The Religious Right vs Sex Rights

The passage of Prop 8 in California is just another piece of a vicious circle, an impossible paradox, created by certain parts of the Religious Right.

The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

– Wikipedia

I truly don’t understand the Right’s stance on marriage, sex, and families. Let me explain.

In this dogma, all use of birth control is shunned. President Bush has gone as far as to slow shipments of condoms and proper literature to AIDS-ravaged Africa, instead showering the continent with pamphlets about abstinence. This is despite evidence that sex happens, especially in different cultures that have different views. More to my point, many schools here in America preach abstinence instead of any real sex-ed.

Among other results, we have teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies that we probably could have prevented. This hits all demographics. Of course abortion is out of the question, because in this dogma life begins at conception.* So, one of three things happens: the parents are rushed into a marriage they might not have wanted and potentially have to raise the child in a loveless home; the father runs off and we have a single mother raising a child on her own; or the mother puts the child up for adoption. The first two scenarios are of course far from ideal, while adoption is difficult, emotional, and there are not always good parents willing to adopt.

*I’m not going to argue specifically against this point –that’s a fruitless argument that never convinces anyone on either side. Rather, I just want to point out how it contributes to my overall point.

That’s where the next link in this chain comes in: the couples that are most desperate to adopt are those that cannot conceive themselves. The biggest part of this demographic is gay couples. So, of course, they are not allowed to adopt in this dogma. The argument is that children raised in same-sex households grow up confused and do not lead as good lives as their peers. There is no good evidence backing up this point, however. At any rate, I would argue that such a child fares better than a child growing up in a household where the parents do not love each other and certainly does better than a child that bounces around the foster care program. This child also stands a better chance with parents that are prepared and ready for a baby.

In my opinion, the worst situation of all is when a child grows up in a loveless marriage. Many proponents of Prop 8 and similar measures have argued that marriage isn’t always about “love” and that it is open to gay people, as long as they marry people of the opposite sex. What a laughable stance. I can’t believe they say such gibberish with a straight face. There’s nothing like a sham marriage to teach our children about love. That’s how you get confused children.

Of course, no church has to recognize same-sex marriage. This is not about churches. The churches can keep their own definitions of marriage, they don’t ever have to change it. This is about the state. Married couples get benefits from the state, such as tax breaks. Not allowing same-sex couples to get these same benefits is a form of discrimination; it essentially is a form of taxing sexual orientation. Look at it this way: if the government were to give $100 to everyone who can prove heterosexuality, that’s essentially the same as taxing gays $100.