Love Is Not Gender Blind

When we say All mean are created equal, what does it mean? Im writing this paper four
days after the Valentines Day. Well, maybe I could have developed more faith on its
celebration if people could just love freely and put terms in their relationship.
Okay, so lets get this straight. Charlie Sheen can make a porn family. Kelsey Grammer ended
his 15 year marriage over the phone. Kim Kardishians marriage cost 10 Million dollars and it
lasted 72 days. Newt Gingrich had affairs while his 1 st and 2nd wives were very ill. Britney
Spears had a 55 hour marriage. Jesse James and Tiger Woods while married were having sex
with everyone. 43-50% of Traditional Marriages end. But somehow, it is same-sex marriage
that is going to destroy the institution of marriage, really?
The argument is basically is as simple as the examples suggest. Marriage as it is practiced by
some heterosexual isnt sacred and inviolable and it is complete hypocrisy to assume that
homosexuals, who havent even been granted the right to marry in most places, will cause
the decline of the institution.
Yes. I am fully aware I am defending the right of people of all types of sexual identity to fall
in love, to have sex, and conceivably to even have children with, (if they want) with
whomever they want, and for the State to legally recognize it. If people feel this is
absolutely disgusting, they are free to feel it. I just dont think it is fair for people to be
entitled to say, 'well I don't think homosexuals deserve rights to marry because they disgust
me', and not to be able to disagree when there are clear tangible impacts on people. If I am
going to say, you dont have a right to exist because you are disgusting, would you find it
fair? If you would further say this could incite violence in the society, then you would have to
tell me what violences that homosexuals has advocated? And no, I am not going to accept an
answer that says, because they fight for their rights, the straight people were forced to
commit violence against homosexuals.
Next, if you seem quite set on the beauty and value of religion, well, I actually have no grand
theories or narratives to offer. So if you will tell me religion makes you happy, cleanses your
soul, etc., etc., I won't disagree. But if you will tell me homosexuals cannot have rights
because your religion says so, I need to be able to disagree. I am also interested to know why
we have been very selective in appropriating literal lines from the Bible. Didnt Jesus align
himself with the oppressed and marginalized or am I mistaken? So, did he too fit well on the
cultures and traditions during his time? I could, of course, be wrong, but I think radical
readings of Jesus teachings would promote a more inclusive society. Furthermore, the Pope
has already softened his position on this issue, just in case you would run to him for moral
guidance.
If you would say, you would deny marriage to the homosexuals because their relationships are
empty and barren since they cannot have children, here is my response: that was downright
false. Are you telling that sterile peoples dont have the right to marry at all? First and
foremost, you dont need marriage to procreate. And there has been a lot of ways to have
kids nowadays: artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc. I dont think granting
homosexuals that right to marry will have an adverse impact on the worlds population at all.
Least, shouldnt we be helping more to curb the population down?

If some would insist that marriage is a legal contract and humanitys vehicle to safeguard
conjugal properties, assets and liabilities, then that makes it more necessary for homosexuals
to marry because they are the victims of tax cuts. These peoples do not have tax breaks and
doesnt even have right to take inheritance/wealths and enjoy conjugal powers with their
partners simply because their partnership wasnt legalized.
And if you have trouble thinking and imagining romance in the darkness of the night: that
there is a difference between two people fencing and romantically kissing and sugar coated
happiness, then you have a problem. Romance is romance. It doesnt matter what form it
takes: may it bloom between a boy and girl, a girl and a girl, a boy and a boy. Your conception
of a normal romance is an oppressive social construct that doesnt have a place in todays
world.
If you want to talk about homosexuals killing themselves as evidence that their relationships
are dysfunctional making it unreasonable to grant marriage to them, I have two responses.
First, many straight people kill themselves, too, and many straight people also suffer from
depression. But the second and more importantly, maybe you need to take a step back and
ask yourself why some of them are unhappy. If society constantly tells them there is
something wrong with their orientation and treats them as second class citizens, then some of
them will be unhappy. If your family, teacher, and friends condemn you, you will be unhappy.
Many of the suicides of homosexuals can be traced to bullying or self-hate as a result of
society telling them that there is something inherently wrong with them.
Save this as the last point, true love as a pre-requisite for marriage. I think it is contextually
embedded that life is rarely purely rational and fair. Of course people are completely
helpless at the same time. Is true love about waiting or finding? Why that some people have
more luck in getting true love than others? It drives me to the conclusion that this is plainly
arbitrary.