the door for ALL consentual activities, including incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage is genetically dangerous. There's a difference. If a brother and sister married and procreated, they would run an incredibly high risk of having a child with genetic defects. Not allowing incest isn't just a religious thing. It's to prevent serious health risks associated with such relationships.

But, polygamy should be allowed. Those wanting to accept the fact that they are poly amorous and unite with multiple partners should be allowed to do so. They should have the same rights and responsibilities as all of those who are in heterosexual, monogamous relationships. And the same rights and responsibilities that those who are in homosexual, monogamous relationships SHOULD have.

My point is this: The government is creating a whole group of second class citizens by not allowing gay partners to be recognized, by the law, as united. The only reason to keep these people second class citizens is because of religious beliefs. And, like it or not, our country was founded with the desire to have freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion. The separation of church and state was discussed by our forefathers for a reason. And, now more than ever that separation is becoming smaller and smaller. The law of the land should be upheld. But, when the law is wrong, or oppressive, the law should be changed.

Gays should be recognized as citizens of this country with all of the rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has.