On orientation, choice, nature, same-sex marriage and government

Recently Cynthia Nixon (star of various TV, movie and stage productions including Sex and the City) made some remarks about being gay or straight and the question of if it was was choice or not. Nixon said that her current situation in a gay relationship was a choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html

Instead of the question of whether being gay a choice or are people born with a specific orientation; I want to focus on a higher order question: what does it matter in the same-sex marriage discussion?

It is probably worth noting that given the extent of human variation in so many areas there is likely no single answer. It is an interesting question to help understand humans just as understanding being introvert or extrovert. But it touches the issue of how are lesbians and gay persons are treated socially and legally in our society and the history related to that is very sad. One of the ways that people fought for same-sex marriage was to compare sexual orientation to race and claim that the same logic that defeated the legal restrictions on inter-racial marriage meant that legal restrictions on same-sex marriage should also be eliminated. However if sexual orientation is a choice is this argument still valid?

I think that is the wrong question. The proper question is should the government be involved with same-sex marriage one way or the other? The answer is No. What we need is to get the government out of marriage; same-sex, opposite-sex or whatever. I wrote about this a couple of years ago http://www.alf.org/marriagemoulton.php

No comments: