I've grown tired of the notion that civil marriage equality is an attackd on the traditional family, whatever that means. A recent example is the Vatican's consternation at the proposed recognition of same-sex couples in Italy.
The foundation on which such arguments rest is that sexual orientation is a choice. Let me assure you, in heterosexual relations, you'll never find this: I think I might fancy a penis instead of a vagina, Jessica, so you and I are as over as platform wedges.
If this did happen, perhaps the man in question was not being forthright about his true feelings from the start; but the idea that men or women could spontaneously claim an orientation other than their own is ridiculous.
Pervasive in this line of reasoning is the fear that if the traditional family has competition, people will flee from it. Now my first thought is rather obvious: if the traditional family unit is so great, so right, so intuitive, then why worry that everyone will bail out on the concept?
Perhaps the true fear lies in seeing how many people are genuinely not heterosexual, or that bisexual individuals will be able to fall in love with a member of the same sex without feeling obligated to give preference to their attractions to the opposite sex.
All of these factors seem to fit together nicely. We must permit same-sex marriage equality, because doing so will enable people to feel justified in choosing to live their lives in the pursuit of their individual happiness; it will support the idea that people do not have uniform sexuality (heteronormativity); and it will confirm our fear that people might not want to be in a traditional, straight, child-bearing marriage. Sexuality will become a vehicle for love, as opposed to social expectation and family obligation. Dogmatic prejudices will become irrelevant in the social context of a truly pluralist society.
I can understand why people make the continued doomsday assertions that traditional marriage will fall apart, that children will not be taken care of properly or that homosexuality and heterosexuality will be seen as equally viable. And at the root of it, isn't that the similar acceptability of both orientations the real problem? Or is it just the sexual repression of spiritual leaders who are too emotionally immature to accept changing times?
My suggestion to the Vatican: Lead those who consider themselves a part of your flock. To lead others by force of law without consent voids your reasonable place in a pluralist contemporary society. If this is incompatible with your beliefs, then take a long look in the mirror and see just how extraneous you have become to the world.
Perhaps irrelevance is the greatest of the traditionalists' nagging fears. Failing old-time ways or attitudes are all they have left because they are the grasshoppers who sang all summer. One day they awaken to a different world, and there they are with no way to cope.
Matthew J. Viator is a senior composition major at the Peabody Conservatory.
