Update: I’m getting e-mail from people taking me to task for calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice. Whether or not someone is born homosexual — and I believe biology plays a role — is not the point.
Homosexuality may be natural for some people, but it doesn’t mean one is compelled to act on those inclinations. To be precise, I should have written in the column that homosexual behavior (including “marrying” someone of the same sex) is a lifestyle choice, whether or not a person is “born” homosexual. (I’ll be clearer next time!)
In that regard, homosexual behavior is in no way comparable to race. I’m black; I have no choice in the matter, no say at all. A homosexual may have no choice in being a homosexual, but he can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.
———————————————————————-
Forty years ago — a little over a month after I was born — the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. See Loving v. Virginia.
Extremists on one side say interracial marriage has opened the door to deviant unions. Extremists on the other side say that Loving v. Virginia and the civil rights movement of the 1960s bolster their arguments for homosexual “marriage.”
Is interracial marriage a slippery slope? (The question is rhetorical, of course.)
I believe that changing the definition of marriage to include the union of two men and two women opens the door to legalizing increasingly deviant unions.
Non-rhetorical question: If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people? Or 10? Or close relatives? Or adults and children?
Related posts:
