“Whereas research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish,

“Therefore, be it resolved that the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services;

“And as far as the fear-mongering association of homosexuality with pedophilia, it has no scientific support. To associate gays with pedophilia is like associating blacks with criminality and Jews with the blood libel of stealing Christian babies for ritual sacrifice. It’s a blatant lie used for political purposes, one that simply provides the latest scapegoat for society’s ills.”

I Don’t Understand the Anger

I have a hard time figuring out why some people are so anti-gay. Why are people so angry about something that doesn’t impact their lives? Is it really based on biblical injunctions against homosexuality? If so, that doesn’t make any sense. The Old Testament does condemn homosexuality, but it also advocates putting to death non-believers, disobedient children and others. Unless one wants to take along some morally reprehensible baggage, why get stuck on the Old Testament’s homophobia instead of pursuing its more positive aspects? Answer: Because while it offers no justification for hating gays, it reinforces already existing prejudices. As for anti-gay Christians, I’m always puzzled by their reliance on the Old Testament when, by, definition, they are supposed to be following Jesus’ teachings — love one another.

The Slope Stops Here

Of course, there’s always the slippery slope argument that if we allow gays to marry, then we have to allow marriage between people and animals, and others. But it’s entirely unconvincing, especially since there is no slippery slope. Allowing gays to marry is based on the principle that people should be free to marry whomever they choose. Here’s the thing: Marriage is only intelligible as a concept when it involves two humans. What does it mean for a dog to get married? Can it give consent? Can it alter its behavior on being pronounced married? Can it even understand the meaning of the word “marriage?” Of course not. Marriage as a concept is nonsense when applied to anything other than human beings. So the principle that people should be free to marry whomever they choose begins and ends with human beings. No slippery slope here.

So, again, why so anti-gay? I suppose the usual reasons: Fear of the unknown, aesthetic objections to sexual practices not one’s own and self-serving scapegoating. But maybe these anti-gay advocates just hate freedom. You read that right. They hate freedom. I dislike resorting to that kind of over-the-top rhetoric, but it seems clear that anti-gay advocates value tradition more than they do freedom. They value conformity more than they do individuality. Traditions hold neither value nor meaning if they are imposed, if they are the product of coercion. Doing something out of obedience isn’t the same as doing something out of personal conviction.

What it boils down to is this: No one is forcing heterosexuals to marry people of their own gender. No one is asking private groups, likes churches, to perform wedding ceremonies they don’t want to perform. No one is asking heterosexuals to be friends with gay people if they don’t want to. No one is even asking heterosexuals to like homosexuality. This whole gay marriage issue really is about freedom — the freedom for individuals to control their lives and the personal relationships within it. Unless that freedom harms anyone else — the only real reason to restrict freedom — it doesn’t matter whether one likes it or not: it should be allowed. Homosexuality harms no one. Gay marriage harms no one. So the next time the issue comes around, let’s support everyone’s freedom. Let gays marry, and move on.