Argument against Gay Marriage

I was on a Christian web site the other day dedicated to the argument against homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular.

Most of the site focused on deflecting criticism of gay marriage opposition but it also established a positive argument which went something like this:

1. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice
2. Homosexual behavior is inherently harmful
3. Society should not encourage harmful behavior

The support for point 1 was basically the “large number” of gays which have left the gay lifestyle and are now happy heterosexuals.

The support for point 2 was a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report indicating that the overwhelming majority of Aids infection due to sexual activity was via homosexual encounters. The site quoted 82% but my arithmetic indicated it was closer to 79%. Given the relatively rarity of homosexual sex to heterosexual sex this is a pretty amazing number. The site also quoted a CDC report indicating the high incidence of syphilis among gay men.

Point 3 is a philosophical position but one which I have a hard time arguing with. They’re right, society should not encourage harmful behavior.

So what do I make of this?

On the face of it it’s not a bad argument and I suspect it’s one that might convince some people but it really doesn’t hold up under closer examination.

Let’s start with the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The current scientific position supported by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association is that for sexual orientation this isn’t true. While it’s unclear what determines sexual orientation, there is compelling evidence that it is determined either before birth or very, very early in a child’s development.

So what about all these “ex-gays?”

Well, first let’s understand that engaging in homosexual activity is certainly a choice just like engaging in heterosexual activity is a choice. One can choose to remain celibate. Let’s also understand that sexual orientation isn’t a binary thing. The Kinsey scale has seven positions ranging from exclusively heterosexual on one end to exclusively homosexual on the other. In between are five levels of bi-sexuality. A bi-sexual can also choose to restrict themselves to only heterosexual or only homosexual activity.

So point 1 is not terribly well supported. But so what? One could still argue that even if it’s not a choice that fact that it is inherently harmful should preclude society from encouraging it.

The problem is the transmission of STDs is more a matter of education and taking the proper precautions than inherent in any one form of sexual activity. Condoms would guard against it in both cases. Why homosexuals tend to eschew taking the proper precautions is unclear to me but the argument that homosexual sex is inherently, rather than statistically, more harmful is not established simply by quoting statistics.

So the case doesn’t really hold water. As I’ve said before, I don’t know why some small segment of the population has its sexual wires crossed but I don’t see any harm in extending to them the financial, cultural and emotional benefits of marriage and I’ve yet to see any compelling argument against doing so.

The fact of the matter is that Christians are against it because they interpret the Bible as saying it's wrong. Everything else is an attempt to justify with non-religious arguments a religious viewpoint. That's why the arguments are all so weak.

Why can't Christians just be honest about it? Honesty seems to be something, whether we're talking about gay marriage, evolution or prayer in the schools, that Christians have a hard time dealing with.

This tendancy toward dishonesty is what convinces me that Christianity is a bankrupt philosophy unworthy of adherence or respect.