Monday, June 09, 2008

Let them be gay and happy...and married

What is the problem with allowing homosexuals get married? Is it because some religious dictionary defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman? Is that it? Some pathetic piece of scribbling made a few thousand years ago should be the guiding rule for us in the 21st century? Would Jesus really have objected to two men (or women) getting it on for each other? Really? From the guy who spent the best part of his life in the company of 12 other men (this is just to make my point, and I explicitly state that it is not to offend anyone)? And for those who say it's not 'natural' and hence an abomination or a sin, click here and read on.

OK, so far everything I've written has turned out to be a question, but I'd surely like to get an answer to them by those who oppose the 'marriage' of individuals of the same sex. Oh, another question, and this is a biggie: is it because they fear that the next step would be that the 'queers' would then want to adopt children (or in the case of lesbians, have children by visiting the nearest sperm bank)? To which I would ask, 'so what?'.

One possible worrying factor could be that the kids growing up would be ridiculed (possibly by immature children of immature parents) because instead of having a mummy and a daddy, they would probably have a daddy and a daddy or a mummy and a mummy. So what? We're already into an era of single parenthood, where there are times when either there isn't a mummy or a daddy, and no reasons are given to the child in case of separation of the parents during infancy or early childhood. How is the case of growing up with only a mummy or only a daddy different from growing up with two mummies or two daddies? Both are cases that are different from the ordinary, yet both are cases that need to be treated with care and nuanced explanations need to be given to the inquisitive children who ask the 'uncomfortable' questions.

If 'marriage' is something that conservatives want to 'conserve' at all costs, then how about settling for something called a civil union. Not all the 'baggage' that comes with a marriage, but certainly those that allow for parenthood. The finer points can be sorted out later.

Now let's dwell a little on the most important aspect of homosexuality: is it a disease as most religious and homophobic people make it out to be? The answer is quite simply no, it is not. At least, medically, it hasn't been established to be a disease, and certainly not something that can be 'cured', either by reading verses from holy books or by 'smoking' the devil out of your body, or with western or eastern medicine. And contrary to popular (or not so popular) opinion, homosexuality isn't something that cropped up in the early 20th century; it's been around for ages, and was initially ignored or tolerated by the church. However, from around the 12th century, hostility towards this 'unnatural' behaviour began taking root, and soon legislature was passed banning it (at the behest of the church).

It's important to know that a person doesn't 'decide' to 'become' a homosexual; it's not like they wake up one Saturday morning and after realising that they didn't get a date the previous Friday night, they decide to try their luck with the opposite sex. A person is born with that sexuality and will have to live with it for the rest of his or her life. The odds of 'converting' a homosexual into a heterosexual person are about the same as converting a left handed person into a right handed person: just not possible (and James Bond doing it to a lesbian in Octopussy doesn't count!) . So if religious fanatics want homos to be killed or jailed because they aren't the same as the majority and are termed 'unnatural', so are left handers; I don't hear any noise about asking them to be thrown into prison or sent to treatment for doing things differently from the mainstream.

J K Rowling unleashed upon the world the 'true' sexuality of Dumbledore; didn't that warrant an explanation to children by their parents what it meant? And if a series of books, several hundred pages thick that deals with magic and heresy and mystical serpents (thanks to Her Majesty GS for the correction: 'talking' to 'mystical' serpents) and a whole lot of unbelievable stuff, has a character who is the head of a large organisation (almost an institution) and wears a funny hat and colourful robes and a carries a big wand, who ultimately turns out to be gay, then what about this guy?

All with love of course (and a pinch of salt), so please, don't take offense. And just in case there are those who are worried about my orientation, I'm straight!

No comments:
Provided by site.