Aaron Camire’s article in November 20th’s edition of the Daily Free Press presents a seriously flawed argument. I think everyone agrees that marriage is, above all, simply a strong emotional commitment between two individuals. On that basis alone, marriage may indeed be obsolete — what’s stopping married couples from having that same commitment without being married? Okay, okay, let’s assume that being married still means something. In that case, why should this blessing be restricted to heterosexual couples? Camire excuses this inequality by claiming that homosexuals could marry if only we hadn’t made “a lifestyle choice” that precludes marriage. However, as most citizens of the twenty-first century already know, sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Maybe Mr. Camire chose to be heterosexual, perhaps so he wouldn’t miss out on the joys of married life, but as far as my sexuality is concerned, I had no say in the matter. As for the unorthodox marriage scenarios that he warns of, they are only a poor cover for his obvious prejudices. Every example that he mentions — the 15-year-old and her middle-aged lover, incestuous couples, and bigamy — is the result of a choice. Although arguments can be made to justify those practices, the parties involved do have other options. Homosexuality, however, is not an option, any more than is race or sex, and any legislation outlawing gay marriage is nothing more than bigotry in its purest form.
Philip Minnitte – CAS 2006 pm@bu.edu 412.848.5534
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
