The debate over homosexuality refuses to die. In a purple state like South Dakota, gay rights elicit both cheers and jeers. Liberal college students flush with urges to save the world, affix rainbow buttons to their backpacks, while staunch evangelicals choose bumper stickers reading "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." From people like me, however, mention of this titanic social issue arouses a sort of weird, paradoxical confrontational neutrality.
I don't care, and you cannot make me.
Unlike most people, I do not care if you're gay. Really. I don't even want to know. Don't come out to me or hold a parade on my street. Your sexuality shouldn't define you. In fact, it's none of my business. As with your other personal freedoms, do what you please as long as you don't harm anyone else.
It's obvious that I've got a rather laissez-faire attitude toward gays, but I'm not "pro-gay rights." I don't like that characterization. It implies that I actively participate in the gay rights crusade, fighting against "The Man," whoever that is. I don't have time for all that. I'm too busy not caring.
But while I don't care about individuals' sexuality, I'm a fan of personal freedoms in general. That is, one shouldn't be discriminated against for something as trivial as sexual orientation. In fact, I have strong feelings about the discrimination gays often face. Yes, I'm talking about gay marriage.
I'm unhappy that most of the anti-gay marriage crowd are fellow Republicans. They seem to have forgotten their small government roots in their efforts to legislate their religious beliefs. I'm sure I'll catch hell from them, but I don't think gays should be barred from freedoms enjoyed by others simply because they have a different kind of sex than straight people.
The primary logic behind the anti-gay marriage argument is that gay marriage will ruin the "sanctity" of the institution. I disagree. You see, government recognition of marriage - what gay marriage would be - isn't religious at all. City hall certainly isn't a "sanctified" place. One doesn't go to city hall for Sunday Mass or to baptize a child. It is true that marriages occur there, but they are civil in nature, bearing no religious significance. They're essentially the formalization of relationships for tax purposes.
Civil recognition of gay marriage is a far cry from the bastardization of religion that some fear. In fact, if gay marriages were allowed, churches wouldn't be forced to wed gays. They would still have the freedom to turn away those who didn't adhere to their beliefs. Churches are private institutions with their own sets of rules. If you don't like the rules, leave. They don't have to cater to your value system.
There are those on the other side who scream tolerance and acceptance. They should quiet down, too. Not only are they royally annoying, but they force people to agree with them under penalty of being labeled intolerant or hate mongering. This is ludicrous. Quite frankly, one should have the ability to dislike what they dislike and even hate what they hate, again, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's freedoms.
It seems to me that not caring is the way to go. Instead of a war on gays, let's declare neutrality instead. We've already introduced "color blind" into the American lexicon to combat racism, perhaps its time we started using "sexual orientation blind," or maybe something a bit catchier.
Be the first to comment on this article!