How many sexual preferences are there?
When I asked this question to supporters of same-sex marriage, I usually get a confused look and a hesitant request for clarification (ex: "What do you mean?"). So, I then ask easier questions in order to build up to this apparently difficult one ("What's your sexual preference?" "Have you heard of any others?" "Most gay rights groups are acronyms for a number of sexual orientations - what does GLBTQ stand for?" Etc.). Once we've gone through three or four of these, I repeat the initial question ("How many sexual preferences are there?"). I still don't get an answer, but at least I've dragged the person into the real world - where human sexuality isn't binary.
Read an op-ed on this subject from any of the nation's leading dailies, and you would think there were only two sexual preferences, and two types of marriages: opposite-sex and same-sex. You would never know there was even such a thing as bisexuality, let alone bestiality or pedophilia. I can't blame them for ignoring these orientations: why disrupt a self-righteous crusade with undue complexity?
The argument for same sex marriage, as best as I can understand it, is as follows: heterosexuals can marry their sexual preference, but homosexuals can't. Therefore, the current marriage laws are discriminatory based on sexual orientation. So, we should allow same-sex marriage so that homosexuals can marry their sexual preference.
What about other sexual orientations? Should we allow them to marry their sexual preference? At this point in the debate, I usually list a few other orientations, only to have their marriage rights denied by a same-sex marriage advocate. What about marriages to children, animals, or objects, I ask? No, no, no, I'm told - with each orientation denied for a different reason. You wonder what principle is being advocated here. Is it the right to marry one's sexual preference or not? Can we discriminate against some sexual preferences, and save the "homophobic bigot" slur only for those who oppose same-sex marriage? The whole position is akin to arguing that because whites have the vote, so should blacks - but we can comfortably keep Asians and Latinos disenfranchised.
For the sake of argument, let's eliminate the sexual preferences involving non-adult humans. Children can't consent, we'll let PETA veto marriage with animals, and object sexuality is very rare. Once we've denied marriage rights to all of these preferences, I like to mention the biggest one remaining: polygamy.
Same sex marriage advocates give a variety of responses to the polygamy question. They range from denial ("polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage") to line-drawing ("polygamy is bad for societies - it won't be allowed"). Those in denial, need no addressing. As for those who will stop polygamy - I don't believe them.
If same-sex marriage were ever to be firmly established, the polygamists will march into court insisting the law is discriminating against their sexual preference for multiple partners. De facto polygamists will claim their children are being stigmatized because common law wife #2 isn't a lawful union - a second class relationship. When this occurs, will the same sex marriage advocates go to court to hold the line? Will they be there to stop the expansion of marriage laws to include polygamy? I don't think so. A few feminists might show up. Maybe Dr. Phil will testify that man, in his heart, wants to be monogamous and that having multiple partners is not a legitimate sexual orientation? Is that going to work? Does anyone think desiring multiple partners is NOT a sexual preference?
This is what happens when you insist that marriage is about sexual preference, when it is not. The inevitable result is that the expansion of the marriage laws to include same-sex marriage will not stop at same-sex marriage. I wish same-sex marriage advocates would be a little more forthcoming about this. Again, how many sexual preferences are there?
No comments:
Post a Comment