Gay marriages: Why not?

As much as I admire Manny Pacquiao for his achievements as an athlete, I am very disappointed with his recent comments regarding gay marriage: "I'm not against the gay people. I'm not condemning them. ... I have a cousin (who is) gay. I have relatives (who are) gay. I have a lot of friends (who are) gay, so I'm not condemning gays. What I said is I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage. ..."

He had just contradicted himself. If he doesn't condemn gay people, and doesn't hate them at all, then why does he not want them to practice the very thing that sets them apart from so-called "straight" people? Why is he in favor of discrimination against unions that happen to be between people of the same sex? Or is he in favor of same-sex relationships, just as long as they do not legally marry? If that is the case, it is very puzzling indeed.

What's worse than this apparent hypocrisy is that the reason behind his anti-gay marriage stance is "It's the law of God." Which leads me to ask, which god, and why? Of course, he was pertaining to the Roman Catholic god, and if his reason for preferring this god over Allah (or Brahma, or Buddha, or Osiris) is simply because it happens to be "his" god, as well as the god of the majority of his country, then he, again, is guilty of discrimination, this time against people of other religions.

If he has friends and relatives who are gay, then why does he not understand that homosexuality is not inherently a bad thing (otherwise, why would he be against same-sex marriages)?

Pacquiao, as well as other politicians (yes, he's a politician, representing Sarangani province in the Philippines' House of Representatives), has to stop citing religion as a reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed, because there are different religions in the world, and even if some of their beliefs overlap, they generally believe in different things - mutually incompatible things. Even people from different Christian religions disagree whether homosexuality is a bad thing. Also, in Amerindian culture, there were women who decided to live as men took other women as their wives. Obviously, these Amerindian women were permitted by their culture and their religion (why else would they be allowed to hunt and go to war with the men?). Pacquiao may invoke his right to freedom of religion. Walter Wink may also invoke his right to freedom of religion, but he has a different interpretation of the Bible from Pacquiao and the Catholics' interpretation. There are people who don't practice any religion, and it is also their right not to do so. Whose rights are we going to uphold then?

There are people who may argue that same-sex relationships are "unnatural," that men are not "meant" to have sex with other men, and that is why there are two sexes anyway. At first glance, it may seem a sound argument. But we are also not "meant" to cut open the body of a brain dead person and transfer its still functional vital organs to another body. We are not "meant" to grow some cancer cells outside of a living body so that we may learn more about how to prevent them from becoming too numerous inside of us. We cannot equate "unnatural" to "bad." There are "good" "unnatural" things such as life-saving surgery, and "bad" "unnatural" things like environmental pollution due to anthropogenic activity.

Assuming that "unnatural" is equal to "bad," we only have to demonstrate that homosexual behaviors occur in the "natural" world (meaning in non-human animals and/or plants), and the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad" is thrown out the window.

What appears to be abnormal about homosexual behavior is that it is not conducive to procreation. However, there is more to relationships than reproduction. There is also companionship. There is also the benefit of splitting household bills. There is also sex for the sake of sex. We can consider these things as mating rituals, and they are a by-product of procreative mechanisms of course, but is it necessarily bad to have a relationship and not have babies? Is it bad to have sex just because it is fun? If sex is only for the "perpetuation of the species," and if we really think about the good of our species, then shouldn't we ban sex for a few years until our population reduces to a healthier level? No, no, no, and no. We keep having sex but we take precautions against unplanned pregnancies as well as excruciating diseases. It is entirely possible to control our population without missing out on the non-procreative benefits of sex.

Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it is "immoral." Everyone has different opinions on what "moral" means, but fortunately, science can tell us whether something is "reasonable" or not. And science tells us that homosexuality is not maladaptive and is not indicative of mental and developmental problems, and that homosexual relationships can be just as stable and committed as heterosexual relationships. It also tells us that children raised by homosexual couples function just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples. Just like heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships may be bad or good, therefore the success of a relationship has nothing to do with whether the people involved are of the same sex or opposite sex. There really is no sensible reason why homosexual and heterosexual unions should not be treated equally by legal systems.