First off, for those of your that don't already know: the Ontario Court of Appeals has ruled that preventing homosexuals from engaging in marriage is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From cbc.ca:
According to the Divisional Court, the federal definition of
marriage as a lawful and voluntary union between "one man and
one woman" violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ottawa appealed the ruling, arguing marriage is based on a universal
concept of a union between one man and one woman.
But the Court of Appeal issued its own definition of a marriage:
"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of
all others."
This has come as shocking and startling news to certain fundamentalist types out there, including some of my close friends. I hope to proffer some substantive arguments for both sides here, such that one can draw their own conclusion with some information - without prejudice.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a homosexual, nor do I ever intend to become one. I however, do sympathise with their plight, and understand it on most levels (except possibly the biological aspect - but even that to an extent.) This is to be taken as a biased essay, and I make no pretenses to be fully impartial.
Being homosexual is an unusual lifestyle choice for a few reasons. First, same-sex couples lack the fundamental ability to mate for the purpose of propigation. This is a simple biological different between them and 'straight' types, and it is the most readily apparent. Most homosexuals are not shy, and even flaunt their sexuality. However, the physical aspect of that aside, there are many other aspects to their decision.
Dealing first with the biological aspect from a macro-view. The Earth's population is immense. Where once being gay would have served an adverse affect on the population growth, we now have a problem with too many people. Not producing children for everyone is not necessarily a bad thing at all, from a global perpective. 300 years ago, when the world was tallied in millions, rather than billions, being gay would have been questionable, and even despised, since they weren't doing their divinely sanctioned duty to propigate over all the Earth. 3000 years ago, when the population would have been measured in the thousands (if they could perform such a census), being gay would be about the worst possible thing -- how was a kingdom to grow if they weren't all giving birth to hordes of young men that could die for their righteous causes. This is where, in the Zionist belief systems, being gay was ruled as being a sin. And it makes sense too -- but it "ain't no 11th commandment" either.
Alright, so today, being gay doesn't adversly affect humanity and its critical population. What does it affect: well, it affects taxes to start. Homosexuals, up until this recent ruling, could not claim each other as spousal RRSP contributions and such (with the exception of Quebec and New Hampshire, where gay civil unions were permitted - IE: common-law). This may not seem like a big thing, but this meant that being gay put a could at an economic disadvantage. This alone is not a good argument for allowing gay marriages, but is at least a good enough argument for allowing an equivalent union among same-sex couples. Call it a Civil Union, call whatever you like, it would eliminate a disparity there. They could have created a system that was identical to marriage in all ways, and called it the Same-sex Bond and afforded all the status of marriage to them without the title. This would have satisfied all but the most zealous of homosexuals, and still kept all but the most zealous fundamentalists happy.
Instead, they decided to allow gays and lesbians to be married by that title. This has triggered a huge debate as to whether it is ethically, morally, and spiritually alright.
Ethically, yes. End of argument.
Morally, sure. Some would disagree here, that sodomy in any form is highly amoral and should be illegal and shunned. True to that, have gay sex is still actually illegal in four states (of which Texas is featured most prominantly). Admitting to having had non-standard intercourse there makes you guilty of an offense, and susceptable to fine of overnight jail time. Dealing with the act of gay sex later...
Spiritually - this is where people get hung up. They base the core of their spirituality on the hard-coded words written in a book that is full of great ideas and defined for millenia the concepts and good and evil. The problem here, as mentioned in the first argument, is that it was written by men, in a time where society was quite different. Also, I simply don't trust intrepretations from it any longer - it has caused such great events in history like Prohibition, the crusades, the spanish inquisition, and a big fucking mess that we now call Israel. One can no longer use these words literally as truths. See my previous posts about spirituality for more on my take on this side of things.
Regarding the biological aspect - how is having gay sex any different from having straight sex wearing a condom. Either way, there will be no conception. The sex is solely and completely for carnal pleasure. End of story. No ifs, ands or butts. *grins* And the only difference now is that they can have their pleasure inside the confines of a marriage. Just like a 'regular' couple. Sex is retarded that way. (off-topic: I'm thinking about this sex thing too much - and the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to abstain for life -- it's just so illogical when the goal isn't procreation. But that's a personal thought, not related to the topic in hand whatsoever.)
Emotionally, is it such a hard stretch to see two men or two women attracted to each other? Not really - hell, if emotions were the only prerequisite for being a homosexual, we'd have 50% of the population leaning that direction. It's not a huge stretch; in fact, I'd hazard to qualify it as a stretch at all.
Psychologically, it works too. However, it seems that like true-to-life straight couples, there is a dynamic there where one tends to wear the pants of the relationship. This isn't strange at all, and it occurs in every straight couple one way or another -- and in today's world, it isn't always the guy wearing the pants. This is a very simple concept that even someone with an IQ that's the inverse of my own could comprehend.
Thus, the only truly good argument standing against gay marriage is the matter of tradition. Marriage has always been about one man and one woman. (With some notable polygamy exceptions.) It has been consecrated by religious institutions all over the world, and the blessings usually include those pertaining to fertility. But in a day were the tradition of marriage has faded to the point of Las Vegas marriage-contracts-for-hire, even the aforementioned has lost its potency.
That said, I do feel that those who are straight feel they have lost something today. They have lost the ability to say to the gay couples, "See, being straight is superior, since we can get married." It has levelled the playing field.
Now, we can have officially recognised homosexual marriages - partners that can adopt the streams of unwanted children that the straight couples manage to spawn without end. Perhaps with an officially recognised marriage, they'll have an easier time with their taxes, and adoptions will become just a little simpler to attain.
I know a few gay men. Admittedly, I have no contact with lesbians, so I cannot speak for their character -- but for the men I can. I have not get met a gay man that I didn't respect. I have not yet met a gay that fit the AIDSish, brutish biker wearing leather bondage stereotype. All of them I've met have been of noble character, and haven't been ashamed of their lifestyle.
I congratulate them for finally attaining equality. It was a battle hard fought. Take care.
Modified: 2003 06/11 23:46
- Log in to post comments