I, too, want your lollipop.
Two children were walking down the road. One had a lollipop in hand. The other wanted it. It was made clear that it was his lollipop and, therefore, could only be his (because it was his). But the other insisted that he too has the right to it and he sat there and protested because it couldn't be his as well. He wanted his right to be #equal and exercise it.
That how simplistic I'd make this whole #equality thing. There are a myriad of issues it represents and hardly solves but it had been made the face of all of them. For the record, I am not for it for many reasons.
#1 Sanctity
This particular kind of #Equality hippyises society. Sanctity is not relative. Sanctity is not a term you use to validate anything you want. If it is, then everything is sacred, and, at the same time, nothing is. It is a term that protects things unending. So then, what's sacred about marriage? Any marriage for that matter. We need to get that straight first. The promise is - 'till death do us part'. Check. But then till death do what us part? Two committed individuals? Check. But then what about what we may term as 'free civil unions'. There are civil unions in some countries in which bi-sexuals have two partners (that's three in all) and are in a legal civil union. So now sanctity has an increased scope? I can have committed to more than one partner and sanctity remain sacrosanct? Or must we, then, throw these words right out the window?
#2 Equating what?
What makes the world go round (romance is only a small part of survival) is not all that fluffy stuff but its social (and biological) functions as well.
It is impossible for any of us reading this to actually have gay biological parents. Well, that's because it is impossible to have gay biological parents. And, surprisingly, it takes the opposite of the same same cycle to go further on generationally. Of course, well, gay parents can adopt, surrogate or test tube but that was hardly the process that first ever kickstarted their existence.
So, as a norm to escape this biological construct, buying this natural process out from a woman is not any worthy fit to the actual process. Moreover, a person's right to make and keep a happy family is almost exactly the same as his responsibility in bringing up a child in this world. If you can manufacture that process, you can make it almost anything you like and address with almost any virtue you please by calling it a 'right', there's something wrong. You can't hijack the chicken and egg process per se as a bonafide process (in order to have a happy family), can you? That's some value there. Remember, sanctity?
Straight parents do all of this as well at times, but then, this isn't about adoption rights; this is about #Equality. But then, straight parents do it either willingly to help people who don't have parents or because sometimes they are infertile. But then even homosexuals and lesbians are biologically capable to reproduce as well, yes, regardless of their sexual orientation, of course with the same exceptions. So, lesbians choose not to reproduce their own because they want to have their own child with their partner but they're not biologically designed to, together? Ditto for homosexuals?
So this is #Equality based on what now? I'm confused. #Equality we're born with, or one that we just simply demand? What's the reasonable fuss about really?
#3 Love and fresh air: good and healthy, but won't run the world
Being in love is alright and wonderful, so is being happy, and must be allowed, and was, all the while intertwined into the fabric of life. All that was how the world was till #equality was the measure and validator of the breaths everyone takes.
Now if you are queer and you have known the ultimate expression of love to be marriage, well, that's what your next logical step is - and that logical step is the very firm root of society. When you're gay and you get to start a family, you become that unit. It's one of the most important units of family. It, among other things, gives a child a healthy, steady, caring place to grow up in. It forms their identity. Well, a dad can't be a mom, simply because a mom must be a woman, and vice-versa. Woman and men each have their roles and moms and dads do them. Imagine when your daughter is going through her bodily changes, and she comes to you, what will you tell her, or vice-versa with a son? If you happen to be a legitimate triad or more civil union (in case of bi-sexuals), what will your children learn about sanctity of anything? There is also polygamy with straight people, but most of those cases are not to ensure consented sexual variety. What value base are you professing, larger and culturally?
There are cases when single parents bring children up. There, the excuse is either divorce, or single parenthood. Then again, the child not made to be the dream-catchee for the gay family hopefuls who seek to redesign almost every identity and value system in the world. Is the fight for #Equality really just a we-want-to-do-what-we-please thing, and it's our right to happiness? If it is, there is no sense in even seeing reason in the demands.
Now the question: "We are gay, inescapably, and, being so, we also have the right to the family, love and happiness." Well, I'll say this. That lollipop is the other person's, not yours, not if you're going to systemically upset this entire natural cycle at whim and fancy. The idea is not to stall love and companionship. You can't just transplant happy ideas into systems of sustenance as you please. The idea is to not ruin the balance of how things were which we are discovering as we go along. Not to hijack the process.
It's not about #Equality. It's about #Equality of preference, and that's not how you gauge #Equality. It's about right precedent, with exceptions, not just plain outcome.
I'm not sure yet what the poster campaign is about, but even for the reason it has, it's overrated by the people of the protest. Any anti-thought is hate mongering. Any one opposing is homophobic. Why people who are for it with reason can't accept reason in return is another story. Opposition is always blindly questionable. Pro-thought is never. Any quote (in or out of context) that has the few keywords in support makes the guy who said it a superstar. Somehow, now everybody must be forced to accept it. Does it mandate loss of civility in existence and discussion? The arguments, hardly consistent, swing in any convenient direction to make it about an issue it's really not - divorce, love, bigotry. Again, it's hardly about equality. It's about lots more, or just lots and lots of frenzy. The issue is not a litmus test for society. There are graver issues. There's probably a better saner way to deal with it.
As for gays getting married, the law will have to decide, and I have no problem with it, though I don't accept it personally, for reasons mentioned above. But I can't stop anyone with my opinion, and I'm all ears for a rebuttal. I see two options though. One, redefine marriage and let the opposers and religions decide whether they oppose and marry, differently to it. The other, there's civil union and granting the rights that bringing up a child come with. I'm not sure yet how happiness comes in the way, even if this is not done though. What's in a name and title if all that matters is, "I do", right? Am I missing any finer details?
That how simplistic I'd make this whole #equality thing. There are a myriad of issues it represents and hardly solves but it had been made the face of all of them. For the record, I am not for it for many reasons.
#1 Sanctity
This particular kind of #Equality hippyises society. Sanctity is not relative. Sanctity is not a term you use to validate anything you want. If it is, then everything is sacred, and, at the same time, nothing is. It is a term that protects things unending. So then, what's sacred about marriage? Any marriage for that matter. We need to get that straight first. The promise is - 'till death do us part'. Check. But then till death do what us part? Two committed individuals? Check. But then what about what we may term as 'free civil unions'. There are civil unions in some countries in which bi-sexuals have two partners (that's three in all) and are in a legal civil union. So now sanctity has an increased scope? I can have committed to more than one partner and sanctity remain sacrosanct? Or must we, then, throw these words right out the window?
#2 Equating what?
What makes the world go round (romance is only a small part of survival) is not all that fluffy stuff but its social (and biological) functions as well.
It is impossible for any of us reading this to actually have gay biological parents. Well, that's because it is impossible to have gay biological parents. And, surprisingly, it takes the opposite of the same same cycle to go further on generationally. Of course, well, gay parents can adopt, surrogate or test tube but that was hardly the process that first ever kickstarted their existence.
So, as a norm to escape this biological construct, buying this natural process out from a woman is not any worthy fit to the actual process. Moreover, a person's right to make and keep a happy family is almost exactly the same as his responsibility in bringing up a child in this world. If you can manufacture that process, you can make it almost anything you like and address with almost any virtue you please by calling it a 'right', there's something wrong. You can't hijack the chicken and egg process per se as a bonafide process (in order to have a happy family), can you? That's some value there. Remember, sanctity?
Straight parents do all of this as well at times, but then, this isn't about adoption rights; this is about #Equality. But then, straight parents do it either willingly to help people who don't have parents or because sometimes they are infertile. But then even homosexuals and lesbians are biologically capable to reproduce as well, yes, regardless of their sexual orientation, of course with the same exceptions. So, lesbians choose not to reproduce their own because they want to have their own child with their partner but they're not biologically designed to, together? Ditto for homosexuals?
So this is #Equality based on what now? I'm confused. #Equality we're born with, or one that we just simply demand? What's the reasonable fuss about really?
#3 Love and fresh air: good and healthy, but won't run the world
Being in love is alright and wonderful, so is being happy, and must be allowed, and was, all the while intertwined into the fabric of life. All that was how the world was till #equality was the measure and validator of the breaths everyone takes.
Now if you are queer and you have known the ultimate expression of love to be marriage, well, that's what your next logical step is - and that logical step is the very firm root of society. When you're gay and you get to start a family, you become that unit. It's one of the most important units of family. It, among other things, gives a child a healthy, steady, caring place to grow up in. It forms their identity. Well, a dad can't be a mom, simply because a mom must be a woman, and vice-versa. Woman and men each have their roles and moms and dads do them. Imagine when your daughter is going through her bodily changes, and she comes to you, what will you tell her, or vice-versa with a son? If you happen to be a legitimate triad or more civil union (in case of bi-sexuals), what will your children learn about sanctity of anything? There is also polygamy with straight people, but most of those cases are not to ensure consented sexual variety. What value base are you professing, larger and culturally?
There are cases when single parents bring children up. There, the excuse is either divorce, or single parenthood. Then again, the child not made to be the dream-catchee for the gay family hopefuls who seek to redesign almost every identity and value system in the world. Is the fight for #Equality really just a we-want-to-do-what-we-please thing, and it's our right to happiness? If it is, there is no sense in even seeing reason in the demands.
Now the question: "We are gay, inescapably, and, being so, we also have the right to the family, love and happiness." Well, I'll say this. That lollipop is the other person's, not yours, not if you're going to systemically upset this entire natural cycle at whim and fancy. The idea is not to stall love and companionship. You can't just transplant happy ideas into systems of sustenance as you please. The idea is to not ruin the balance of how things were which we are discovering as we go along. Not to hijack the process.
It's not about #Equality. It's about #Equality of preference, and that's not how you gauge #Equality. It's about right precedent, with exceptions, not just plain outcome.
I'm not sure yet what the poster campaign is about, but even for the reason it has, it's overrated by the people of the protest. Any anti-thought is hate mongering. Any one opposing is homophobic. Why people who are for it with reason can't accept reason in return is another story. Opposition is always blindly questionable. Pro-thought is never. Any quote (in or out of context) that has the few keywords in support makes the guy who said it a superstar. Somehow, now everybody must be forced to accept it. Does it mandate loss of civility in existence and discussion? The arguments, hardly consistent, swing in any convenient direction to make it about an issue it's really not - divorce, love, bigotry. Again, it's hardly about equality. It's about lots more, or just lots and lots of frenzy. The issue is not a litmus test for society. There are graver issues. There's probably a better saner way to deal with it.
As for gays getting married, the law will have to decide, and I have no problem with it, though I don't accept it personally, for reasons mentioned above. But I can't stop anyone with my opinion, and I'm all ears for a rebuttal. I see two options though. One, redefine marriage and let the opposers and religions decide whether they oppose and marry, differently to it. The other, there's civil union and granting the rights that bringing up a child come with. I'm not sure yet how happiness comes in the way, even if this is not done though. What's in a name and title if all that matters is, "I do", right? Am I missing any finer details?
Comments
Post a Comment