"Gay Marriage," The New "Civil Rights?"

The battle against “gay marriage” in America, as it stands now, is a lost cause.

This unfortunate fact is true for two reasons: 1) because the proponents of “gay marriage” have managed to tie “gay marriage” to the civil rights movement, and 2) because most heterosexuals have accepted the notion that self-seeking pleasure is the purpose of marriage and sexuality.

Opposition to “gay marriage” is considered by homosexuals the cultural elite to be a form of reactionary barbarism – much like racism in the dark days of slavery.

The “civil rights” argument of “gay marriage,” as argued by homosexuals, is simple: I was born gay, I can’t control that fact. Why should heterosexuals who don’t understand me hinder me from engaging in acts which I can’t control and which are natural to me? Who are they to keep me from the person I love?

This argument is specious on many counts. I cannot control who my parents are, the color of my skin, or my genetic background. I can certainly control whether or not I sleep with another man, despite whatever urges I might have. (And so, for that matter, can anyone else.)

Nevertheless, defenders of traditional marriage often fail to make these points, and are usually at a loss when faced with the argument that denying homosexuals the right to marry is tantamount to racism.

The common conservative argument against gay marriage is that it is harmful to society, that it ignores the procreative aspect of traditional marriage, and that it promotes undesirable social behaviors.

These arguments are true, of course. But to a society already wedded to the notion that pleasure is the first principle of life, this argument rings hollow. It is difficult to defend the familial aspects of marriage in a culture in which the vast majority of the population uses birth control, where divorce rates hover around 50%, and where premarital sex and infidelity are rampant and celebrated in popular culture.

The common gay gibe that “heterosexuals have already destroyed the institution of marriage” contains more than a grain of truth. By and large, the scandalous examples of heterosexual divorce, contraception, and infidelity have cheapened the venerable institution of marriage – to the point where marriage today is often a type of legalized and legitimized prostitution. 

The current state of marriage is an easy target for homosexuals to jeer at, and contrast with faithful homosexuals who merely seek to love their partners.  

Heterosexuals who accept and live out modern society’s notion that pleasure-seeking is the highest good, and yet still oppose “gay marriage,” are rightly called out as hypocrites by homosexual activists.

By failing to live up to moral standards, heterosexuals who oppose “gay marriage” feed the ridiculous notion that opposition to gay marriage is based in ignorance, prejudice, and hypocrisy.

And the fight for “gay marriage” will go down in history as a civil rights struggle, where enlightened rights activists fought against barbaric and hypocritical bigots – and won.