Here's an interesting one. The UK Government is deciding whether to legalise gay marriage. An emotive topic, no doubt and problematic, intrinsically problematic! Civil partnerships and equal rights for gay people (the latter is a must) may raise eyebrows, however legalising gay marriage raises objections that are not based on prejudice (although I'm sure there are those that argue everything that is spoken by a heterosexual individual is prejudiced) but on absurdity!
Whereas all human activity contains elements of politics, there are fundamental realities within societies that are commonsensical. For example, it makes sense to have health care for those who are ill as people get ill. It makes sense to have work for people to do because people require products and services. Reasonable? I thought so. It makes sense to have marriage for heterosexual couples as this acts as a way providing a stable and lasting base to bring up children successfully. Whether people agree with the religious aspects of marriage and the political elements is another matter, but the fundamental argument is reasonable.
Gay marriage is different. Let's clear away the prejudice. Let's say we want equal rights for gay people as fellow human beings. Let's say that we don't want to prevent gay people from getting married because we want power over them and wish to keep them oppressed. OK, so what are we left with? It seems we are left with a situation that is hyperreal; a simulacrum. We are left with an actuality that no longer bears any relation to the original occurrence. This, essentially is a flawed concept that reflects Western, cultural trends and, in doing so adds to the gradual dismantling of Western power. Is gay marriage, therefore, a good idea?
Of course there are arguments that the notion of the heterosexual sex act is somehow flawed in the sense that we are regarding something that is authentic (as a means to have children naturally) as intrinsic to marriage. Authenticity is authenticity. It would not be commonsensical nor realistic to say that a tree is not a tree and doesn't grow leaves! Indeed, if there is a good reason for something to occur, then why change it?
Should surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination and adoption become more commonplace? Surely, commonsensically, these practices should not be considered primary but a way of having children where the usual, natural means has not been successful. If this not the case then we are creating an increasingly artificial society, that leaves the door open for greater use of legislation and governmental control, that increases the hyperreal aspects of contemporary, Western societies, dismantles family life and the Western power base and creates a theatre-absurd, where it is impossible to comprehend any point or justification for the legalisation of gay marriage. The latter is particularly relevant as gay couples can already enter into a civil partnership. Increases in artificial insemination may also pave the way to more genetic experiments on human embryos that could have devastating consequences.
It seems that we should think very carefully before we legalise gay marriage as it may have profound consequences that affect us all.
Whereas all human activity contains elements of politics, there are fundamental realities within societies that are commonsensical. For example, it makes sense to have health care for those who are ill as people get ill. It makes sense to have work for people to do because people require products and services. Reasonable? I thought so. It makes sense to have marriage for heterosexual couples as this acts as a way providing a stable and lasting base to bring up children successfully. Whether people agree with the religious aspects of marriage and the political elements is another matter, but the fundamental argument is reasonable.
Gay marriage is different. Let's clear away the prejudice. Let's say we want equal rights for gay people as fellow human beings. Let's say that we don't want to prevent gay people from getting married because we want power over them and wish to keep them oppressed. OK, so what are we left with? It seems we are left with a situation that is hyperreal; a simulacrum. We are left with an actuality that no longer bears any relation to the original occurrence. This, essentially is a flawed concept that reflects Western, cultural trends and, in doing so adds to the gradual dismantling of Western power. Is gay marriage, therefore, a good idea?
Of course there are arguments that the notion of the heterosexual sex act is somehow flawed in the sense that we are regarding something that is authentic (as a means to have children naturally) as intrinsic to marriage. Authenticity is authenticity. It would not be commonsensical nor realistic to say that a tree is not a tree and doesn't grow leaves! Indeed, if there is a good reason for something to occur, then why change it?
Should surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination and adoption become more commonplace? Surely, commonsensically, these practices should not be considered primary but a way of having children where the usual, natural means has not been successful. If this not the case then we are creating an increasingly artificial society, that leaves the door open for greater use of legislation and governmental control, that increases the hyperreal aspects of contemporary, Western societies, dismantles family life and the Western power base and creates a theatre-absurd, where it is impossible to comprehend any point or justification for the legalisation of gay marriage. The latter is particularly relevant as gay couples can already enter into a civil partnership. Increases in artificial insemination may also pave the way to more genetic experiments on human embryos that could have devastating consequences.
It seems that we should think very carefully before we legalise gay marriage as it may have profound consequences that affect us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment