As a daughter of two tremendously conservative parents, I naturally took on a number of their political views. It wasn't until I was a high school junior that I truly began to develop my own by simply listening to all alternative arguments. I have refined a wide variety of stances passed down to me - including the position on gay marriage. It is clear that the majority of Americans are at least unopposed to the idea of gay marriage. It's even as high as 73% among the youngest. It's a pretty amazing statistic considering where the country stood just a couple decades ago. But, what exactly are we supporting? I have an interesting twist on this whole debate to propose to you (pun intended)!
I hope you would agree that the most common argument in favor of gay marriage (and the most relevant) is: The prohibition of a marriage between a gay couple is clear discrimination. Unfortunately, the mainstream arguments for the negative are extremely subjective, religiously-based, and/or spawned from a fear of change. I cannot blame the right, to be honest, because the premise is convoluted - yet nobody seems to be addressing the real question:
What does it mean to be gay; what is sexuality?
Many people - I daresay over 95% of the public - believe in the idea of "sexuality." This is to say, we believe that a person is attracted to a specific sex either from birth (biological) or through environmental conditioning (psychological). My opinion had shifted plenty of times over the years from the biological theory to the latter. Finally, I resolved that both are only partial scientific observations - harboring only some truth based on facts, yet much presumption based on ideals. Sexuality is ambiguously defined as a trait when in fact it is an action. Before I continue, here are some examples of this idea:
A. If I step into a car and drive it to the store, I become a driver.
B. If I attempt to paint a picture, I become a painter.
C. If I go for a run in the morning, I become a jogger.
These are not inborn traits, rather, designations for a specific action one partakes in. A person can be a driver one day, and a passenger the next - a painter one day, and a patron the next. These elements of language (nouns) are important for us to understand what one is currently doing or does regularly, possibly as a profession. Frequently, they carry over for a period of time relative to the significance. A thief, for example, tends to remain "a thief" until caught, and subsequently tried in a court. A baker remains "a baker" until he retires from his job.
It is exactly the same for homosexuals. One who has a sexual relation with a member of the same sex becomes a homosexual. This is absolutely not equivalent to homosexual tendencies (which I will go over shortly). The length of time one remains a homosexual is subjective to the language speaker. The same can be applied to "heterosexuals." A heterosexual is one who has a sexual relation with a member of the opposite sex. Like with the previous example, the period of time this classification remains is entirely up to the speaker.
But, what does this mean for people who exhibit emotions indicative of "being homosexual?" Quite simply, they are not defined as anything because they are not in the process of sexual actions. Feelings and urges may lead to homosexual acts, but one does not linguistically become a homosexual until engaging in such acts. Likewise, "heterosexual urges" do not make a heterosexual. Sexuality is simply not a concept in biology because science only understands reproduction (and pleasure for humans, which I will address in the next segment). This is why the scientific community is so chaotic on this topic.
So, what actually is scientific which can be used in this debate?
Yep, sex. We all do it. If you don't, you wish you did. If you don't wish you did, you have a chemical imbalance or disorder.
Sex in the animal kingdom - with some exceptions - is purely functional. It is used as a means of reproduction in order to continue the survival of the species in question. As one of the exceptions, humankind operates similarly; however, we are one of the rare forms of life that also has sex for enjoyment. How this came about evolutionarily is speculative, but one thing is for certain, it is a damn good way of increasing the population.
If one is to deduce that homosexuality is a biological trait, one must first address this issue: a gay couple cannot procreate. Sure, we hear this all the time on the media from scapegoated Republicans - but how many of you actually consider this scientific dilemma? If there is a gene that renders someone homosexual, it is in direct opposition with evolution which the primary function of is the creation of offspring.
What's more, the pleasure gained from sex would have to be neurologically exclusive to actual sex. This obviously isn't true, and I can cite masturbation; sex can be simulated! In other words the human body can be fooled into behaving as if it were fertilizing or being fertilized. Thus, the pleasure-related aspects of sex is actually irrelevant to the idea of human sexual relations. We are biologic creatures. Plain and simple. As I have shown, it is tremendously more likely that homosexuality is simply a confusing term rather than a biological trait - and one yet to be found at that!