On The Gay Topic

By Aryeh Pekker


Earlier this month on October 11, 2009 there was a march in Washington D.C. regarding gay rights. It was a march where thousands of people, gay and straight, walked together in our nation’s capital holding signs and colored flags in a demonstration for equal rights. Many today argue that gay people already have their equal rights and that all that this march and others do is display an image of arrogance by people who want to defile the meaning of marriage and corrupt the spirit of our armed forces. If I may ask, is that really a valid argument? I have always seen marriage as a statement of love and spiritual cohesion. When someone announces that they are getting married we take it as a statement that they are making a commitment of love to one another. However, when two men or two women ask for that same chance to pledge their love to one another, all of a sudden we hear statements like “it’s not natural” or “they can’t procreate so they don’t have a right to marry.” Is that what the meaning of marriage is today? Is it all about what people can do physically and not what they can share emotionally? If there was ever a perversion of the meaning of marriage I believe those statements would be it. Is it not natural for two people to express their love for one another? The obvious implication is of course that homosexuality is not natural. Aside from the fact that homosexual sex has always been a part of human history, scientists have already shown us that it is even natural in the animal kingdom. It is not uncommon for dolphins, monkeys and even sea lions to engage in homosexual sex. It is understandable that it may not appeal to everyone. I myself am not gay and admit that even the thought of gay sex will sometimes make me cringe, although I must apologize that I usually don’t apply the same standard when it involves two women but that is different story, but in either case what right does that give me to deny someone their right to make a statement of love for someone else? As for the issue of procreation, it is perfectly legal for a sterile man and a sterile woman to marry, so what is the difference? Now on to the question of gays in the military. How is a person’s sexual orientation at all relevant to their ability to serve their country? Again the premise for this argument is completely superficial. The military is something we see as “macho” and generally “manly”, but if the person is gay we automatically disregard the fact that they are willing to risk their lives for their country and instead focus simply on the fact that they are gay. There was a time in this country where it wasn’t “natural” or right to let a black person marry a white one or for black people to hold any position above a cook in the military. Do we want to go down that path again? Is it not time we stop limiting rights to people simply on the basis of them being who they are? We have so much to share with each other and yet we always look for petty reasons to divide ourselves. It is time we started accepting each other for who we are or we’ll just keep hating one another for reasons we really don’t understand.