Current Music:
So there’s been a lot of moving and shaking and jigging and prancing about Ireland passing the referendum to legalise marriage for all human beings. I say all human beings because therein lies the biggest problem we have in society: we like to label things. We like to categorise people and objects to keep things organised, to feel better about ourselves when in actuality, we are creating a clear divide by doing so. I realise this is a generalisation of sorts, but the truth remains: we are all human beings, of flesh and blood and we should all take positive steps to ensure the sanctity of that remains undiminished.
I respect religion. It has been with us for centuries, and will be with long after our great-grandchildren cark it. It is human nature to want to believe in something that is bigger than ourselves. I want to believe that as long as humans exist, we can learn to coexist without hate, discrimination and most of all, live in harmony as equals. I also want to believe that Tom Hiddleston will whisk me away to London for our wedding at Westminster Cathedral, fangirls be damned. However, I would only allow this perfectly plausible event to go ahead if my gay friends and family members had the same opportunity.
I’m going to be very high-school student for a moment. Or, if it comes across to you that way, perhaps throughout this entire post. Anyway, the second entry the Webster New World Dictionary offers us in defining the word “equal” states:
“Having the same rights, privileges, ability, rank etc.”
This is pretty basic right? It needs little explanation? But unfortunately the concept of equality is still at odds with reality in many parts of the world, and perhaps we may never get it quite right. Why then, is it so difficult in western society, to afford gay people the same rights and privileges straight people have enjoyed for centuries?
Again, I must say I have a high respect for religion. My Grandparents were Irish-catholic and due to their influence, I was raised Catholic, sent to private catholic schools and much of my moral code has been informed by Catholicism. The fact that I do not practice today does not make me indifferent or a terrible person, but it is due to a growing doubt for this moral code. A moral code that refuses to include everyone.
I remember going to church every Sunday as a child. While most days I was bored senseless, I still felt part of a community and I grew to love the priest at my church, who gave every effort to make his sermons interesting.
The definition of marriage in the religious context has always traditionally involved a man and a woman, the purpose of which to express eternal love and perhaps give the world the pleasure of your spawn. But rather like the movements of your bowels after a particularly glorious indulgence in Indian food, this definition is in dire need of change.
My first argument is an obvious one: how does the concept of one man (or woman) desiring to demonstrate his love to another man (or woman) in the same way a straight couple has been able to for centuries affect anyone else?
The answer is simple: it doesn’t. And if you think it does, it shouldn’t. How does a pure demonstration of love in the most legally binding way possibly effect your heterosexuality, albeit your existence? What possible negative outcome does it have for people outside of that union, who are simply after the same recognition and rights that heterosexual people have from birth?
Oh wait, I forgot:
This is the number 1 thing I despise about anti-gay marriage supporters. A child deserves a mother and a father.
How about a child deserves a loving parent? Or failing that, a pair of them as seems to be the traditional number. You know, tradition can be a beautiful word but in this context it is absolutely ugly. Children need love, guidance and support, is it up to us as to where that love is sourced? Does that kind of love truly require definition? Unfortunately, the fight for equality demands it to come to that.
I can’t imagine life without my father. Or my mother. But is this emotion truly relegated to the sex either of them represent? I really think not.
Another common phrase: the children are our future. If this is so, shouldn’t we be raising them to understand and practice tolerance and compassion? Education starts young and it is critical to teach the right lessons early as shit generally tends to stick to the shoe for want of a FAR better image. But you really get the picture, vividly.
If we want to enforce any kind of positive change (such as equality) it needs to start now, without letting what is positively medieval and outdated transcend what is necessary. Which is tolerance. Which is acceptance. Which is love.
As long as we deny the right to marriage to all, we are a nation who is fostering and promoting discrimination. It is not enough to say that discrimination will always exist; there is no perfect world, and we do not live in it. So shouldn’t we all take the available steps to ensure that everyone is considered equal in the eyes of the law, legally entitled to the same things? As living, breathing human beings love is as universal as the air we breathe and requires no barrier.
–Tara
Please note: these are my own views. These are words from the heart, and clearly should not be viewed as expert. I am no expert. I do not wish to offend but undoubtedly will end up offending someone.
theordinarycanbepowerful 