At the risk of being jumped on by people, I say this with sincerity.

indefensible:

During debates about equal rights for gays (or GLBT people or whatever acronym doesn’t offend people today), people who support equal rights employ a wide variety of arguments. They are generally common-sense arguments that are so self-evident that they would not be out of place in a philosophy of rights 101 class.

… [ ]

However, there’s one that supporters must stop using right now if they wish not to play into the hands of their opponents. They must stop defending homosexuality per se, and especially they must stop saying versions of “it’s natural”, “I was born this way”, and “homosexuality is not a choice”.

… [ ]

Because when you employ this line of thinking, it invites comparison with other human behaviours that people are arguably born into, but that society has no compunction in regulating and banning. To put this in your opponents hands is to pitch them a wonderful slowball that they will smack out of the park by saying “nobody chooses to be a pedophile either.”

The argument in favour of gay marriage argument is a simple one. In society, we no longer grant no gender-specific rights. Marriage as it currently stands privileges one class (opposite-sex couples) against another (same-sex). There is no moral or defensible philosophical basis for this.

… [ ]

My Dearest Ross,

I agree that in the realm of philosophical debate, the underlying basis of one’s sexuality has no real place.  In the United States, however, the inherent nature of one’s sexuality takes center stage in the philosphical-jurisprudential context.  How you came to be what you are dictates the degree of legal protection one is afforded when one’s fundamental rights are fucked with.  Accordingly, the issue of whether sexuality is an immutable characteristic or not must be central to the debate, even in the ‘simple argument’ you cite above.  There can be no such thing as a class of same-sex couples if membership to said class is a matter of choice.

Although some may occasionally choose to engage in “gay sex,” to be homosexual is not optional.  It is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is an immutable characteristic.  Homosexuality cannot be helped any more than a black man can help being black or a Mexican child can help being hispanic.  And for this reason, any law that infringes upon the right of two consenting, homosexual adults to exercise their fundamental right to marry must be examined by our courts with the strictest of judicial scrutiny.  As a matter of practicality, proponents of gay rights in the U.S. must first win on the former point before they can successfully argue the latter.

Regarding the merits of the pedophile/slippery slope rebuttal, there is a clear distinction to be made between homosexuals and pedophiles — there is no victim in a union between two consenting adults of the same sex.  In a pedophile-child relationship, … yeah, don’t make me type it out loud.

hug, hug, kiss, kiss,

Jessica