Friday, March 29, 2024

Gay marriage not complex issue to understand

I’ve been writing this column for a year now. Admittedly, I occasionally have an opinion on something, but most of the time, I try to make you laugh.

Judging from the letters I’ve gotten, I’ve been successful in doing that. Now I’m asking a favor from you.

This is not a funny column. It’s not even a cute column. But I want you to read all of it anyway. I may throw in a few jokes here and there, just to keep you awake, but I’m writing today about something about which I have an opinion.

I’m going to write about gay marriage.

Wait! Come back.

Despite what Will & Grace and Oprah would like to believe, the standard reaction around here to anything having to do with homosexuality isn’t laughter and open-mindedness. It’s usually a reaction to methods of homosexual sex itself. It’s usually a reaction of disgust.

That’s fine. I can understand that. In fact, I’m not going to limit it to gay sex. If I tried to picture every person I saw around the mall naked, much less engaged in sex, I’d be vomiting from Original Cookie to Orange Julius. Sexual intercourse, gay or straight, isn’t that appealing to observe, think about or imagine. Don’t believe me? Imagine watching any of your professors having sex. Yeah, that’s what I thought. I don’t want to think about anyone having any kind of sex unless they’re, say, Christina Aguilera and me.

The mistake, then, is in reducing homosexuality to homosexual sex. When I’m attracted to a woman, it isn’t only - or even primarily - because she has a vagina. My heterosexuality is defined by much more than the appeal of the sex act itself. It’s defined by everything that makes a female a female, from the pitch of her laughter to the small of her back.

My being straight is defined by the full depth of romance; why should being gay be defined by any less? If you want to think being gay means nothing more than sex, be prepared to define every romantic relationship in the same way. Does your parents’ relationship consist of nothing more than their sex all the time? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

The arguments against gay marriage can be divided into two categories: First, we can’t validate gay marriage by recognizing it because we would harm the national character - in other words, that it’s wrong to be gay, and we shouldn’t recognize something that’s wrong; and second, gay couples would unfairly receive marriage benefits.

Is homosexuality wrong? Many people have religious arguments against it, and I can’t counter those because I don’t know enough. I do know Judeo-Christian scripture contains a bit about homosexuality on either side of Grace, in both Leviticus and Romans. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Islam - all of these might condemn homosexuality, and I can’t say any of them are wrong. I can say they don’t matter from a legal standpoint.

Everyone is entitled to their faith and its tenets. I can’t attack someone for believing in a God who doesn’t approve of gays, blacks or left-handed people. I can keep them from writing laws based on their religion. It’s a good thing, too, or else Lutheranism and all that followed might be illegal.

We agree that murder, however, is wrong, and we do so on a non-religious basis. We have laws against killing not because God doesn’t like it, but because it’s hard to have a society when people are too afraid of being murdered to go to work.

Would we hurt society by recognizing gay marriage? One argument holds that we would undermine heterosexual marriage, an elemental unit of society, by diluting its significance. I don’t think marriage can be hurt any more than it has been.

Marriage today is something easily dissolved; its vows are violated by our president and it’s begun with talk of forever but expectations of six or seven years. If you want to preserve the meaning of marriage, abolish no-fault divorce, outlaw adultery and make domestic abuse a capital crime. Can the recognition of a few same-sex marriages do more damage to the institution than the words “I need more space” have done?

Some people say we can’t recognize homosexuality simply because it’s “just not natural.” This is a faulty argument for two reasons. First, homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s been observed in several animal species. Second, even if you don’t believe me on the first point, the fact something’s “not natural” isn’t a reason for anything. I don’t see the Internet growing on trees, but we don’t denounce that as unnatural. Are you wearing clothes? Using money? You’re in direct violation of nature, which is, apparently, all that exists without human intervention. Goodbye, civilization; hello, death from a toothache.

So, you can’t use religion to argue against gay marriage, it’s doubtful it would hurt society and the only people who should condemn it for being unnatural are naked, in trees and eating worms.

There are those who say a married gay couple would unfairly get the benefits of marriage. This is worth considering. They would, for example, get to file taxes jointly, which is something I can’t do on my own. (I also resent straight married couples for doing this). They would get to make decisions regarding each other’s health, and, if that didn’t go well, they would get to assume each other’s debts when one dies. Are you feeling jealous and protective yet?

You have to ask what the legal benefits of marriage are. In essence, it is the recognition that two people have become one; that their lives have grown around each other’s to the extent that they operate as a unit. It’s bureaucracy, and that’s all. Why should you, or I, or the government care in the slightest who those people are?

I’m not asking any of you to accept or even tolerate homosexuality. You don’t have to. You have the right to disapprove, to condemn and even to hate homosexuality.

I’m not asking for anything but apathy. I want you not to care, at all, what two people, neither of whom are you, choose to do with their lives. In the same way you don’t care if the guy three seats in front of you brushes his teeth before or after he goes for a shower. In the same way you don’t care what he has for dinner. In the same way you don’t care who he marries.

Rishi Kundi, State News graduate columnist, can be reached at kundiris@msu.edu.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Gay marriage not complex issue to understand” on social media.