Last March 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear questions on the legality of same-sex marriage. It was whether the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state, were constitutional and legal respectively. A judge in California previously ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional as it discriminates based on sexual orientation.
The debate on same-sex marriage really started to alight in 2001, when the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, since then, nine other countries have followed suit such as Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Sweden (2008), Norway (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010). In the United States, only nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington) recognize same-sex marriage plus the District of Columbia.
The opposition to same-sex marriage has been vociferous because of the involvement of conservative, right wing religious Christians who oppose it based on questions of morality and of course, because it is, according to the Bible, an abomination. Indeed, the Bible even abhors transvestism, in Deut. 22:5 it says: "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing: the Lord your God hates people who do such things." And homosexuality is clearly prohibited, to wit Lev. 18: 22 "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."
Many conservatives oppose gay marriage in addition to the moral argument because for them, it will destroy the foundations of marriage, corrupt children, degrade society and pervert the purpose of marriage, which for them is the procreation of children.
Without a doubt, the opposition to same-sex marriage in Christian countries, at least where such conversation can still be had, is based on moral and biblical grounds. Using the deconstructionist theory of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, I will break down the arguments commonly propounded by conservatives against the concept of same-sex marriage.
1. The Moral Argument
Opposition to same-sex marriage based on the moral argument is weak at best and flimsy at most. When conservatives oppose gay marriage, it is indubitably rested upon the Judeo-Christian moral argument. Of course, if we use the moral argument of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we would be brought to a really, really perplexing situation: remember, if we use the moral standards of the Bible, we would be committing unbelievable cruelty and gross inhumanity that can only be equated by the reprehensible acts of the Nazis. In fact, the Bible recommends the murder of those who engage in homosexual acts (Lev. 20: 13), demands that married women be subject to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1, Ephe. 5:22), considers women basically as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), promotes slavery (Ephe. 6: 5) among others. Clearly, the moral standards of a morality based on the Judeo-Christian tradition is at best immoral by modern standards of human conduct.
2. Same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional concept of marriage
What is the traditional definition of marriage? Throughout history, marriage was never about love or individual initiative, it was about power, money and alliance. This was most evident with women, who were never allowed to have a say in any marriage arrangement - they were married either to pay debts, to build alliance (Mary Antoinette being married to King Louis XVI), to maintain wealth within the family (the Habsburg's of the Holy Roman Empire) or simply to gain political influence over a territory (Philipp II of Spain's marriage to Queen Mary I of England) or bear heirs, preferably male ones (Henry VIII of England who had serial wives with the sole purpose of finding one who will bear him a male heir). Is that the traditional concept of marriage that conservatives of the 21st century are trying to protect? A concept of marriage that essentially treats women as nothing more than chattel to be traded at will and by necessity.
In addition, opposition to gay marriage is also prefixed on the assumption that it will destroy marriage itself. Which is to say that marriage itself is in the first place weak and superficial as it can be destroyed by the mere marriage of two persons who belong to the same sex who nevertheless love each other. These conservatives are therefore admitting that marriage is a weak institution for if it were strong and stable, then surely two people marrying because they love and care for each other will only strengthen the concept of marriage as an institution that is built on love and commitment.
3. Same-sex marriage will corrupt children
Yeah right! Like only gay people have the exclusive capacity to mess up children's lives. Is it then impossible for heterosexual couples to abuse and exploit their own flesh and blood. Maybe these conservative nutbags should visit orphanages, shelters for abused and abandoned children and the like - were these children not victims of heterosexual couples, a number of whom are legally married? And these conservatives also insist that gay people who are married and who are allowed to rear children can influence the sexual orientation of their adopted children, yet studies after studies have shown that there is no significant effect on the sexuality of children who were raised by same-sex couples.
4. Marriage is for the procreation of children
Nonsense. So it goes to say then that heterosexual couples who do not want children or who are unable to bear children do not have real marriages?
Same-sex marriage is about equality, justice and respect. Surely love is beyond the confines of beauty (Will we allow only beautiful people to marry?), wealth (Should we restrict marriage to those who are financially capable only?) or intelligence (Should we prohibit those whose IQ are below 100 from marriage?), for such are mere superficialities of what it is to be human (just like the physical sex), what counts is that people engage in marriage because they feel a sense of completeness, wholeness and of being alive. That is what is important, that is what counts - modern societies cannot neglect the rights of the few, especially if such rights do no harm, imposes no danger or creates no chaos other than the upholding of the entrenched prejudice perpetrated by the closed and rigid moral standards of a bygone era.
Marriage is a human right. A right beyond the mere physicality of our bodies. Respect it.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento