 Mar
8 |
|
Homosexuality, Marriage, and the State
 Permalink 4 comments  Society |
Legislators in Puerto Rico have recently attempted to pass Resolution 99, which would have defined marriage as an exclusive union between a man and woman.  Previous administrations have chosen not to touch the subject, with the former President of the House stating that "Puerto Rican wasn't ready for it yet". The Resolution causes me some conflict, for I've felt that it's not necessarily the appropriate course to address the issue. I'll get back to the Resolution later.
I have strong opinions in regards of the issue of gay marriage along with mixed and sometimes conflicting takes on the subject. I ask my readers to please read this entire post before ruffling their feathers; I might say some things that could piss people off, but I'm sure that by the end of this post you'll understand my position, though not necessarily agree with it. I oppose all forms of discrimination against the gay community and strongly condone any sort of acts of hate committed towards it. I have no negative feelings towards the gay community, but I do have some disagreement and/or apathy for a few of the issues that they push.
First, I would like to point out that statistics show that the average homosexual individual can have hundreds of sexual partners in their lifetime. Relationships are short-lived and highly promiscuous, statistics show. I used to work in a tourism-based business in the Gay District of San Juan and have seen for myself the promiscuity and liberalism taken up by many (not all) homosexual couples. Taking such numbers into consideration, I have don't even know why many homosexuals would even want to get married. Personally, I've seen efforts on behalf of the gay rights community as a move simply to call attention and acceptance to their community. Statistically speaking (and I stress the statistical part), the average homosexual person has no practical need to take part in the traditional act of marriage. I believe that the gay community simply uses the issue to rally their members and sympathizers around the flag. Do their sexual practices make them wrong? No. Does this mean that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry? Not necessarily...
Second, I don't consider homosexuality as "natural" (I know this will cause lots of negative comments - Julia, I love you). Sexuality and gender roles are learned traits and socially acquired. There are cultures and tribes where some masculine traits are considered feminism in others. Biologically speaking, our bodies are not designed for homosexual interaction. Also, I ask why is it that homosexuality is so much more prolific in industrialized modern countries? Why is it that they tend to belong to the middle-upper classes? It is my opinion that the individualization of our sexuality and the growth of homosexuality is the next step in individualization, somewhere after protestantism and capitalism. If you observe mankind in its "natural" hunter-gatherism state, you'll see that though there have been tribes that have incorporated some acts of homosexuality into their rituals, all tribes are structured around heterosexual partnerships. Thus, anthropologically and biologically speaking one can say that homosexuality is a learned trait. I believe that all humans may at times have a thought, curiosity, or tenancy towards homosexuality, and may often at times confuse this for having been born homosexual.
Does this make homosexuality wrong? No. Personally, I think that wage slavery, food additives, and modern lifestyles are not only more unnatural than homosexuality, but represent a bigger threat to our survival as a specifies. Homosexuality is a learned social trait, but that doesn't mean that people should be prevented from practicing it. Language is learned, and so are professions, music tastes, and taboos. Though I do not agree that homosexuals are "born" homosexual, I do acknowledge it as a preference and respect it as so.
Third, I believe that current marriage laws discriminate between married and non-married couples. Tax, estate, and property laws should be revamped (or eliminated) to assure equal treatment between married and non-married couples. Such a move would eliminate such legal benefits from marriage and would thus discredit the gay marriage movement. What would be the reasons they would push for gay marriage then? For religious acknowledgment? Sorry, but the state doesn't intervene in that.
That's what brings me to my fourth point. I do not believe that the state should enter into marriage at all. I think that it should be a private or religious agreement, and not a legal one. If you marry in a Catholic Church and want a divorce, you must do it through the Catholic Church. The February 16th issue of the Economist published an article on the role of religious courts in Western society. It discussed examples of how the rulings of such courts have effected the rulings of public courts. I would take it a step further and remove the state from such cases entirely. Want to get married? Fine. Two men, or a couple of three, or a man and his mule can get married. Just find an institution that will do it for you. Only thing, is that since the state wouldn't have a role in it anymore, you would have to abide by that institution's rules and even its courts.
|
|
|
4 Comments: