An Objective Retort of the Gay Rights Movement

The effort to create equality for all sexual orientations is one that has achieved an almost noble status in the nascent 21st Century United States. Many people are aghast at how homosexuals were beaten, murdered and slandered-and with just cause. Though many still find the homosexual lifestyle strange, there is no valid reason to commit such atrocities; each person deserves the freedom to decide their manner of peaceful lifestyle. The crown jewel of the Gay Rights Movement is the attainment of marriage rights. Despite the sympathy I hold for those homosexuals, I do not believe they ought to have the right to marry.

"What is this bigot talking about?" the reader may be asking. I am no bigot. I've lived my entire life next door to a gay couple-perhaps the most cordial, ebullient people in my neighborhood. Every family, including mine, used to attend their parties and festivities. There was never any trouble; everyone liked each other. I thought very fondly of those individuals. Let the reader forgo these indictments against my character.

Marriage was always an ecclesiastical and religious union. Only recently have governments begun to expropriate it for various purposes: hospital visitation rights, tax credits for dependents, insurance benefits, even a way for immigrants to get green-carded. Society has thus forgotten that it was first outlined in holy documents for religious purposes. In the Abrahamic religions-especially Christianity, in our case-declare that God decrees a holy union between man and woman. The love and reverence the two exhibit for their spouse are special and sanctified; the necessity of masculine and feminine when raising children is undeniable. While people are still allowed to have relationships uninitiated in any religious ceremony, marriage retains said consecration. Despite the constant bickering, marriage is, and always ought to be, a religious tradition. To get one one must meet special requirements, and if one doesn't fulfill them, one is ineligible. For anybody to expropriate marriage for nontraditional purposes is to destroy a sanctified and peaceful practice of the Church-excluded from state intervention by the 1st Amendment.

I fail to see why homosexuals feel that they are 'second-class citizens' because of current arrangements. Civil unions-despite my disagreement with them for reasons irrelevant here-have all the goodies and benefits of marriage. Feel free to actually look. This being true, why is this so? My only guess: it is the honor society bestows upon being a husband or a wife. Is it the official manner in which one declares "We love each other dearly"? Perhaps. Does it have to be legitimized that way? Can not two people who care for each other deeply simply be together? Is there some metaphysical love that is only formed when two people exchange rings and vows?

Lastly, the most important component of matrimony is the conception of new human beings and to raise them in an environment with natural representations of masculinity-the male-and femininity-the female. Should the belief that gender is genetic (meaning there's no proof; go check and feel free to correct me) be true, homosexuals can never bring themselves to want to participate in this process. Never will they bring forth new generations of humans because they don't have the instinct. If friends can be together, and brothers can be together, and business partners can be together, so should gays be allowed to be together. But, since gays want not the religious rite or its inherent responsibilities, why should they be allowed marriage? They should come up with a semantic equivalent, and then leave it be. If they still feel they are second-class citizens, so be it. They will never have, nor truly want to earn, the hallowed rite of holy matrimony.

In recent news....

Well, my first semester at Allegheny was a success. I met some good friends, became involved in several politically-oriented activities and received good grades-comparatively speaking, that is. The AC curriculum makes every dollar count; the workload is unrelenting and the standards are higher than at any school to my knowledge. More important than these silly things, I noticed significant changes in my behaviors and attitudes. Primarily, I noticed that I've become more gregarious, ardent in search of truth and have even experienced a spiritual revival.

In former years, the cruel habitat of tradition mandated that I be reserved. Known in said environment as rather hot-headed, intellectually pedantic and socially confused, it seemed imprudent to make any sudden moved-lest the T-Rex of social cruelty be unleashed by my peers. After a period of self-denial-which needs no discussion-I was happy to come to truth with myself and unveil my passions in life-political science, philosophy and history-graciously directed by a close friend and benefactor. Unfortunately social avenues for thing budding caballero were limited by both the aforementioned and the fact that the sidewalk ends a quarter-mile from my house. Allegheny provided a great avenue to explore diverse social settings, incorporating many different personalities the qualities of which I was unfamiliar. Aside from the adrenalized partiers lampooned so often lampooned and omnipresent, it was of more interest to come into the company of such groups as (yes, I need a list): environmentalists, gay rights activists, geniuses, Fundamentalist Christians, foreigners of all flags, fashionistas, New Englanders, New Yorkers (the city), Southerners, musicians, progressives, conservatives, philosophers, et cetera. It's edifying to be able to-if only for mere pleasure-meet these people and understand their pleasures, peeves, desires, interests, personalities and goals.

At one time, I was very unreceptive to views divergent from mine. This is right, don't argue with me, was my old attitude. The same applied in areas like sexuality, politics, leisure, education and onward. Boy, have I realized how wrong my thinking was. Luckily, I got a very polite kick in the privates the moment I hit campus. I was met with a roommate as similar to me as Edmund Burke was to Karl Marx, people of different "persuasions," intellectual interests-if they had any at all-and social interests. I never would have imagined witnessing coming-out pageants, student folk music or reciprocating pro-life and pro-choice demonstrations. Unwavering, of course, in my stances, I became determined to learn to defend them. How better to steal a tiger cub then going to the tiger's den? Spending time among these people prompted immersion into fields of academia I never before cared about. In addition to National Review, I indulge in Mother Jones; Cato Institute and Center for American Progress; Dawkins and Aquinas; swing and contemporary; football games and boxing matches. Though your dear Joel hasn't become a tattoo-laden, clove-smoking, Birkenstock-donning young revolutionary, he has instead become more informed about others' lifestyles, and moreover secure in his own.

The God question has been one that has troubled me for many years. Raised Catholic, I am fully aware of the virtues, morals and pretensions of Christianity. Though I'm not somebody to chapter-verse one at any time, I have always been fairly certain that-in the very least-Christian ethics were supreme. As many have, I wavered for numerous reasons-ranging from the scientific to the ontological. I was later prompted to explore many different creeds and spiritual avenues, ranging from humanism to the occult (feel free to insult me). Though recently-thanks to the inspiration and guidance of a dear friend-I have returned time and again to the gates of faith. Having experienced many religious revivals since the present, I feel that this one may be the strongest yet. Visiting said benign benefactor in Lynchburg, VA, I attended a mass at the world-famous Thomas Road Baptist Church. For those that don't know, TRBC is the buckle of the Bible Belt, build by the late, great (debatable) Jerry Falwell, thunder of the Religious Right. What greeted me was a concert for the Lord: an enormous choir, an excellent band and I don't recall how many vocalists. As Johnathan Falwell preached the possibility of all things in the name of Jesus, I felt an odd spiritual confusion: do I make the famed leap of faith once more, or stand defiant? As the chorus caroled one last time, my spirit became lifted and light, and I raised my arm to the heavens with those around me.

Here I sit now, impatiently waiting the beginning of a new semester-and life chapter, for that matter. In addition to my usual tricks, I'll now mellow out in the dorms on weekends now and again. The most unmerciful of progressive arguments will contend with my conservative persuasion. Along with my curriculum, I will read St. Thomas Aquinas and my new King James Bible. My wayward ways will seemingly continue as I prepare to join the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. Yet, I also seek the possibility of theological truth and the manly virtues that being a man of God entail. The future has never seemed to unfathomable to me. But I am glad, as I can at very least deduce my next steps.