quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2011
TEc - "This house believes that gay marriage should be legal?" Why I believe not.
There's a bit of a confusion when it comes to sensitive human issues such as this one.
To push the notion that same-sex marriage is no different from opposite-sex marriage is utterly annoying for want of a better word.
At the core it isn't even about definition of marriage in the traditional institutional sense, such is the huge chasm between the two types of intimate human relationships.
While one blends in perfectly with Nature as Nature made it out to be, the other goes blatantly against it.
This is why same-sex pairings will always remain in the minority and human societies will predominantly wish to keep it that way - including many advocates of and members of the same-gender-union club.
How else would they have been placed on Earth in the first place?
Quite a separate issue is the legal, civil-rights, no-discrimination-against, full citizenship that must be awarded to people who fall for people of the same sex.
It could be called a civil-union or any other name that may be found appropriate.But a distinction should exist underscoring that indeed it is unlike the other union binding male to female that came to be known as marriage down the ages.
For Nature-related reasons.
Therefore for natural arguments.Not man-made ones originating from religious practices, cultural barriers, legal frameworks or any other.
Unfortunately in this time and age we have chosen the easy path to deal with divisive societal issues.
This debate is essentially not about semantics.
It is greatly about how we view ourselves as a species, inherently one of many inhabiting planet Earth.
How do we fit in and show respect for Mother-Nature following its laws first before bowing to any artificial ones. The latter are likely rooted in skewed views to suit our own convenience.
Or the latest fad or airing of political correctness.
To push the notion that same-sex marriage is no different from opposite-sex marriage is utterly annoying for want of a better word.
At the core it isn't even about definition of marriage in the traditional institutional sense, such is the huge chasm between the two types of intimate human relationships.
While one blends in perfectly with Nature as Nature made it out to be, the other goes blatantly against it.
This is why same-sex pairings will always remain in the minority and human societies will predominantly wish to keep it that way - including many advocates of and members of the same-gender-union club.
How else would they have been placed on Earth in the first place?
Quite a separate issue is the legal, civil-rights, no-discrimination-against, full citizenship that must be awarded to people who fall for people of the same sex.
It could be called a civil-union or any other name that may be found appropriate.But a distinction should exist underscoring that indeed it is unlike the other union binding male to female that came to be known as marriage down the ages.
For Nature-related reasons.
Therefore for natural arguments.Not man-made ones originating from religious practices, cultural barriers, legal frameworks or any other.
Unfortunately in this time and age we have chosen the easy path to deal with divisive societal issues.
This debate is essentially not about semantics.
It is greatly about how we view ourselves as a species, inherently one of many inhabiting planet Earth.
How do we fit in and show respect for Mother-Nature following its laws first before bowing to any artificial ones. The latter are likely rooted in skewed views to suit our own convenience.
Or the latest fad or airing of political correctness.
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário