I originally said I'd opine about the recent debate, but I fear I've wandered off the track slightly in trying to find an original angle to approach the issue on.
For this to be valid, I think the nature of homosexuality must be discussed. I know that there has been some discussion as to whether one is born a homosexual or one's environment 'turns' (if you will) the person into a homosexual. I think this important because I believe one's inherent human rights hinge on whether someone is genetically born into a minority (or majority, as the case may be) or whether someone essentially chooses to join that minority. For example: if someone criticises a black person for being black, I find it simply unacceptable; if someone criticises a Muslim because of his beliefs, I find it acceptable. One can't choose their race, one can choose their beliefs. Of course, this doesn't mean that the religious person isn't entitled to human rights because of his religion - he is, but in certain circumstances, I think this distinction between a member of a minority by birth and a member of a minority by choice is important. Marriage, I believe is one of them.
In the ideal state - which I think we need to aspire to, but aspire never to reach - all people are born with equal rights. As such, if it is the case that a person is born gay, then that person has the inherent right to marry a member of the respective sex to which (s)he bears a sexual orientation towards. As such, the absence of gay marriage would therefore constitute itself as a law against natural equality which - if this law is to be legitimised - the government must make a bloody good case for.
At this stage, I'm reliability informed that homosexuality was deemed a congenital condition in Norris. Furthermore, when I went looking for publications on the issue, I picked two at random and they appear to reinforce the claim that sexuality is determined prior to birth. So, assuming that to be true, is it possible for the government to justify a law against gay marriage. The topic of child-rearing and social stability was brought-up in the recent debate, and I think this is the one case that exudes most weight. If, for example, the childhoods of those raised by homosexual couples were shown to be particularly bad for the person, some might think it wrong to allow gay people to marry, because marriage usually implies the subsequent formation of a family. Of course, this is firstly a slightly different question to that of marriage and secondly a view I don't particularly agree with.
Why? Well, while taking obvious reproductive constraints into account, could the same be applied if research found many children brought-up by black couples were poorly raised? We certainly wouldn't pass laws against black couples reproducing, and even in the midst of this made-up research, refusing a black couple adoption rights on the grounds that they are black would be an example of extreme racial prejudice. As such, I don't find it valid to suggest that gay people should not form families because research might have shown that sometimes the child has a poor upbringing. For the record, I don't know if such research exists, but I don't think it's relevant anyway.
Being a midweek post, it was always going to end up, by its very nature, quite lazy. At the moment, I'm too lazy to search for, assess and analyse other justifications a government might use to justify a law against gay marriage. From here though, I agree with Progressive Ireland, in that I can't see anything to suggest gay marriage would be threatening to stable society. My point is though, that it must be made clear that, because of the Supreme Court sees homosexuality as a congenital condition status - that is, one is born gay - it is not up to gay rights campaigners to persuade the populace that gay marriage is good and proper, but rather, the government must justify why gay marriage should be non-existent, that is to say, illegal.
"It is not the citizens who should justify why a law should be revoked, but the government who need to justify why it's there in the first place. If it doesn't have a very good reason, then it simply must go."The above is an extract of a piece written by Michael a while back. It related to drugs policy, but it was one of his concluding lessons, so shall we try to adapt and interpret it in regards to marriage, without any real background knowledge of the issue, or any qualifications, much less a legal one? Oh, I think we shall.
For this to be valid, I think the nature of homosexuality must be discussed. I know that there has been some discussion as to whether one is born a homosexual or one's environment 'turns' (if you will) the person into a homosexual. I think this important because I believe one's inherent human rights hinge on whether someone is genetically born into a minority (or majority, as the case may be) or whether someone essentially chooses to join that minority. For example: if someone criticises a black person for being black, I find it simply unacceptable; if someone criticises a Muslim because of his beliefs, I find it acceptable. One can't choose their race, one can choose their beliefs. Of course, this doesn't mean that the religious person isn't entitled to human rights because of his religion - he is, but in certain circumstances, I think this distinction between a member of a minority by birth and a member of a minority by choice is important. Marriage, I believe is one of them.
In the ideal state - which I think we need to aspire to, but aspire never to reach - all people are born with equal rights. As such, if it is the case that a person is born gay, then that person has the inherent right to marry a member of the respective sex to which (s)he bears a sexual orientation towards. As such, the absence of gay marriage would therefore constitute itself as a law against natural equality which - if this law is to be legitimised - the government must make a bloody good case for.
At this stage, I'm reliability informed that homosexuality was deemed a congenital condition in Norris. Furthermore, when I went looking for publications on the issue, I picked two at random and they appear to reinforce the claim that sexuality is determined prior to birth. So, assuming that to be true, is it possible for the government to justify a law against gay marriage. The topic of child-rearing and social stability was brought-up in the recent debate, and I think this is the one case that exudes most weight. If, for example, the childhoods of those raised by homosexual couples were shown to be particularly bad for the person, some might think it wrong to allow gay people to marry, because marriage usually implies the subsequent formation of a family. Of course, this is firstly a slightly different question to that of marriage and secondly a view I don't particularly agree with.
Why? Well, while taking obvious reproductive constraints into account, could the same be applied if research found many children brought-up by black couples were poorly raised? We certainly wouldn't pass laws against black couples reproducing, and even in the midst of this made-up research, refusing a black couple adoption rights on the grounds that they are black would be an example of extreme racial prejudice. As such, I don't find it valid to suggest that gay people should not form families because research might have shown that sometimes the child has a poor upbringing. For the record, I don't know if such research exists, but I don't think it's relevant anyway.
Being a midweek post, it was always going to end up, by its very nature, quite lazy. At the moment, I'm too lazy to search for, assess and analyse other justifications a government might use to justify a law against gay marriage. From here though, I agree with Progressive Ireland, in that I can't see anything to suggest gay marriage would be threatening to stable society. My point is though, that it must be made clear that, because of the Supreme Court sees homosexuality as a congenital condition status - that is, one is born gay - it is not up to gay rights campaigners to persuade the populace that gay marriage is good and proper, but rather, the government must justify why gay marriage should be non-existent, that is to say, illegal.
Top reviews:
DVD player
Digital Camera
Portable MP3 player
Travel
Product search: |
E-mail Kevin: blast_portmarnockREMOVE@yahoo.com
Email Michael: mickonline2REMOVE@yahoo.com
Previous posts
Archives
Latest Comments
Irish Blogs
-
Analogue
An Unrepentant Communist
Blue Birds Are So Natural
Cedar Lounge Revolution
Ciaran O'Kelly
Crabling Otter
Damien Mulley
Eoin Purcell
Fustar
Lord Byron's Pistol Club
Midnight Court
Most Sincerely Folks
Poetbloggs
Robert Donohoe
Shock
Twenty Major
A special place in my heart
'Proper' Journalism etc.
The Wireless
BBC Radio
4RTE Radio 1
