same sex marriages

for those of you who do not want their beliefs system disturbed and questioned, read no further. this blog is totally about being forced to question your(my) beliefs about homosexuals and their right to make such choices about their lifestyles and to be legally and morally accepted for their choices through the institution of marriage

this is not a topic that i am entirely comfortable with. so why am i writing about it? well first of all the question of legalising same sex marrriage is a topic of hot debate in america and especially in liberal california and much more so in super liberal berkeley and very much so in my super super liberal department.... so much so that it is a segment of my law course and i have to write a paper on it. so nomatter how much i tried to avoid the debate generally by turning a bling ear to it and more specifically by not participating in class on this topic (and not even doing the readings) just because it made me uncomfortable and it is not something that i feel is one of concern to me, since i am not going to be living in this country after i am done with my studies.

i never really thought about gay / lesbian relationships before... thats not to say that i was against it... i just never really thought about it except for peripherally, and had this nebulous idea that it is not allowed by our religion. and now that im being forced to think about it, im put in the uncomfortable position of having to accept that the arguements for not only accepting gay and lesbian relationships in society, but giving such couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. of course this have only theoretical applications is pak, but in america they have a very immediate and practical application and consequences.

religious arguements against being gay are based on what exactly... that it is wrong and immoral? but why is it immoral? i have found in my limited knowledge of islam that there is a reason behind every law, every injunction, every do adn dont. what is the logic for this? i really dont know and cannot fathom and i want to find out. one possible arguement is that marriage (and sex) exist for the purpose of procreation, and homosexuality defeats this purpose and if openly allowed would bring life on earth to a screaching halt. but really!!! how much of the population can concievable be gay..... even allowing for the people that are closet homosexuals and are not open about their sexual preferences because of society's dissaproval.... even then the percentage of people who are homosexual is in no way large enough to threaten the procreative capacity of human beings. and there are examples in nature about the homosexual nature of selects members of a species (certain birds, monkeys) so by no means is homosexuality an unnatural concept.

every other example of prohibition of sexually aberrant behaviour has a reason in nature or logic. incest: inbreeding causes the weakening of the gene pool and produces off-spring that are genetically weaker in any number of ways and hence there is a threat to the survival of humans. adultry: third party harm, the person that is being cheated on is being harmed. pre-marital sex: if a child is born of that union, the child is set up for direct harm for a variety of reasons. promiscuity: spread of sexual diseases. homosexuality is also said to have a hand in the spread of disease, but that pre-supposes that homosexuals are inherently promiscuous. and is that really a valid assumption?

interestingly enough in a class discussion about the different unacceptable types of sexual behaviour, the question of polygamy arose. and thats a whole other discussion... if americans are willing to accept gay marriage as an alternative lifestyle why are they so against polygamy? if there are all consenting adults (which itself is debatable) but in ideal circumstances there is nothing fundamentally wrong with polygamy.... are they against it simply because it is a lifestyle that comes out of the dreaded and feared east??

hoomosexuals are portrayed as corrupt and immoral and promiscuous. is it in their nature to be so or is it becuase they are forced into such a role by society. and are they really corrupt and immoral or have they just been given negative publicity by a fearful and society in an effort to protect their children from the crime of being gay?

every person has the right to a life free from oppression and discrimination and prejudice. but being gay means being shunned in society. so why would anyone volutatily choose a life where they are abhorred by society. in most cases they wouldnt. so maybe homosexuality is something someone is born with, like the colour of their skin or their gender. they have no choice in the matter, so why should they be treated like something unnatural? and like any other person, dont they have the same rights in life. the right to be with whomever they want... the right to marry whomever they want?

ok so maybe we shouldnt shun them from society, but why do we need to give them the right to marry? well why not? because marriage is the purpose of creating a family. and do we want gay /lesbian couples to raise children. that is an entirely different debate, about what is the right model to raise a child and how harmful would it be for a child to be raised in a family that is so different from the norm? (imagine ross's son ben a few years from now in high school and the amount of teasing he would get fo having two mommies!)

personally i dont know if im ready to accept the openess of homosexual relations and the possibility of same sex marriages in america, but then again im not sure im ready to accept a lot of the culture of america. thats what comes of studying in such a liberal place... you are brought up against so many different and new ideas, it almost feels like an assult. whether u buckle and fall under the assault and hide from reality or assimilate and make a sense of what is and is not acceptable to you, well that is something that time will tell. one thing i do know... i have learnt more about myself in these last few months than i have in a long time.

and now that i have gotten my feelings about this entire issue out in a veeeery long blog, i have to get down to writing my paper..... i have to write both sides of the story, for and against. have to provide legal and other strategies for getting hte same sex marriage bill accepted (or rejected). and that is what started this questioning in the first place.... its so much easier to provide solid reason for rather than against same sex marriages. by the end of this paper i am going to have such a schizopherenia of personality!!!