Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
February 5, 2007
The Problem of Same-Sex Marriage
hAlthough I have outlined in detail my logical response to an illogical institution, and outlined the various failures in objective thought that the "institution" of same-sex marriage holds, there is still a few more things that I would like to add. The issue of same-sex marriage carries a lot of stigma with it that seems to prevent some people from truly grappling with it at its core. The stigma is homophobia. Who wants to be known as homophobic? Not me, but the thought is that if one is against same-sex marriage, then that person is immediately pinned to be homophobic -- a stigma that carries with it such sentiments as "gay-hater," and is reminiscent of sexism and racism. I think that this association makes people afraid to oppose same-sex marriage, and forces them to suspend their "bias" in the name of tolerance. In fact, one of the major arguments that the proponents of same-sex marriage claim is that the opponents of same-sex marriage hold the same sentiments that fostered sexism and racism within our European culture. This is a sneaky attack against our logic, in fact it is a logical fallacy if you want to get technical. This presents to us a dichotomy that on one hand can clearly observe the inherent differences between marriage and same-sex unions, while on the other hand we are presented with a repulsion against anything "-phobic." This must stop. We must separate our fear of being seen as "homophobic" or "socially out-of-date" from the issue of same-sex marriage. We need to move forward, and the only way that society can move forward is if it adopts principles that sustain its existence and build up its nature. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron which does not see the future of society as its aim, and it is an "institution" that can neither sustain our society, nor build it up.
January 24, 2007
Same-Sex Marriage: Sexual Identity
Since a major component of marriage is the complementarity of the sexes, can a homosexual couple fulfill this requirement? Let's look at what the word "complementarity" implies before we answer the above question.
The term "complementarity of the sexes" refers to the ways in which a husband and wife compliment each other. That is, it signifies the way in which the female "makes up" where the male lacks, and visa versa. To say that the relationship between the heterosexual spouses is complimentary, however, is not the same as two male or female partners making up where the other is lacking -- as in two business partners whose unique gifts and skills "complete" each other in order to form a unified and whole team. Although that is certainly a part of what is going on in the complimentary nature of heterosexual spouses, it delves further into the sexuality of the couple. What I mean is this: males and females differ in many ways other than just physically -- they live differently, they think differently, they act differently, they deliberate differently, in fact these differences lay deep within the core of who they are as individual persons (the core of what makes a male a male, and a female a female). It is this complimentary difference in the nature of the sexes that makes the marital relationship so unique. It is also precisely this inherent difference that children need in order to become fashioned into active, positive, and full members of our society. Within a heterosexual marriage they not only view the ebb and flow dynamic of their parents' relationship, but they are forced to live in it and experience firsthand the parents' interaction and communication. It is precisely this interaction, the complementarity of the sexes, that same-sex couples can neither facilitate nor reproduce. This leads me to my next point: can surgery change a person's sexual identity. This is relevant to my argument since if a male were to become a female, then he (now a she, according to pop-culture) will become complimentary to a male partner.
Let me answer it with a question. Suppose a female lost her sexual organs in a tragic accident. Is she no longer a female? Since she doesn't have a penis, can she be considered to be a male? Is she, therefore, genderless, neutered by fate? How would she see herself? Would she relate to others as a female, would she still think, act, and feel as a female feels? I don't think that we really know what it means to have a sexual identity if we continue to relate it with our sexual organs --since the person who has lost her genitalia still thinks, receives, feels, and communicates as a female. There seems to be something inherent, then, about our sexual identity, something that subsists within our soul, the core of our being. Something that only finds completion in the opposite sex. So will a simple surgery, a lifetime of medication, and a change in attire make a male a female? To put it negatively, would the usurping of a female's sexual organs make a male a female? The answer is no; there is something inherent within our being that makes us male or female, our sexual organs are the physical manifestation of that inherent quality of the human person.
Since a gay male couple can never occupy the role of a female in a marriage, and visa versa, same-sex marriage is oxymoronic by definition, and a failure in logic -- since a same-sex union can never be the same as a heterosexual marriage due to the lack of the complimentary nature of the sexes.
The term "complementarity of the sexes" refers to the ways in which a husband and wife compliment each other. That is, it signifies the way in which the female "makes up" where the male lacks, and visa versa. To say that the relationship between the heterosexual spouses is complimentary, however, is not the same as two male or female partners making up where the other is lacking -- as in two business partners whose unique gifts and skills "complete" each other in order to form a unified and whole team. Although that is certainly a part of what is going on in the complimentary nature of heterosexual spouses, it delves further into the sexuality of the couple. What I mean is this: males and females differ in many ways other than just physically -- they live differently, they think differently, they act differently, they deliberate differently, in fact these differences lay deep within the core of who they are as individual persons (the core of what makes a male a male, and a female a female). It is this complimentary difference in the nature of the sexes that makes the marital relationship so unique. It is also precisely this inherent difference that children need in order to become fashioned into active, positive, and full members of our society. Within a heterosexual marriage they not only view the ebb and flow dynamic of their parents' relationship, but they are forced to live in it and experience firsthand the parents' interaction and communication. It is precisely this interaction, the complementarity of the sexes, that same-sex couples can neither facilitate nor reproduce. This leads me to my next point: can surgery change a person's sexual identity. This is relevant to my argument since if a male were to become a female, then he (now a she, according to pop-culture) will become complimentary to a male partner.
Let me answer it with a question. Suppose a female lost her sexual organs in a tragic accident. Is she no longer a female? Since she doesn't have a penis, can she be considered to be a male? Is she, therefore, genderless, neutered by fate? How would she see herself? Would she relate to others as a female, would she still think, act, and feel as a female feels? I don't think that we really know what it means to have a sexual identity if we continue to relate it with our sexual organs --since the person who has lost her genitalia still thinks, receives, feels, and communicates as a female. There seems to be something inherent, then, about our sexual identity, something that subsists within our soul, the core of our being. Something that only finds completion in the opposite sex. So will a simple surgery, a lifetime of medication, and a change in attire make a male a female? To put it negatively, would the usurping of a female's sexual organs make a male a female? The answer is no; there is something inherent within our being that makes us male or female, our sexual organs are the physical manifestation of that inherent quality of the human person.
Since a gay male couple can never occupy the role of a female in a marriage, and visa versa, same-sex marriage is oxymoronic by definition, and a failure in logic -- since a same-sex union can never be the same as a heterosexual marriage due to the lack of the complimentary nature of the sexes.
December 10, 2006
Same-Sex Marriage
How is a same-sex union is the same as a marriage? Being from Canada, I have had to watch my political leaders squabble over this issue for some time now, and at no point did any of them ever attempt to inform us as to what it is about same-sex unions that make them the same as (as in "equal to") marriage. I have written a multitude of essays (well, three to be exact) and researched either side of the debate even more times, and I am still at a loss for words when I consider how a same-sex union is the same as my marriage. The majority of the articles, web-sites, books, and scholarly essays that I have read all allude to two factors when they attempt to tell me why there ought to be same-sex marriages: love and equality (as in civil rights). This blog will attempt to use the ideas of love and equality to express why legalizing same-sex marriage is an act of injustice.
First of all, love: "Homosexual people ought to be married because they love each other." You don't need me to tell you that love is huge. From a religious perspective, Mother Theresa is often quoted as reminding us that we are all created to love and to be loved. But is that what marriage is all about? Is the capacity to love the only qualification I need to have a stable and wholesome marriage? I love my wife -- we have a good marriage. I also love my brother, would we have a good marriage? Probably not -- we could barely live with each other in the same house growing up, never mind a commitment to live together for a lifetime. Some people would reply that the love I have for my brother and for my wife are of a very different nature; others would ignore that aspect and remind me that a good marriage takes compatibility -- I certainly wouldn't argue with that one, but is that it? Is marriage a public statement that I love my spouse and that we are compatible? On the contrary, marriage is so much more than just love and compatibility.
Marriage is about commitment, a life-long commitment; marriage is also about the complimentary nature of the sexes; more importantly, marriage is about kids. The nature of marriage, then, is that it is a relationship in which children are welcomed, nourished, and formed to be full members of society. Marriage is an institution in which the ebb and flow of the dynamic relationship of the husband and wife, the ways in which they compliment and complete each other, nourishes and fashions their children, who are created manifestations of their mutual love, fidelity, and respect, into becoming capable, confident, and productive members of society. That is its nature. It is all about the kids, it is all about the complementarity of the sexes, and it is all about the life-time commitment. Is this the same as a same-sex union? Does the sexuality of two gay men, the core of who they are, compliment each other the same way as the sexuality, the psychology, and the nature of a man and a woman does? Does the relationship between a husband and a wife have the same dynamics and compliments as the spouses of a same-sex union? The answer is no. No matter how hard a man will try, he can never be a woman. He may look, talk, and act like a woman, but we need to ask ourselves if our sexual identity subsists only in our appearance and our actions. If that is the case, then by all means, a man who gets a sex change is now a woman. However, following the same logic, a woman who has been badly burnt so that all of her feminine features have been scorched away, and has lost the capacity to walk and talk, is she still a woman? That is, if we lost the apperance of being men and women, would we still be men and women? Of course. Our sexual identity must go much deeper than our appearances since men and women differ on so many ontological, emotional, and relational ways -- hence, the complimentary nature of the relationships between men and women.
The next point: Equality
When we speak of wanting equality, do we want to make everything the same, so as to abolish all stigmas and apparent divisions? Or is equality based on legal recognition and the capacity to make legally recognized choices? Does equality go deeper than "same-ness" and legal and social freedoms? Is everyone inherently equal? Many proponents of same-sex marriage attest that their plight is the very same fight for civil liberties as the African-American and feminist movements grapled with in the mid-20th century. However, the logic of same-sex marriage advocates seems to revolve around the idea that equality is only found in being legally recognized as the same, as opposed to equality being found in one's nature and substance. That is, they passionately long for legal equality, and in their struggle they claim that their argument is just since it is synonymous with the African-American fight for civil rights -- meanwhile ignoring the fact that the "African-American fight for civil rights" was about acknowledging the inherent equality found within all human persons, while a same-sex union is not at all the same as a civil marriage. If we were to follow their logic it would seem plausable that the only thing that makes African-Americans equal to the rest of Americans is the fact that they have been legally recognized as equal, their inherent nature as human persons had nothing to do with it. To illustrate my point a little further I will claim that the argument for same-sex marriage is analogous to an argument that wants to ... say ... call an orange an apple -- their nature is different, but since apples are sold more often and eaten more readily, any attempt to label them as distinct is an act of inequality and ought to be resolved. They are both fruit, not one is less than the other, but to equate them would be unjust since their nature keeps them distinct -- an orange will never be the same as an apple, just as a same-sex union will never be the same as a marriage since their very own natures keep them distinct.
First of all, love: "Homosexual people ought to be married because they love each other." You don't need me to tell you that love is huge. From a religious perspective, Mother Theresa is often quoted as reminding us that we are all created to love and to be loved. But is that what marriage is all about? Is the capacity to love the only qualification I need to have a stable and wholesome marriage? I love my wife -- we have a good marriage. I also love my brother, would we have a good marriage? Probably not -- we could barely live with each other in the same house growing up, never mind a commitment to live together for a lifetime. Some people would reply that the love I have for my brother and for my wife are of a very different nature; others would ignore that aspect and remind me that a good marriage takes compatibility -- I certainly wouldn't argue with that one, but is that it? Is marriage a public statement that I love my spouse and that we are compatible? On the contrary, marriage is so much more than just love and compatibility.
Marriage is about commitment, a life-long commitment; marriage is also about the complimentary nature of the sexes; more importantly, marriage is about kids. The nature of marriage, then, is that it is a relationship in which children are welcomed, nourished, and formed to be full members of society. Marriage is an institution in which the ebb and flow of the dynamic relationship of the husband and wife, the ways in which they compliment and complete each other, nourishes and fashions their children, who are created manifestations of their mutual love, fidelity, and respect, into becoming capable, confident, and productive members of society. That is its nature. It is all about the kids, it is all about the complementarity of the sexes, and it is all about the life-time commitment. Is this the same as a same-sex union? Does the sexuality of two gay men, the core of who they are, compliment each other the same way as the sexuality, the psychology, and the nature of a man and a woman does? Does the relationship between a husband and a wife have the same dynamics and compliments as the spouses of a same-sex union? The answer is no. No matter how hard a man will try, he can never be a woman. He may look, talk, and act like a woman, but we need to ask ourselves if our sexual identity subsists only in our appearance and our actions. If that is the case, then by all means, a man who gets a sex change is now a woman. However, following the same logic, a woman who has been badly burnt so that all of her feminine features have been scorched away, and has lost the capacity to walk and talk, is she still a woman? That is, if we lost the apperance of being men and women, would we still be men and women? Of course. Our sexual identity must go much deeper than our appearances since men and women differ on so many ontological, emotional, and relational ways -- hence, the complimentary nature of the relationships between men and women.
The next point: Equality
When we speak of wanting equality, do we want to make everything the same, so as to abolish all stigmas and apparent divisions? Or is equality based on legal recognition and the capacity to make legally recognized choices? Does equality go deeper than "same-ness" and legal and social freedoms? Is everyone inherently equal? Many proponents of same-sex marriage attest that their plight is the very same fight for civil liberties as the African-American and feminist movements grapled with in the mid-20th century. However, the logic of same-sex marriage advocates seems to revolve around the idea that equality is only found in being legally recognized as the same, as opposed to equality being found in one's nature and substance. That is, they passionately long for legal equality, and in their struggle they claim that their argument is just since it is synonymous with the African-American fight for civil rights -- meanwhile ignoring the fact that the "African-American fight for civil rights" was about acknowledging the inherent equality found within all human persons, while a same-sex union is not at all the same as a civil marriage. If we were to follow their logic it would seem plausable that the only thing that makes African-Americans equal to the rest of Americans is the fact that they have been legally recognized as equal, their inherent nature as human persons had nothing to do with it. To illustrate my point a little further I will claim that the argument for same-sex marriage is analogous to an argument that wants to ... say ... call an orange an apple -- their nature is different, but since apples are sold more often and eaten more readily, any attempt to label them as distinct is an act of inequality and ought to be resolved. They are both fruit, not one is less than the other, but to equate them would be unjust since their nature keeps them distinct -- an orange will never be the same as an apple, just as a same-sex union will never be the same as a marriage since their very own natures keep them distinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
