When the subject of Engendering & Orientation come up I look back to the three kinds of love I mention, and I think, I love people of both genders, but have only felt Eros towards women. It's not how I was raised, it's how I'm wired. So are we arguing about Love or coupling? Definitely coupling. So my attempt to lean on the idealistic definition of Love is useless. This is a visceral dialectic, not a metaphysical one.
So, since I spent all those thousands of dollars I didn't have studying Anthropology, we can look at the biological argument in regards to sexuality and coupling. I'm going to dumb it down to basic Darwin: Survival of the fittest. Adaptation that promotes survival is ideal. What it takes to survive gets odd at times, but ultimately proliferation of the species is a prerequisite. By most accounts homosexuality is a mutation of sorts, one that ultimately negates the urge to proliferate one's DNA. Oddly enough, though it doesn't prosper the individual, some argue that in nature it prospers the species by slowing overpopulation. That's the utilitarian take on it.
If Gallup's numbers are correct with 3.4% of the US population being something other than Heterosexual* then the Utilitarian take on evolutionary adaptation across the human genome seems a little presumptuous. That number, though very real, is also within the margin of error statistically. What does that mean? Well, given the credence we give "facts" based on analytic interpretation, would it be fair to call this population a persistent genetic neurological anomaly? How would it go over if a person identifying as Homosexual was classified as mentally handicapped? It's those kind of notions that beget the Eugenics of old. It's a dark path to the past, and with the potential onset of genetically modifying offspring, the future. Regardless, Anthropology and Darwin render Homosexuality an evolutionary dead end, biologically.
If we deign Homosexuality an act of Free Will, and not the result of Biological Determination, the argument for equality takes on a more libertarian slant. That seems the best path towards litigating the issue honestly. Then the question becomes, how much freedom, and of what sort, are the people of this nation willing to accept at this point in our history? If we are to judge by the democratic process of most of the states of the union, not a lot. If we are to judge by the strength of advocacy receiving coverage, all but a few. The reality is, in the marketplace of ideas, numbers don't matter as much as volume. Those who shout the loudest, enunciate clearly, repeatedly, for the longest period of time, will be heard over the opposition if they are not equaled in those qualities.
If the argument is for equal rights for all people, then the laws as they are, are biased. If this nation is still a proponent of majority rule, then the move to overturn laws restricting marriage to Heterosexuals through litigation instead of popular vote, is biased. The history of the United States tends to put the government at odds with the electorate on these sorts of issues, because there are contrary ideas of what/ which Moral Authority is preeminent across cultural and generational lines. Hypocrisy is woven into the fabric of this Country because our value for self-governance and democracy is often in conflict with how moral advocacy has to go about finding a footing in the political landscape when it finds its cause unpopular. It's a very contentious and alienating way to go about change, and probably responsible for a great deal of the polarization and backlash manifesting in today's rhetoric.
From a religious perspective, particularly Abrahamic religion, the idea of proliferating the genome of Abraham was a Biblical covenant, and any act by his offspring to undermine that process was considered sinful. From that you could argue the idea/ definition of Sodomy evolved. The Old Testament is in many ways a genealogy of the descendants of God's chosen people. In that regard the aims of Darwin's Evolutionary Fittest and God's covenant with Abraham are similar, that their offspring be vast in number and carry on the line. From that reasoning, aligning the United States with a Christian identity, as unconstitutional as that may be, is a logical reason to oppose marriage equality. It's misappropriated and ill-executed logic, but it follows, given the presumption of hypocrisy.
We're entering a time where many may feel we are on the verge of maxing out our capacity to evolve in a functional way. Our material evolution may yet continue as we tinker more and more with technology and our biology. In a world where this is the norm, the traditional role of gender and coupling may lose meaning and value. We may just move forward to the point where coupling is no longer the means by which children are created, and instead an actualization of sentiment between individuals exclusively. Maybe not any time soon, but in the not too distant future. The means are available. It's this sort of world that will render the arguments rooted in Biological Determinism moot. Until then, it seems the move is to future-proof our rhetoric and assert a moral authority that trumps civil authority. Making such a move will put us in opposition with the majority of the world's population, which is made up of developing nations, most on the precipice of being 1st world nations (India, China) and the rest not necessarily as progressive in regards to cultural tolerance of non-traditional sexuality in the public sphere. This puts the US in a position of apostle to the world in matters of sexuality. Add that to the list of things we assert over others that furthers the rendering of our nation as elitist and meddling. Again, the hypocrisy is second nature for us. Freedom is not the anyway street we make it out to be.
There seems to be a stalemate/ zero-sum gain at play. If we assume that all Homosexuals in America get married that amounts to 1.7% more of the population having access to the benefits of marriage. This would be of little significance unless a significant number of that 3.4% were EXTREMELY HIGH wage earners with EXTREMELY HIGH net wealth so that the dispersal of income would be effected in some manner I can't reasonably foresee. That doesn't seem to be the reality. There's no grounds for employers to claim the financial burden will cripple them, save for the possibility that the vast majority of this 3.4% are living in virtual segregation in enclaves so that their ratio to the normal population is disproportionate and thus employers in those areas would bare the brunt of the financial impact of having to provide marriage benefits. The only real threat I can imagination, is the fear of punitive litigation against discrimination.
Ultimately, I'm ambivalent on the issue. There's a lot of symbolic politics at play and it's a turn off for me. I was, and still am Pro-Civil Union, and the semantic game at play here has alienated me. If this is solely a legislative matter, then decoupling the word Marriage from our Federal Language would solve the problem, but that's not the issue. This is a clash as much about Cultural Sovereignty as it is Politics. If the faith community wants to think of Marriage as it's property, we can believe that, but it's a word, a concept, one the State can use as well. The challenge becomes, if the majority of the population a State, or the Nation, are part of the Faith Community, how do you get them to accept a modern philosophical movement that doesn't align with their faith? You can't. The legislators of the government are only empowered to make provisions for equal access. That seems to be what's happening, but it's not going to change the cultural rhetoric.
You can't make everyone like** you.
** meant in both common senses of the word.