People are social animals. And by grouping together in order to survive, there is immediately put into place the most basic of definitions: *you* are part of my group, *you* are not. And that, I think, is the root of all prejudice. But the world, as they say, is moving on. We're no longer restricted to being part of one social group our entire lives (I think I read once that the ideal sustainable number of people in one's social circle is 150). As you mature, you find yourself working with, living alongside, and having to get along with a more diverse spectrum of people. And, as I hope we've all started to notice, the best way to realize that we're all pretty much the same is to get to know people who you think are fundamentally different than you.
What I'm talking about in particular today is homosexuality. Even in the society that I like to think we're living in today, it's the most pervasive prejudice there is, beyond skin color or religion. And do you know why I think that is? Because of lack of empathy. Think about it: the second most divisive aspect of our lives is religion, but even if a person hates those of a different faith, they at least understand the concept, based on the fact that they have beliefs, too.
Homosexuality is harder, because the people who aren't gay have it hardwired into their DNA to *not* *understand* what it means to be gay. I'll have to take myself as an example, and understand that what I'm about to say comes from my own perspective... I don't find men sexually attractive, in any way. I have no idea what it is that makes men attractive in that way to other men, or to women for that matter. Just no concept. Based on how I have seen others reacting, I can kind of extrapolate which men are going to be perceived by the general public as handsome (and am right probably 75% of the time), but that's all it is: extrapolation. When it comes to male beauty, there's just a hole in my psyche. It’s sort of like the feeling you get when you hear the punchline of an inside joke that you’re not part of. You might be aware of it, you might hear about it every day, but you’re never going to truly understand it. And that's as it should be, for the most part. I'm evolutionarily driven to procreate, and the best way to do that is to make me attracted to women exclusively. For me, and most other heterosexual males, it’s an open and shut case. Never the twain shall meet.
Like I stated at the beginning, the problem that I see is one of empathy. If you're not gay, then gay love is at worst, physically repulsive, and at best, just kind of baffling. But you don't have to know what it feels like to know that it's just as valid as the ridiculous things you think of in your most romantic hetero moments, too. The trouble is, that it’s a long step into this kind of empathy, and I'm not entirely sure that everyone is wired to take it.
There's always some argument for the intolerant to hide behind:
"Adopting the gay lifestyle is a choice." I think everyone, now that the stigma is starting to lift and everyone under the age of fifty have gay friends in their social circle, is waking up to the fact that you're about as able to control your sexual orientation as you are able to control your eye color. There is no "gay lifestyle" (just like there isn’t a “gay agenda”, by the way -- unless you mean promoting tolerance, which is just as much a no-brainer as promoting racial tolerance). There are almost as many ways for people to live their lives as there are actual people. It’s just a term used to make it sounds like it’s a choice, something that *isn’t* programmed into our DNA, and just as strong as heterosexuality. If your child is straight, no amount of glamorization of this potential "gay lifestyle" they could be living it up in is going to sway them. They're going to be just as unmoved by it as you are... that is, unless they really are gay. All it takes is a frank conversation with a real live gay person to find out that they’ve always been gay, and never “chose” it.
"The Bible says it's unclean." It also says you can't eat shrimp. They carry equal punitive weight. (Side note: there was a picture going around the Internet earlier this year of a young man who had the oft-quoted anti-gay Leviticus verse tattooed onto his arm... guess he didn't read the rest of the chapter, where it also tells you not to deface your body in exactly the way he did.) Things change, and I defy you to find one religious denomination that doesn't cherry-pick their "do"s and "don't"s, no matter how literally they take their religious text. Homosexuality should be just as skimmable as residing in the same dwelling as a menstruating female.
“Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, and thus unnecessary.” Nature is, by definition, the most complex thing there is, and the fact that people think they can fully comprehend it is astonishing to me. Look at it this way: there are checks and balances everywhere in nature to prevent overpopulation. Food chains, predator/prey symbiosis, etc. Now, suppose I told you that there was a way to prevent human overpopulation, but it also allowed all people to live lives that are as physically and emotionally rich as those who can biologically procreate? You’d think that would be a good evolutionary step forward, wouldn’t you? Well, homosexuality fits that bill really nicely. Evolution gets it right again!
"Legitimization of gay relationships is a slippery slope, leading toward people marrying animals." This comes up more often than you would think. And I suppose, if there are actually people out there that you consider to be no better than animals, then this argument holds some sort of weight for you. If not, you at least have to admit that it's pretty damn funny. Are there really enough people out there who *want* to marry animals that this comes even within spitballing distance of getting legislated? And exactly what red flags wouldn't go up if someone tried this, regardless of whether that state had legalized gay marriage?
Every argument against homosexuality, however it's cloaked, comes down to four simple words: "I don't get it." And therein lies the biggest problem. Straight people don't understand homosexuality on its most basic level, which is simply loving someone of the same sex. Not only that, but they are specifically wired *not* to. And I suspect the same is true of gay individuals... the only difference is that they know the ins and outs of heterosexuality because it's the basis of about 99.9% of popular culture – the same way I can guess whether Man A or Man B is more likely to be voted The Sexiest Man Alive (and I always found it amusing that they feel they have to throw the “Alive” criterion in there). Social norms have been shoved in their faces since birth, maybe even more strongly once their parents and authority figures began to understand what direction their tendencies lay.
So here's this genetically-derived, uncrossable chasm of ignorance, and I mean that in the classical sense of simply not knowing something. What kind of accord can we come to when such an expanse lies between us? Maybe the answer lies in taking the pressure off marriage as an institution, and the religious implications that it’s always been tied to… Twenty years ago, the sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke came up with what I think is a great idea. He suggested that couples, straight or gay, shouldn't get married at all. What we should have ceremonies for, and be legally bound by, is our duty and responsibility to our children, to care for them physically and emotionally until adulthood, and beyond if we see fit. No matter what their strengths are, no matter whom they love, no matter our own relationship failings. That's the one unifying piece of this puzzle; children raised in love, no matter the kind, have a better chance of prospering. I think that's one thing we can all agree on.
