Light – The Argument For/Against Gay Marriage

In Uncategorized on January 9, 2012 by Star-Light

As usual, this site is never about taking sides; it is instead concerned with exposing some otherwise obscure historical facts that might help you hone your own arguments on the topic.

What is marriage? If it constitutes a close and intimate union in which two people breed and raise children, then let us remember that in ancient times royals married blood-relations to maintain their wealth (eg. In Ancient Egypt, Cleopatra married her younger brother). Apart from incest, polygamy and homosexuality were also rampant. These views echoed through the sexual fluidity of the ancient Gods (eg. Zeus copulates with his own sisters or daughters). That is to say that they were “normal” at the time. In other words, the behavior of the people went in unison with their own ideologies of divinity.

The Abrahamic religions intended to regulate society (the way that the government of China, say, establishes a fine for the second child). It is important to note that these older times saw a much higher degree of mortality rates as well as of diseases. Hence, they regulated the institution of corporeal union among humans. In this light, they regarded man and woman the principal participants in this affair. Why? Because, on the one hand, it establishes strict moral codes for each gender (a woman bears kids, thus, she needs to be hidden and shouldn’t attract attention from other males, thus she needs to close her legs when she sits, thus she needs to lower her voice when she talks, thus she needs to avert her eyes, thus she cannot wear makeup, thus she needs to be obedient to her husband’s commands, and so on and so forth, each moral code builds upon the stark division of sex in order to clarify and regulate everyone’s task in society). On the other hand, it ensures that the covenant of a particular religion (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) continues to grow in number and expand in influence. If more humans experienced sexual fluidity and mingled bloodlines, it would grow increasingly difficult to regulate society, or even to maintain its development.

However, while homosexuality is highly discouraged by these Abrahamic religions, both incest and polygamy (and one might add age of consent) enjoy more freedom in their application. For instance, Islam allows family cousins to marry though they descend from the same bloodline; it allows a husband to take up to four wives simultaneously; and it does not penalize a sixty-year-old from marrying a young girl who hits puberty at, say, ten-years of age. Why? Because while questionable every one of these points leads to the expansion of the Islamic state through more births. Hence, while marrying a cousin may increase your chance of carrying a disease, it still contributes to the making of more Muslims. The same goes with polygamy as well as the lack of age of consent. Homosexuality, on the other hand, not only contributes to the stunting of the growth of society (because gay people can’t technically give birth), but it also mitigates the importance of marriage, which is so profoundly important that Islam regards it as fifty percent of anyone’s religion (for instance, if more people realized that not everyone has to have kids, this will jeopardize the enlargement of the religious state).

It should be clear now why religion opposes homosexuality. The question is, then, why should gay people want to get married? And why do they wish to do so within the same religious institution that deems them sick, abnormal, or even sinful?

The answer is two-fold: for social and economic privileges.

We live in a time in which, while societies generally browse religious discourse, they obey the rules of a secular, global economy in the end. This means that many rules, which seem in the first glance, as religious-based, are at the end determined by economic and political knowledge.  Society offers married couples economic privileges: such as, an increased paycheck or a home. It also acknowledges particular advances for spousal inheritance. Gay people lose on all these economic goodies.

The other argument is social. Homosexuality deviates from the norm. And as it is not grounded in a religious union at the end, it appears to the naked eye as erratic and mercurial. Hence, most people confuse homosexuality with promiscuity. This makes them fear homosexuals. Why? Because how would a wife know who to prevent her husband from seeing after work or traveling with? Moreover, how could she know for sure that the “gays” won’t disrupt the sanctity of her marriage—since they obviously don’t hold marriage in high esteem or else they would have become straight? Thus, homosexuals desire social acceptance and inclusion. They argue for marriage to show heterosexuals that “they are just like them,” capable of maintaining long term relationships, and thus, abiding by the same moral code, and experiencing the same fears and insecurities. When disputing gay marriage, in the West, they may argue that it equates to polygamy (which is what Rick Santorum said a couple of days ago). But the argument holds no sway in an Islamic society which does not regard the multiplicity of partners as immoral. It is true that there is a limit (four wives simultaneously, and never more than one husband), but the fact that it legitimizes the theory itself is testament to its “normalcy.” In other words, Islam assumes that having more than one partner is quite within human nature; but in order not to mess up society’s structure, some rules need to be issued to maintain its regulation. Similarly, in Western societies, there is technically no law against the bedding of various people. You can have a boyfriend of many years and cheat on him without having to subject yourself to either religious or social scrutiny. If you were married, your husband might choose to divorce you. If you were dating, he can’t appeal to society or to his Church.

Some people, who hope to discourage homosexuality, associate it to bestiality.  This is also the tresult of Abrahamic thought. Again in Ancient Greece, Zeus (King of the Gods) was quite used to copulating with humans in animal form (eg. Leda and the Swan). Think of all the pagans who worshipped one form of animal or another. It is with the Abrahamic narrative of creation, however, that Man realized that God had created animals for his use and that he was a Master over these animals.

In sum, the case for gay marriage cannot merely consist of “consent.” Moreover, the argument against it cannot herald “abnormality” as a determiner (in fact, the fluidity of sexuality is, historically speaking, much more natural than the regulatory aspect of religious discourse whose discrepancies showcase its weakness). Gay people can tap into the variants of Abrahamic teachings and unravel these unnatural regulations (they could untangle the argument against polygamy for instance, by noting that modern science can identify a baby’s DNA, and that large populations do it anyway). Religious people, on the other hand, can tell homosexuals to stay away from their own religious institutions, because no matter how homosexuals like to assume that religion is inclusive, the historical case differs dramatically.

Light’s out.


One Response to “Light – The Argument For/Against Gay Marriage”

  1. Really good read keep it up

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: