When I was in fifth grade, several of my friends called me gay a lot. They just meant it as a synonym for stupid. Admittedly, I was pretty awkward, and I would make fun of myself too, in retrospect. Yet, I was pretty soft skinned, young, and dumb at the time, which led to a really awkward situation where I got called gay so much that the thought that I may be gay crept into my mind. Of course, I realized that I just wasn't attracted to guys, but at the time, the cognitive dissonance of thinking I liked girls but being called gay all the time was emotionally troublesome. I wanted to prove my heterosexuality to prevent the judgement that came with a perception of being homosexual.
In sixth grade, I got in trouble because I called a kid gay. Though this time, he came out as gay later in life. While being called gay and thinking I could have been gay is now a hilarious childhood memory, but for this kid who I bullied, it was the beginning of a lifetime of awareness that his love life would never be the same as most of his peers. I imagine his world was in mass disarray at the time. While I was emotionally beaten up for a couple of months, his anguish was, is, and will be dragged out across his lifetime. It is not a choice to be homosexual, and given that there are many gay people who function in society in every way except for their romantic interests, it strikes me as prejudiced to classify sexual orientation as anything other than a part of random human variation much the way we legally uphold that variation in skin color or religion are not reasons upon which to deny a human rights as guaranteed in the constitution.
Though it took a few years, the pain I had from being called gay and the pain I caused by judging someone for being gay synthesized into a belief that gay people should have equal rights from a moral perspective. My peer’s homosexuality had no negative effect on me. In fact, our conflict came largely from his friendship with a girl I liked at the time. Though heterosexual, as a child, I suffered emotional trauma just from being called gay repeatedly, and if a straight person can be harmed by the stigma of homophobia, a gay person most certainly suffers more by several factors.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s harm principle elucidates why being gay and gay marriage should not be outlawed. It reads as follows:
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant – http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/mills-harm-principle.php#ixzz3eSaubGsV
Thus, if we are to follow Mill’s conception of applying justice, we are immoral to prevent gay marriage because it causes no harm to another. Even if someone disagrees with gay marriage from a religious source, they are, by the harm principle, not in the moral right to argue for the prevention or absolution of same-sex marriage. While not an all-encompassing description of the immorality of working to prevent gay rights, the harm principle is a suitable barometer upon which to judge the morality of gay marriage.
As a country, we provide certain benefits toward married people in terms of monetary compensation, lack of taxation, and property ownership. Our country is founded on the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The benefits we provide towards married people are put in place in order to maximize married couples’ freedom toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Commonly, arguments against gay marriage well up from the idea of traditional marriage as defined between a man and a woman, but this seems to be a limited definition that spawns mostly from the Bible.
If we look over the scope of history, homosexuality has been treated with varying degrees of acceptance throughout the years. In Ancient Greece, open homosexuality was nothing more than normal happenstance; instead, affection stemmed from admiration of well-built bodies. In the Roman Empire, the paterfamilias (oldest male figure who had complete control of family issues) would often have a young child with which he would sustain sexual relations (though this is obviously wrong in retrospect). I bring forth these examples in order to show how defining relationships as between a man and a woman is only one conception of marriage (largely the one held by the Christian Church).
Given that throughout history there have been different conceptions of what marriage should be and considering that our government was founded upon the separation of church and state, defining marriage as between a man and a woman equates creating laws that are reflective of only one conception of marriage. Considering the majority of political arguments against gay marriage stem from the Christian conception of marriage, disallowing gay marriage equates limiting gay peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through the acceptance of a religious conception of marriage. Thus, the separation of church and state does not exist. It holds people who are not of the Christian faith to the desires of those who are of the Christian faith.
We, as a country, cannot proclaim to provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if there is a segment of our population who are denied the privileges of marriage due to a result of natural human variation. Though furiously fought, the majority have finally realized a better conception of marriage than before. America has taken a small step forward through the legalization of gay marriage, but a giant leap for mankind will not have been reached until the legal achievements of this week are reflected socially, culturally, and economically, from “Sea to Shining Sea,” and for all.
So no, we have only taken a small step. We must not rest on our laurels, but today, may we have pride in saying that we are surely better than we were before, and tomorrow, that our work will continue toward the establishment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in our country's mission to provide the American Dream to all who are willing to work to achieve it.
