As far as stop being gay, that would only be true if they were bisexual to begin with. Personally I could not choose to be aroused by another male. If you feel you can sexually choose men or women, then you are bisexual.
In that case we're all bisexual. We might not be able to consciously control our preferences, but barring medical or psychological condition we are all capable of arousal and sexual performance with members of the same sex. Hell, we're capable of these things with "partners" that are far less compatible than that.
How do you think the majority of homosexual parents acquire babies to raise? Adoption and reproductive technology are far more expensive and difficult than natural procreation, regardless of how "unnatural" natural procreation comes to the participants.
Actually I don't think anybody is prohibited from marrying in general, except those incompetent to consent to contracts in general.
True. But the "ridiculous" argument in question is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying in general-- only members of the same sex. It is only one item on a fairly long list of legal requirements for marriage, and I simply don't see any grounds upon which it can be claimed that this requirement is more a "violation" of our "marriage rights" than any of the others. They are all related in one fashion or another to the form and function of marriage in our society and what we consider to be acceptable unions.
What I really can't figure out is why you assume having these parameters is reasonable. Heterosexual couples simply have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't mean some of those restrictions aren't also arbitrary and unfair.
It isn't an assumption. It is a reasoned position on my part. I believe that marriage is meant to fulfill certain societal functions and thus that it is reasonable for marriage to be limited to those unions which either serve those functions or at the least do not undermine them. I do not support all of the current restrictions on marriage, but I would rather support all of them collectively than none of them. At this time, I am only willing to advocate for the lifting of
one of these restrictions, that being the restriction that potential spouses must be of the opposite sex.
I believe that marriage serves roughly two functions, and that all of the benefits of marriage and all of the restrictions ought to revolve around these two functions. Remember, the State extends benefits and provides legal services for marriage that cost us money, so marriage itself must be justified.
These two functions are:
1) reinforce the ideal home environment for children, which includes (at least) two parents among other things
2) provide the basis for natural alliances between families
Thus I support restricting marriage on the basis of affinity because incestuous marriages fail on both points. I support restricting marriage on the basis of legal permanent residency because the State has the right to bar immigration and a marriage spread across national boundaries fails point 1. I support premarital counseling requirements because they protect the stability of marriages, which is essential to both points. Obviously, I support the restriction that both potential spouses consent and I actually lean toward the belief that minors should not be allowed to marry even with parental consent.
And there are a few points upon which I think restrictions ought to be loosened. Homosexual marriages satisfy both points and ought to be allowed. Marriages between blood relatives with no affinity-- meaning they were raised as though unrelated-- satisfy both points and ought to be allowed. (Siblings have only the same chance of producing children with birth defects as women over 40. There's simply no reason to prohibit it.) Polygamous marriages satisfy both points and ought to be allowed as long as all current spouses consent.
I'm actually much more concerned with attempting to discourage divorce than I am either imposing or removing restrictions on marriage. On the other hand, there's simply no political force behind such proposals despite that marriage is just as traditionally
for life as it is strictly between one man and one (or more) woman.
So why don't we just require civil unions and marriages to receive the same benefits from insurance and businesses and call it a day.
Because that would require revisions to tens of thousands of laws in thousands of jurisdictions. And because such a "compromise" solution gives neither side what they really want. Gays want compulsory social acceptance and 'phobes want their right to discriminate legally protected.