|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
The Moralisty of Same Sex Marriage |
Current rating: 0 |
by Chester
Email: chesterbarber (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!) |
18 Apr 2004
|
|
Not only is it moral for gay couples to marry, but I demonstrate that it is actually immoral to deny them that right. In undertaking this task, I also prove that it is mostlyly a consequence of language that people oppose same sex marriage. |
Our culture continues to resist the inculcation of homosexuality. Nevertheless, most people are politically correct and seem entirely indifferent to the lifestyle; that is, until homosexuals, motivated by our apparent acceptance, actually start to demand equal recognition and rights. Society attempts to justify its hidden indignation towards same sex marriages with numerous arguments – mainly tradition, nature and religion – all of which indicates that homosexual marriage threatens our civilization as we know it. I agree, but I see a positive consequence resulting. The opposition tends to view same sex marriage as a symbol of moral decay that will destroy the essence of the prime union between a man and a woman, thereby negatively affecting children’s understanding of intimate relationships, which therefore endangers our culture and all of society. I really do not understand how the hell that will happen. To me, it is just meaningless rhetoric that usually masks ulterior religious and political motives. I will demonstrate that homosexual marriage is moral, and in fact, to deny them that right is to act immorally.
But before I can convincingly defend my thesis, I will prove that politicians and church leaders provide reasons that are merely based on thinking patterns that delude us into seeing reality in black and white terms, where homosexuality itself is evil and heterosexuality is pure. This means that I will also offer proof that language (the foundation of thought and conceptualization) does not accurately represent reality. Rather it is an inadequate map that serves a practical purpose for expressing individual experience, which better aids us in understanding reality on a universal level. When we realize this universal reality, we concurrently discover real moral values. When our leaders try to convince us of reality through no other means except language, we become victims and purveyors of manipulation and moral decay. The best way to escape this seemingly complicated problem is to take a step back and analyze a moral value, such as respect, to see how and why it requires us to accept homosexuality and same sex marriage. Let us bring our analysis of language and rules in the context of a book many of us know: the Bible.
I propose that God did not actually write the Bible. Rather, we should credit a bunch of men from various cultures that existed, most recently, 2000 years ago. Since these men lived in a time with different social and economic conditions, as well as cultural and environmental conditions, why would I follow the Bible as a strict guideline for my own life? That would be thoroughly ridiculous. This would be similar to the Jewish people of Jesus’ time strictly adopting customs and laws set forth by the Roman gods. Does that mean that the Bible has nothing to offer?
Of course not. Like the Torah, Koran, Gita, and Gnostic Gospels, the Bible is a rich source of spirituality and human experience that every person would do well to peruse. So, instead of understanding it literally (an impossibility since the Bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions) and applying an antiquated reality of rules and laws, I suggest using it as a guideline towards self-discovery. Like Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is within you.”
So, the Bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions precisely because human beings wrote it. For one, the Bible is a list of rules and customs compiled over many centuries, so it stands to reason that a custom or rule written in 300 BC, might not be applicable in Jesus’ time. Jesus understood this, hence the incompatibility (in some regards) of the New and Old Testaments. This is also precisely a major reason our constitution prohibits the merger of church and state. We change (for the better, I hope!). However, this is only a practical reason for the Bible’s hypocrisy.
There is a more important, more spiritual implication to the Bible’s contradictions, which also proves that humans wrote the thing. The way we think tends to frame reality in terms of relative opposites, so the material of reality appears to consist of people, ideas, etc. in opposition. Hence, rules and laws once thought to be evil were later deemed acceptable, or even virtuous. Take, for example, vegetarianism. In Genesis, God’s ideal world consists of humans eating just plants. But, later in the Bible, God retracts this command while speaking to Noah – only to retract this retraction in Isaiah! This obviously forces anyone to ask how God could ever be wrong if this God is the omnipotent creator. How could the all-knowing not know everything at any given time? If God is outside of time, then God must have realized that it would retract the command, which makes me wonder why God would make the command in the first place. We can reconcile this inconsistency by looking past the dogma to see what the cultures were like who wrote these contrasting points of view. Most likely, the people who wrote Genesis and Isaiah prospered with crops, and so did not require animals for food. This luxury allowed them to pass a moral judgment. On the other hand, perhaps the people of Noah’s time absolutely required meat to survive because of an environmental disaster. Such a circumstance may have led them to fashion the Bible to reflect their need.
So why would God condemn a culture for a lifestyle they could not live without? That would truly be cruel, and God is not malignant. Nevertheless, nowadays meat eaters and vegetarians each believe the other side is wrong, and often for very similar reasons. Meat eaters tend to consider God indifferent about eating meat and invoke nature as an example to justify their opinion. They also believe eating meat is healthier. Similarly, vegetarians draw attention to the fact that an animal has life, and therefore we should respect it as a creation of God. They, too, look to nature to justify their opinion and provide ample proof; as well as (rightly, I might add) make claims that theirs is the healthier lifestyle. Now we are beginning to trek into the realm of relative morality, which hardly ever helps us discover real moral values.
When considering God and morality to find answers to our dilemma, we must first recognize that God created everything. So, if nothing exists outside of God, then God must possess the capacity for good and evil. But if God embodies good and evil, how do we reconcile the two opposites into one pure being? First, we simply cannot view them as ideas truly in “opposition” as good and evil or right and wrong, which only our language and thought process deceives us to believe anyway. To better comprehend God and our oppositional thinking, we must expose language for what it truly is: a map of experience with practical importance, indeed, but completely inept when trying to discover morality.
To understand these ideas in more basic terms, try imagining a black object on white paper. The dot (like these words) cannot be seen without the white background. Conversely, the background cannot be seen without the dot. If we remove either one, we would lack a conception of dot and plane, as well as black and white. They are apparently distinct objects, but neither have any sort of meaning for us in our pattern of thought without the other. So, they are rather united – distinct, but of the same body. To rip them apart and see them as entirely separate (and oppositional) is to delude ourselves into thinking, in general, everything exists independently. The fact that they exist (perhaps for spiritual reasons we will never truly know) cannot be denied, for to attempt to eradicate white for the sake of black simply denies reality. In fact, it would be stupid, and as such nobody would consciously consider undertaking the task.
For most people, moral values come from only looking through the filter of their own color (e.g. vegg-heads versus meat-heads). Black sees white as evil because it is not black; white impedes pure black ideas. Furthermore, and most importantly, the possibility of an invasion seems to present itself; but, if neither side actually encroaches upon the other, why would either side really care how the other lives? In the case of black, because of its ignorance of white, it only projects its own aggression onto white, thereby creating anxiety and more fear for itself. Because black is ignorant, black only has its own knowledge base to draw upon in order to devise any hypothesis about white. If black’s own instinct is to force its ideas onto others (no matter how seemingly virtuous and correct), then logically it will fear that something unknown would do the same, creating the notion of opposition. This attitude is founded, since throughout much of our known history, those outside of our community have threatened us for various tertiary reasons. Be aware at this point, however, that no opposition really exists. Black has created opposition for itself because of itself. What a different picture we would have if black’s first instinct was respect?
What is less conspicuous, and therefore more serious, is the effect that language (and consequently thought) has on black when it considers white its opposition. Since white opposes, it tacitly becomes the opposite of black, which then throws white into an us-versus-them or good-versus-evil context. Language and thought work even more subtly. If a person merely views another person or group as “other,” this us-versus-them mentality can easily come to pervade thought when the slightest threat (justified or not) arises. Interestingly, purveyors of the black thought pattern never stop to seriously consider that perhaps their own actions and attitudes create many of their own problems; plus, they do not consider the repercussions of destroying white. If black were to eliminate white or other, black (as it understands itself) would logically lose its own definition. But, an entity so hell-bent on definition by duality, I think, will not so easily relinquish duality (which it has built its entire identity on) even by successful fascist means. We must reunite our differences with a respect for the existence of “other” and look at distinction in a broader united light. The glue that will ultimately mend our distinctions is moral value.
As you might have inferred, we cannot comprehend true moral value through language, words, and mere dictates. Language only conveys a chopped-up version of our experience, as well as concepts and ideas based on experiences. The moment we begin to speak of an event, it has already passed precisely because language can only speak presently of past experience. More importantly, it presents its users with false links, as previously stated. For example, when describing the taste of ice cream, we would probably describe it as creamy, cold, and sweet. But, what do these three adjectives mean? You might then describe creamy as rich, smooth, and thick. As you quickly see, this process could proceed almost infinitely. They all depend upon the other person having some sort of direct link to their own experience that conveys at least some of the adjectives. If the person does not have his or her own experience to draw upon, nothing can be conveyed. At some point, he or she must taste the ice cream. Likewise, if a person does not truly embody a moral value like respect from past experience, it will not exist for that person – or exist merely in a false language-based fashion, which we will soon discuss in the context of “respect for power.” Therefore, language retains meaning only in links or relationships with itself, which are not (and can never be) reality. Language possesses more meaning if it is linked with experience. If a person lacks the experience, reality of that experience is at best an estimate based on his or her own similar experiences through language; which is not particularly a problem, it only needs to be recognized as such, rather than mistaken for truth.
So to begin to embody moral values, we must experience them first; and more importantly, experience them through and with other people, now. Lacking any close relationships growing up, how could you ever possibly understand and embody respect? The moment you place the term respect in the realm of words with a definition (and therefore false links and dualities) and then contend that a person (or yourself) must have this in order to live correctly, you enter the realm of fascism. It negates the reality of the present situation. Plus, it does not take into account cultural and personal variations that will play a role in a person’s or people’s path to embodying respect. Respect comes with experience, and experience in this case requires some sort of link with another person or people. Honestly, from where else could respect come from, if not from another human being? Just as language possesses meaning through links with itself, humans only discover true meaning when they establish intimate links with each other. This is why parents and community play such a vital role in a child’s upbringing. Without real moral values as a foundation, tertiary values like money and power creep into a child’s moral base.
We could view our bond dynamic on three different levels now. Word linkages establish the third, and most removed plane, which least resembles reality. The second level creates a more complete picture. These are words that have a close context to a person’s experience. For example, you need not elaborate on describing the taste of ice cream to most people. Simply mentioning it is enough since most of us have tasted it. Finally, the third level of linkages (one we will soon discuss) consists of deriving meaning directly from a relationship with people. From these intimate human connections we discover our own humanity and simultaneously find it in everyone else. That is to say, we start to discover true moral values and what it means to embody them.
So what exactly designates respect as a moral value? The difficulty of this question arises precisely because of that deep urge for a definition, which we eventually must abandon. Even if you embody respect for your loved ones and community, anyone will naturally ask how you could seriously come to respect the old Japanese woman living halfway across the world? In short, you cannot – at least not through the criteria you have tacitly devised on your own through previous relationships, because there is no direct link between the two of you, on which your previous understanding of respect depends.
Let’s break this down a little. The respect you maintain for your community can be described and even defined, but once that happens, you bring the word logically and conceptually into the realm of language and falsehood. Nevertheless, let us now say you defined it, and you know what it means to have it. Unfortunately, to have respect you indicate that you lack it somewhere else. Because you must now lack it somewhere else, you divide reality: inside (me or us) and outside (other). “Inside” is who has it, and “outside” is the group without it. You lack it somewhere outside because you have defined it based on terms and conditions that exist for you and your relationships around you. So of course, in that unique way, it cannot exist anywhere else. But, after all, that is your knowledge base; that is all you know of respect. It’s not your fault. How could you meet everyone around the world? Here lies the paradox. The notion of inside and outside (me and other), as we will further demonstrate, does not exist! It is only knowledge that makes you think you do not or cannot respect everyone!
To language, and by extension thought, nothing considered outside can be understood or made conscious, so it is pushed away from your mind; and the things it pushes away simultaneously become the material and justification for the existence of the outside. Your thought process writes it off as being incomprehensible and detached; and in-turn, since you now have the material for outside, your thought process reinforces the notion that inside and outside is real. This is entirely nonsensical since you will note that it was through the need for a definition by thought that outside was created in the first place! Now we must ask what outside is exactly. Everything you know, you only know in relation to your environment through yourself. But, what do you define as your environment: house, town, state, country, or planet?
Once you define environment in any of these ways, you negate everything outside of that definition, which is a lot, as you know, because Japan does exist; Jupiter does exist; and the Milky Way does exist. However, that is not to say that every thing is known. Of course some stuff is still outside our knowledge base. Most of space is, in fact, a void to us. We only encounter problems when we allow this fact to hold true in the context of human relationships. In the case of human relationships and moral values, everything we need lies right here, right now; that is to say, the capacity to find morality exists within you, your family, and your community as the epitome of all existence. If you trust language and thinking, and believe “out there” (i.e. Iraqis, Palestinians, etc.) is unknown or different, then these other people are quietly brought into your material void, and their nominally weird actions become incomprehensible and ultimately the immoral opposition. At some point in our search for answers and truth, we must abandon this language and rely on our own experience and faith.
Nevertheless, language remains integral to realizing morality. Through our experience of respect, we can (because of our ability to conceptualize – the very gift I bash) monitor the effect that respect has on others we establish relationships with. We can see through experience and new links that we make outside of our community how well it works in every case. This is God, to me. To make a conscious decision to believe in the efficacy of extending respect to the Japanese woman as a means to live morally and rightly, is to possess faith in it. To possess faith and believe in it as a universal bonding between people despite their differences is to unmask an attribute of God. Could you honestly say the same about War (i.e. murder)? Is that something to have faith in as a means to bond people together despite their differences? Any reasonable person ought to immediately recognize that war does not bond anything. It necessarily creates rifts, and volatilely strengthens differences. Remember in the case of black that black’s own aggressive tendencies create and perpetuate the notion that unknown, other and different mean opposition, and therefore opposite, which gives rise to an inaccurate conception of good versus evil. Ironically, astute readers will note that even our minor acts of immorality further prove my point. If each person or group actually existed as a solitary object independent of everything else, then any action you take against another would cause random effects. However, that never occurs. In every case, a reactive force usually results, and on occasion we get a proactive one. And in extreme cases the reactive forces often include hate, war, and revenge.
Fortunately, despite our seemingly grim predicament, our answer lies right before us: All that we need to do is discover how relationships work around us through experience. The ones that work, we can break down into terms like respect, love, friendship, etc. Then we can apply those essential characterizations of respect to our everyday life when dealing with people we do not even know because we maintain faith in our experience that they work. Then, we can see that respect is, after all, a moral value because in every single case it produces the same effect in the other: It creates a bond because you earn respect in return. Hence, in order to respect yourself (or earn respect) you must respect others. In many cases, people do not really want respect because they are utterly ignorant of it – something we will discuss shortly. Nevertheless, respect demonstrates that we can be united by an unspeakable, unfathomable bond that for no conceptual reason works. This notion can best be summed up in Jesus’ words: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Let us consider Jesus’ phrase in the context of our previous discussion to help us further demonstrate why exactly respect is a moral value. Although this phrase’s importance is self-evident, its application and the way it functions in our life are not. Because many people only consider the implications of this phrase within the realm of thought, rather than through experience and application, people easily distort its meaning. For example, we established that because of language, we understand reality in terms of inside and outside (me and other), and so those inside our understanding are worthy of respect, whereas others lack it. Therefore, we implicitly understand Jesus’ words to mean that since the other (e.g. Al-Qaeda) did not grant us any respect, we shall offer them nothing in return precisely because they are wrong to disrespect us. This attitude creates matter for the “other” realm, thereby reinforcing our belief in other and justifying our own nominally virtuous reaction. This approach is, however, quite wrong. Jesus wants us to realize that in such a case we have the responsibility as a spiritual and moral being to offer respect with the other cheek, and do it without passing judgment. He really wants us to live respect, and not just show it. Look at the situation in this way. If you want somebody to respect you, you certainly would not go about it by hurting him or her. We can designate that sort of forced respect more as a “respect for power,” which is actually a recognition that might is right (another spurious notion that we ostensibly reject, but still work under). What kind of example does this set for other countries that do not see the world in the same way that we do? They do not respect us; they only learn from us that might is right – inherently a divisive notion. To earn respect of others, you do things like listen, discuss, compromise, and most importantly, acknowledge their presence and their right to think in their own way, despite however much you think you disagree.
Jesus’ words indicate an unbreakable connection between people. They simply require us to decide whether that connection will have a reactive or proactive basis. Respect, and meaning in general, arises when we establish relationships with others; that is, moral values only emerge from relationships, for where else would respect or meaning come from. It certainly will not pop from out of nowhere. And, it certainly does not exist in space as a separate independent object to be grasped. Yet we constantly attempt to grab at respect with damaging consequences.
We objectify respect as an entity that exists by itself and for itself, which is a problem caused by thought and language because they lead us to believe that respect, and morality in general, exist as concepts. For example, when a person mistakenly defines respect as “might is right,” for that person respect means only creating fear and subordinating others. That “respect for power” becomes something that exists outside that must be obtained, and getting it necessarily requires a person to subordinate any internal notion of morality in order to meet the requirements of his or her definition of respect. This means that a person will force other people by any means available because “respect for power” does not even bar murder! I loathe to define respect at all, but I think we can unanimously agree that “might is right” is divisive at best. Once the person does obtain “respect for power,” he or she will discover that respect will vanish because the person only succeeded in oppressing others. Most likely, someone else formerly oppressed our person, and since being oppressed universally sucks, he or she simply preferred to dish it out. It seems silly, but if you only learn what it means to rule and be ruled (despite whatever labels are attached to it), where would you want to be?
Nevertheless, it remains important not to write off “respect for power” as a mere cover-up for a conscious desire to oppress. This demand for respect and the person’s willingness to maintain it even at the price of lives indicates a need for what he or she innately feels to be right, yet encounters total confusion and peril when applying it in everyday life because it does not function correctly. Respect is not something that can be defined, gotten, studied, and maintained at all costs: You either live it here and now because you experience it in your life with others, or you do not. Therefore, respect’s disappearance as a definition ceases to mystify us because we can see it never actually existed out there in the void, where it was only a mask for “might is right.” That is a language-based figment of our imagination. Respect is not a concept with parameters that can be universally applied to every relationship because not every relationship can ever be the same. Not every person is exactly the same! That sort of respect is living in the past. Respect is a way to live and can only be realized and exist between people in the present.
With a better understanding of respect and morality in general and the way they function in our lives, let us now move our discussion to the case of same sex marriage. I will demonstrate (using the previous part of my essay) that we must allow homosexuals to marry because to bar it is to commit the very violation we charge advocates of homosexual marriage with: disrespect and the erosion of moral values. In short, we must accept same sex marriage because it is our moral obligation. Accepting is difficult, though, because such a step requires us to confront our own fears and immorality. Same sex marriage rocks the foundation of our comfortable dualistic understanding of reality. It reminds us that we must think for ourselves; forcing us to realize that no church, religious document, or tradition can claim to know ultimate truth. The most honest remark in the bible comes from the mouth of Jesus: “The kingdom of God is within you.” Jesus wants us to recognize God on our own terms, and not through the mere dictates of judgmental priests. Priests can be beneficial guides on the path to enlightenment, but they cannot claim exclusive knowledge to that path of enlightenment because to do so necessarily excludes. Ultimately, we must realize that to believe in a true enemy, we must accept ourselves as an enemy. The inability to make sense of such a statement puts us into a frustrating bind. The structure of religion and politics employs shallow justifications to remedy our anxieties born of paradoxes such as these; but, unfortunately, the two institutions never provide any foundational answers, leaving us with that terrifying void. Surprisingly, our answer to this apparent paradox is quite simple. We need only to step outside of the word game and declare ourselves enemies to nobody. Then, we can extend a helping hand and become the sons and daughters of all human kind.
Not surprisingly, our answer to the issue over same sex marriage is the same because the justifications against it hold water solely in language; that is, in relative morality. We employ them as a way to reconcile an openly accepted lifestyle with outdated rules and laws that prevent such reconciliation. So long as you believe that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are in opposition, no reconciliation can happen. We feel that it has to be one way – the straight way – but homosexuals and their desire to marry will never disappear. In reality, the result of all of this nonsense is that we disrespect homosexuals. I will prove that the three main arguments against homosexual marriage – cultural tradition, nature, and religion – lack any firm grounding in morality and experience. These arguments find meaning only in phantom links to other words.
Arguing against same sex marriages because our cultural tradition has always prohibited it is motivated by fear, which understandably occurs when any significant social change takes place. If we adhered to this idea, female suffrage would still be an issue. In other words, conservatives are saying that marriage has been defined in a specific way forever and worked thus far, so we should not change its meaning – lest we destroy the institution of marriage, thereby damaging society. This is false. You could have made the same argument during the civil rights movement: Society has worked (especially for whites up until now), so why should we chance altering the social structure to include equal rights for people of color? Our answer to this question ought to be self-evident: Because they are human beings. The answer to the issue of gay marriage is no different. However, we who support gay marriage must realize that many citizens consider marriage the perennial institution that exemplifies everything good and wholesome; and, they rightly see that marriage is a foundational component to learning moral values. Since marriage has previously been reserved for unions between one man and one woman, we have to ask whether this alteration will damage a main building block of morality, and by extension society. To answer this question, we must first confront our true feelings about homosexuality, which seems simple enough. Are we really indifferent, or do we feel it is wrong because language and deceptive thought patterns cut reality into false compartments of good and bad?
Because of tradition some people consider heterosexuals and their unions normal, implying that homosexuals and their unions are abnormal. These same people also usually argue against homosexuality because it violates natural law. The fact is that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom; it especially occurs within a species when its population is too large. Perhaps we should consider this fact in reference to ourselves? I do not mean to suggest that homosexuality is entirely physiological, though. I believe people are born gay. Next, some contend that since homosexuality does not produce offspring, it and same sex marriage are obviously wrong. In response, I say that it is no less wrong than birth control. Besides, by accepting homosexuals and same sex marriage not everyone will turn gay; that is absurd. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have always existed and they always will. Therefore, we need not worry about extinction. Finally, people often employ religion as a means to mark homosexuality and same sex marriage as sacrilegious. Unfortunately, these people rely too heavily on dogma and outdated laws (some of which justify slavery!) that we prohibit today. Again, the efficacy of the Bible lies not in its dogma, but in its rich human experience. Jesus’ parables, the Ten Commandments, and phrases like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” need to be more heavily considered and their lessons applied. Ultimately, labeling it abnormal, unnatural, wrong, or sacrilegious is just another way of saying other, opposite, opposition, thereby proving homosexuality’s immorality.
Experiential proof that homosexuality is not immoral can be found in those examples of parents, family, and friends who initially feel opposed to it and same sex marriages, but suddenly have a change of heart when they discover a loved one who is gay or plans to marry some one of the same sex. They change because underlying their relationship is respect and love for their friend and family member. That bond created by respect allows the family and friends to shatter their ignorance to see beyond their loved one’s sexual preference into his or her common human needs. In other words, their bond has allowed them to transcend duality and the disfigured reality that language presents and just experience the void. Homosexual marriage no longer opposes them, because neither side has done anything to violate the connection created by respect and love. They no longer fear that homosexual marriage will destroy them or society because they realize that it is about unity and sharing the intimate bond of love.
We can now say with confidence that homosexuality is not immoral. Because it does not violate any moral values, and we know that homosexuals have existed throughout history, we must conclude that part of being human is accepting that part of our population will be attracted to the same sex. Furthermore, part of being human is acting morally; that is, respecting “other,” because other is not other. Other is us – which makes perfect sense if you realize your own inherent connectedness, and see that no matter what you do, we remain connected. God granted us free choice, so we must decide whether we choose to ignore our connectedness, and alienate ourselves, thereby creating strife for everyone.
How then does officially recognizing a gay couple’s marriage disrespect a traditional marriage? It does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying and it does not redefine marriage to exclude a male and female. Although the institution as an exclusive symbol of procreation and the nuclear family would change, this alteration does exclude traditional family structures. The redefinition sheds its former, more repressive symbolic exterior to reveal a cleaner, more expressive one. The skin of this new symbol shows us a more accurate depiction of marriage, which deals only in unity and love, and not conformity and oppression. I do not mean to suggest then that the main criteria for marriage is nominally love that merely masks lascivious desires. This would indeed open the door to adults marrying animals, siblings, and children, not to mention multiple husbands and wives. However, these are absurd assumptions and I seriously doubt any homosexual couple would agree with any of them. I would not be surprised in 99% of cases of incest that one or both of the siblings have been previously psychologically or physically traumatized. As for polygamy, I think it would be safe to assume that most of the women are oppressed and/or abused. Look, we all possess that innate desire for an intimate love relationship, and we should see marriage as the ultimate proof of our absolute need for human connection, and our recognition of that need. Marriage is the epitome and symbol of human connection; and by extension, a person’s source for deeply realizing the connectedness that we share with everything. Bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and polygamy lack the potential for that connectedness to be realized because they truly have nothing to do with respect, love, or morality in general. Homosexuality undoubtedly permits that potential.
Conservatives remain adamant in their belief, though, and contend that a woman and a man each provide their children with something innately unique that two men or two women cannot, which might hold some incidental truth, and only minor truth in a sexist society. Two people of the same sex have no less opportunity, nor lack any less ability to instill in their children real moral values. Because homosexuality in and of itself is moral, we should not think that a gay couple’s children are in danger. Besides, if you really do believe these children are at risk, why do we allow gay couples to adopt and inseminate at all? Ironically then, to deny homosexuals the right to marry, you tacitly deny them respect – a real moral value. To be human is to embrace free will and to respect others’ free will so long as it does not impede upon yours. So, to be moral human beings, we must recognize and accept homosexual marriage, despite what our heads indicate. By socially acknowledging their relationship to be equally as valid as a heterosexual one, we only strengthen our own universal connectedness, which will always better allow us to live happily.
In fact, the worst course of to take is to allow people of the same sex to unite and adopt children, and then deny them the recognition of their familial bond. By doing this we send the wrong message to the couple, and more importantly, to the couple’s children, who we supposedly want to protect. Look at it from the child’s point of view. If we do not extend our respect to the child’s moms or dads; if we all do not support a gay couple’s desire to raise a family and recognize it as such, the child just may feel that his or her family is something to be ashamed? Consequently, traditional families and their children, I can promise you, will discriminate (maybe not openly, but most likely indirectly) and perhaps ridicule the gay couple’s child. Then already, because of our own ignorance, we have created a situation that promotes instability, which is beneficial for nobody.
To bring our discussion to a close, let us quickly look back at homosexuality and same sex marriage in the context of language and duality. By alienating gay families we further perpetuate the false, language-based notion of other – the underlying source of many problems. Prohibiting same sex marriage reinforces (for our children and us) the idea of “other,” and teaches exactly the opposite of what marriage allows us to experience: connectedness and moral values. So, my anti-gay marriage readers, let us move past this issue. I think it would be a lovely symbol of reconciliation for gay couples, and a way to help mend your own rift, if you went up to the next gay couple you saw, shook their hands and said, “You two have helped me become a better person. You also helped me realize that we are all a part of life; and in order to live properly and happily, we must respect and embrace our differences. Thank you.” |
This work is in the public domain |
|
