Letters to the Editor

Rational Eye for the Queer Guy

One of the worst arguments for gay marriage is given in the official opinion editorial of last week’s issue of the New University, from which I quote: ‘From a social standpoint, homosexuals are no more a threat to the union of marriage than are heterosexuals. With a divorce rate of more than 50 percent, one can argue that heterosexuals are sending the message that they do not respect the sanctity of marriage.’
To begin with, the argument rests on the premise that divorce necessarily indicates a lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage. This is wrong and unfair. It is true that many married couples get divorced because they entered the marriage frivolously. At the same time, however, it is true that many married couples did take marriage seriously when they got married, but later on found that they were not meant for each other and then got divorced. Such divorces are not automatically to be attributed to lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage. That is deeply and wrongly offensive to divorcees who did not treat their marriage frivolously.
Furthermore, to add a second layer of irrationality to the preceding first layer, the argument treats all heterosexual individuals as part of the ‘heterosexual group’ and judges them as a group, not as individuals. The argument says that because most heterosexual couples get divorced, it follows that lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage is a ‘heterosexual message.’ This is as wrong as the argument that because most Filipinos commit crimes (premise arbitrarily made up), it follows that crime is a ‘Filipino message.’ A given individual may mistreat the sanctity of marriage. Another individual may take marriage very seriously. Every individual speaks for him/herself. If 99 percent of heterosexuals happen to disrespect marriage, that is no mark against the remaining one percent and implies nothing about their attitude towards marriage. There can be no heterosexual position (or homosexual or Filipino or Eskimo position) on the sanctity of marriage. There can only be an individual position.
Furthermore, to add a third layer of irrationality to the preceding first two, this argument, by sin of irrationally generalizing about heterosexuals, begs itself as a counter-argument. Under the spirit of ‘Who are you to be talking?’ how does the argument respond when one irrationally generalizes about homosexuals? The argument irrationally generalizes that because most heterosexuals disrespect marriage, it follows that disrespect for the sanctity of marriage is a ‘heterosexual message.’ It takes as representative a heterosexual male who burps, scratches, falls in lust with a woman for the wrong reasons or no reasons, marries her out of derision, argues with her, cheats on her, and finally divorces her. Could this irrational argument withstand itself? Could a heterosexual take as representative of a homosexual male, some bitchy slut who sleeps with anything skinny, has no credit, no car, is constantly high, had a child with his fag hag because he was confused, dumped his boyfriend because he found someone cuter, hates his father, and couldn’t be real for the life of himself? If the argument does not allow heterosexuals to generalize about homosexuals, then it is hypocritical. Unfortunately, it is not hypocritical, which makes it disgusting.
This brings us to the fourth and final layer of irrationality to add to the preceding three. The argument actually sanctions such an irrational generalizing of homosexuals. It says that homosexuals are no more a threat to the sanctity of marriage than are heterosexuals. Therefore, homosexuals should be able to marry. In order words, since heterosexuals disrespect the sanctity of marriage, it’s really not a problem that homosexuals are sluts, because they wouldn’t constitute a large enough number of sluts to be able to degrade the reputation of marriage more than it already has been degraded. This argument ignores the seriousness and point of marriage altogether and attributes the basest qualities to human nature.
Gays have the right to marry, but that right must not be based on any justification whatsoever, especially one as degrading to man as the one preceding.
Morally, marriage is the state of two individuals from the perspective of their maintaining with finality that they share fundamental values, love each other and will spend the rest of their lives together. The right of marriage belongs to those who can think, value and love. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals qualify. Politically, the function of the government in regard to marriage is to officialize the public announcement that two such individuals are married, and thus that they are to be regarded as bonded as one. Currently, the government recognizes the right of heterosexuals to marry. It has yet (fully) to recognize that same right of homosexuals.
Gays have the right to marry because two gay men and two gay women have the ability to love each other.

Bach Ho
ICS major