Apr 6, 2012
The warrior against gay marriage is religion. And I'm being kind when I say this, because another popular argument has to do with nature - and this one is so preposterous that I'll deal with it first and then move on to religion.
People of the same gender cannot procreate.
No kidding! Before I follow the
absurdity logic of this argument to its conclusion, let me first give you this scenario.
The entire world has gone gay. There are now worries that we humans will die out because, well, two people of the same gender cannot procreate.
Are we really that stupid? Do you honestly believe that we would allow our species to wither away? Of course not!We would procreate. We would do it either with artificial insemination or figure out some other solution. Ah yes, but this is not natural, the opposition says. And this leads me into my next,
equally absurd point: that homosexuality isn't natural.
First of all, if one can truly articulate the intentions and definitions of nature, then this person has figured out all of the mysteries of the universe. Realistically, we don't even know how (or, for that matter, why) a flower grows, so I'd suggest that before we begin to tackle the big questions concerning nature, we deal with the "little ones" first. We have almost no language to explain nature, and the language that we do possess, from both the humanities and the social and hard sciences, is woefully inadequate because it can only suggest possibilities of that which is observable. Science has, indeed, evolved so that we can see the workings of the quantum level of physics, for example, but so what? We're still only observing what's happening. We're light years away from deducing any sort of meaning out of the collection of data that we've thus far obtained. In other words, it isn't as though we can that, Okay, so because the neutrino is able to pass through tunnels of matter, it's clear that if we introduce the matter/energy which fuels the neutrino and convert it into a self-replicating, organically matched white blood cell, we can cure all disease. So again, baby steps, please.
Now, to follow the logic of the ability to procreate as a prerequisite for marriage, only those who, in fact, do procreate can be considered married. This means, then, that people who are unable to conceive, whose sperm count is too low, or some other medical malady that prevents them from the ability to create new life should, likewise, not be recognized as married. And what about those couples who simply decide that they'd rather not have children. According to this absurd logic, their marriages will have to be dissolved, as well. And what about those families whose children are killed by disease, accident, etc.? What, do we send some government lackey to go knocking on their door to announce, Hey, I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but because you no longer have a child, you can no longer be married. However, if, in the future, you decide to.....
Absurd, ridiculous, and not worth any more of our time.
And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, for the religious argument - which is disguised as the "moral argument," and I say moral argument because without religion, there would be no morality. But that's a different article!
But before I continue, please understand that I'm articulating this argument by using the same logic as those who are against gay marriage. For those who understand the reality that disallowing gay marriage is pure and simple discrimination and bigotry, this may all sound a bit too prosaic...but then again, so is the logic.
In the beginning, there was the word. And there's your first problem: Language is uniquely "mortal." Virtually all species speak a common language...but why? Are there any alternatives to language? Language is form, and form codifies (and, by its very definition, restricts) the mind's creations into a locally understandable lexicon. This lexicon allows for communication. But still, form is restrictive, reductive. For example, how many times during a conversation have you been unable to put your finger on the word you're looking for? You know the "word," you just can't access it in your mind and "convert" it into language so that you can speak it. Imagine, then, if we could wear a special helmet that would allow our thoughts to be transferred into language! This is not the same thing as working out each sentence and this device would then have the capability to transcribe it from brain to computer; no, instead, the device would take your thoughts and construct linguistic regularity in that it would create the sentences and paragraphs and, ultimately, the entire work for you based on what you were creating in your mind.
Why, then, would "God" use language, the most base and restrictive form of communication, to amplify his most sacred inner thoughts? From the standing that God "wrote the bible" (or dictated it in whatever way you choose to believe), the only acceptable conclusion is that he wouldn't. He would communicate with us on a completely different plane, one of which we're only vaguely acquainted: the inner workings of our creative (mind) processes.
From the persecution of witches, of Jews, of homosexuals, of women to the slavery and intermarriage, it all came out of the muck-and-mire of religion. There is no "moral" law on any book at any point in time from any government that held these ideas and beliefs that did so not from a religious point-of-view. Not one!
Religion, because of its colossal arrogance, attempts to ratify nature anywhere it finds a disparity between (human) nature and its power and control over the people. It is an absurd, unkind, and arrogant distortion of (nature) our world that's driven completely by humankind's blood-lust of power. Its fundamental, primary thesis - no matter which "text" you choose to believe - is to disassociate nature (what is natural) from from the human being by demonizing it. It is only once this disassociation is completely believed by the masses that religion can operate. In other words, it is only when you "kidnap" humankind and whisk them into a very carefully constructed "alternate reality" whose primary mission is to demonize the land from which they were kidnapped (nature) can you insert these "new rules" (beliefs). And what better way to answer the countless questions of credibility than to say "God commands it, and if we disobey, we'll go to this terrible place called hell. So listen to me because I'm the one he put in charge."
Lastly, in order to understand just how this occurred in the first place, it's important to understand that the world was a much smaller and more centralized place that it is today. Therefore, creating this kind of belief system was much easier to accomplish than it would be today. It could, of course, still be done - just look at Apple Computers and remember that you're not buying a computer, and iPhone, or an iPad, you're buying into a culture, into a belief system.
In conclusion, there is no rational, reasonable against gay marriage - or, for that matter, homosexuality. Once you strip away this very toxic veneer and are able to view nature not through the lens of any ideology but instead by simply observing and listening, you will discover a completely new world - devoid of bigotry and hatred and anti-intellectualism, and cruelty - that's been here all along.