Let's see. You make two points here, which are far from clearly related. In logic terms, that's know as the fallacy "complex question" where two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. Let's try to remain logical instead and examine them one at a time.
First:
"So it matters to admit that it is NOT a choice"
What you want, then, is an admission from whomever you happen to be arguing with that being gay "is NOT [i.e. NEVER, presumably] a choice". By that, I take it you mean that being gay is purely the result of biology - some inherited genetic trait, random biological occurrence or some such. If you could be more specific, that would be helpful, but I'll work with your vague assertion nonetheless - ok, let's call it a hypothesis.
Now, as I said before, I am not a biologist. But I do know that your hypothesis is testable. I'm guessing that there probably has been considerable research into this question - biologists do these things just out of intellectual curiosity, you see, even if most people don't really care about the answer. But alas, I don't generally follow biological research (not being a biologist and all), so I don't know what they might have found. The end result of my lack of curiosity as to this question, unfortunately for you, is that I don't know the answer. That being the case, I am not able or willing to "admit" to any answer you happen to assert.
I will, however, concede that it is possible that being gay is never a choice. Of course, it's also possible that it is sometimes a choice or always a choice, but then we get caught up in what the meaning of "choice" is.
Finally, if we assume that it IS purely biological and NOT a choice, is that not essentially the same as classifying it as a "condition", implying that it may be treatable? Let's say biologists identified the cause or some early biological markers for this condition and found a way to prevent or reverse it. If discovered in childhood, would parents have the right to authorize treatment to reverse the condition or would we need to let the child make a choice? And if discovered in an adult and a treatment was available, would that person's decision to decline treatment constitute a "choice" to be gay?
In any case, I'm still looking for a decent explanation as to why it matters that I or anyone else "admit" anything, especially when we have been given no factual or evidential basis for discovering or inferring an answer.
Now to your other point:
"and that they should have the rights that every other American has, including marriage and the tax benefits that go along with that."
Here, we have a different sort of problem. First, you offer a rather sweeping, vague premise that no one, IMO, could reasonably argue with. Sure, "they" should have all the rights every other American has. But your statement presupposes that marriage is a universal right and not simply a legal creation of society to serve some societal interest.
You misrepresent opposition to gay marriage, or simply to court-imposed legal recognition of gay marriage, as a position of wanting to deny basic, universal rights based on sexual preference, but you have not established that marriage qualifies as such a universal right (or, for that matter, that any generally agreed universal right is being withheld).
Does not society, through its laws, define the institution called "marriage", limiting considerably what kinds of relationships are permitted to be recognized legally as a marriage?
If marriage is some kind of universal right, presumably part of our right to "the pursuit of happiness", then wouldn't that imply that society has no authority to define or limit what constitutes marriage under the law?
OTOH, if society does have the authority under our framework of rights to define and limit such things, then isn't it also up to society as a whole to decide if and when it wants to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships? If so, then in a democratic society, isn't it up to the voters and not a handful of people in black robes?
Your conclusion that we must allow gay marriage does not follow from the premise that gays deserve the same basic rights as anyone else. It is a non sequitur.
You could, of course, simply try to persuade voters to redefine marriage. Seems to me you should be doing that, or else try to make the case for marriage actually being a universal right (good luck).
But insisting that everyone "admit" that being gay is never a choice is a red herring, a distraction, a waste of time. It is irrelevant and arguing the point probably hurts your general case more than it helps. |
