You would think that with the myriad of problems that face our country (two wars, a stagnant economy, the BP Oil disaster, climate change, etc, etc, etc) that the issue of sexuality would be one they could let slide. You would, of course, be wrong in thinking that. It seems that everyday there is some Religious Right person or group that has been captured by them (Texas Republican Platform Committee, I am looking right at you) spouts off about gay sex.
Over the last couple of days Gov. Mike Huckabee has taken some well deserved heat over his use of the phrase "ick factor" when talking about gay marriage. The whole quote was:
"I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes. Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the 'ick factor,' but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn't work the same."
I think it is important to note the straw man objection and the real one. Gov. Huckabee cloaks his argument in religion . It is not that gay sex is icky but that he believes that his deity has made humans for the sole purpose of procreation. If you can't procreate, then you should not be able to engage in sex. And you certainly shouldn't be able to enter into the contract with the state we call marriage.
Like all conservative arguments for denying some citizens equal rights it all rests on the premise that their god has said this is a bad thing and because they believe in their god they want it to be the law of the land. This argument always fails when they are asked if infertile couples (like my wife and I) should be allowed to be married or not. After all we can't procreate, so aren't we effectively like the two men or two women couples that Gov. Huckabee so blithely consigns to second class citizenship?
Once this straw man argument is dealt with, we are left with what is the real argument on the Right; the idea of gay sex, particularly between two men, gives them the shivers. Some shiver from disgust, but we do know that many of the so-called "Family Values" conservatives are really deeply closeted gay men, so at least a few are shivering from repressed delight.
Conservatives will argue that there are deep moral reasons for their opposition to allowing gay citizens to marry or even have the kind of sex that they choose to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Unfortunately for them this nation does not allow mere moral objections to be the basis of law. I have a moral objection to assholes who want to force their religion on those of us who don't believe in a bearded sky friend who created a universe 14 billion light years in size yet wants some furless apes to beg for his attention all the time. That does not mean it is okay for me to insist on laws that would prevent them indulging their fantasy as they wish, as long as they don't involve me.
The Religious Right has thrown all kinds of junk science up to make the point that people who engage in gay sex are dangerous to society. They have pointed to higher levels of STD's and drug use in gay citizens. Like the argument that pot is a gateway drug, this looks at the end result without looking at whole situation. Any group which is actively shunned and discriminated against is likely to have behaviors that are not in the norm for citizens who do not have to live with that discrimination. Acceptance into society would go far to reduce these problems as measured within the gay community. However, just like straight citizens there will always be some who engage in risky behaviors or indulge in street drug use.
Which is the point; if you take the sex that they have out of the equation, our gay citizens are just like the rest of us. They are good, they are bad, they have hopes and dreams; they have challenges and defeats. Whom you have sex with and how (again stipulating that it is adult and consensual) is one of the least important factors in judging your value as a person. Your choice to be chaste or promiscuous does not really impact the rest of society and should be off limits as long as that is the case.
The fact that some of us find the sexual actions of others not to our liking or icky is not sufficient justification for discrimination. Frankly I find the idea of Mr. and Mrs. Huckabee making the beast with two backs icky. Still, since I am not involved I don't think about it much or try to prevent them from doing it whenever and wherever their old wrinkled libido (and maybe Viagra?) prompt them to.
Is it really too much to ask that conservatives and religionists extend us the same courtesy? It can't really be their god telling them to persecute our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens. I know lots of lefty believers in the same gods who don't have this compulsion. Maybe if they lightened up a little they might find that sex doesn't have to be defining sexuality but can just be about enjoying the physical company of someone you like. I guess I am saying that if folks on the religious right actually got laid more they might leave the rest of us alone.
The floor is yours
|
