Illogical reasoning

"It means we are able to be called human beings with all the rights of everyone else."
      --Debbie Strom, New York resident, celebrating the state's legalization of same-sex marriages; she and her partner plan to marry (as reported in Time magazine, July 11, 2011, p. 9)

The above quote is so deeply misleading that I need to comment on it. And my point should be acknowledged as being legitimate no matter where a person stands on the issue of homosexuality or even "gay marriage."

Let me explain what I think she means by her quote. Before marriage was legalized in New York,she feels that those homosexual couples who were denied marriage certificates and all the rights of this institution were, in the eyes of the law and therefore society, somehow lesser human beings than married heterosexual couples. This, she assumes, is not right, akin to women not having the right to vote, to blacks having to go to the back of the bus, and to the poor being trampled by the rich. Now that homosexual marriage is legal, the same-sex couples have attained equality because they have freedom to get married to each other, if they'd like. With this as a background, possibly a majority of Americans (even many Christians) might say, "Absolutely right, equal rights for everyone. Preach it."

Oh, please.

Just because homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage didn't mean they were without the same rights as everyone else. In fact, today, many people who are just as sincere as Ms. Strum do not have the same rights in New York that she has. Otherwise, those 25-year-old men who desire to marry their 14-year-old girl friends would be free (in New York or anywhere else in the U.S.) to legally practice what they believe to be moral and right. Yet could we really say these folks who have fewer rights are somehow less than human? What about those men who live in my state who want to marry a second wife? Guess they should be complaining too.After all, what kind of country is this that would make it so difficult to practice polygamy!

Wait, I'm not done. What about those women who desire to marry their second husband? We call that polyandry in this area. Folks wanting this lifestyle can't practice it, legally at least, so are these people deprived? Apparently, if we're going to buy into Ms. Strom's rationale. In fact, those who desire to marry whomever (and however many) they want should all be complaining that they too are less than human beings in this corrupt American system. As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's be straight-up, Ms. Strom. You were fully human before and you remain fully human after the law was changed by your governor. It's just that you now have the right to get married, whereas before you did not. That's all. Don't make more of it than there really is. And please note: I don't hate homosexuals, even if I happen to disagree with them about this issue. We can disagree without hating. Or, should I consider homosexuals who disagree with me as hating me? This is ridiculous.

This leads me to this question: Why is it that most homosexual advocates don't campaign for open marriage between sisters and brothers or child brides? Perhaps the homosexual advocates ought to rewrite the definition of marriage this way:

"Marriage can be defined as being between a man and a woman, two men, two women, two women and a man, a dog and his owner, or, quite frankly, any way the individual wishes to define his or her union with another/others as long as it brings such a person contentment"?

And in California, my old state, the governor is going to sign a bill (if he hasn't already) about a requirement to teach homosexual history in the California public schools. There is a provision in the bill as well saying that nothing negative can be taught on the issue of homosexual history. Can anyone say, "indoctrination"?

I taught in a California public college for eight years and worked alongside fellow English professors from a variety of backgrounds: homosexuals, environmentalists, and general liberals, just to name a view. All of them openly advocated their viewpoints in the classroom, even attempting to persuade their charges. (Ask my daughter who just finished her second year at this school what this is like--she has plenty of stories.)

Imagine the uproar if a bill was proposed saying, in effect, that a teacher cannot say anything negative about political conservatives, Evangelical Christians, or (shudder) those who disagree with homosexual marriage! The uproar would be deafening. But since being a homosexual somehow makes the person a "minority," anything that is said about a particular group in what could be taken in a negative fashion (even if it's just simple disagreement) is considered "hate speech."

Somebody please tell me, how did we get here?