Time to make up for the sparse postings with this massive post . . .
So, Barack Obama is going to be our 44th president. No big surprise there. I just really hope he is able to meet at least a fraction of the expectations that have been put on him. Sure, I voted for him. I'm just a little disturbed by the savior-status some people elevate him to. My dad, on the other hand, falls to the other extreme. I was shocked talking to him the other day. He seems to whole-heartedly believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and there is a massive cover-up to conceal that fact since it would make him ineligible for the presidency. Not to mention all of the anarchists and terrorists that he is buddy-buddy with. I really hope I never buy into wacky conspiracy theories like that. Such is the danger of constantly immersing yourself in only one side of a debate. I try to temper any Fox News I watch with MSNBC, or just stick to CNN, which at least seems somewhat balanced.
Prop 8 passed (just barely) here in California, as I'm sure everyone is aware. While I'm still working out my feelings about homosexuality, I was hoping it would fail. However, I'm not too pessimistic about the future. Looking at the demographics of the voters, young people tended to be against the proposition while older people were for it. Thus, as demographics change over the next couple of decades (or even the next decade) the scale will most likely tip in favor of allowing gay marriage.
One thing that bugs me is I find flaws in the arguments on BOTH sides of the debate. The gay rights side's argument is that this is an issue of equality of rights. One group is being deprived of fundamental rights by another group which enjoys them. My friend pointed out an interesting flaw to this argument: as it is now, everyone has the same marriage rights, the right to marry the opposite sex. No one group is being deprived of rights that another group has, despite the argument of gay rights activists. What they want is ADDITIONAL rights, the right to marry the same sex, that would apply to everyone (though gay people would obviously be the only ones who would want to use these rights). Now, supporters of gay marriage would argue that the right that gays are being deprived of is the right to marry the one they love. But is that a fundamental right? What if the one you love is married to someone else? Is that spouse depriving you of your fundamental rights? Just food for thought. I thought the argument was interesting, and couldn't really think of a good response.
My beef with the anti-gay marriage side is probably pretty familiar. The whole emphasis on "protecting the family" and especially the whole "the way it's been for centuries must be right." They had a good point on a local radio show one day: two slutty drunk idiots can get married one night in Vegas, as long as they are a guy and a girl. But a gay couple who have loved each other for 30 years? Nope. Nothing like the "sanctity" of that heterosexual marriage. And don't get me started on the "If Prop 8 fails, they'll teach gay marriage in schools!!!" Those scare tactics are probably what tipped the balance in favor of Prop 8, sadly.
So if I find flaws in both sides, why did I choose to oppose Prop 8? I had to do some serious thinking about my views on homosexuality, and I realized that one of my major hang-ups in figuring myself out is my lingering conflicts about the issue. The increasingly mainstream view is that it is a natural variation of normal sexuality. The American Psychological Association removed it from the list of mental disorders back in the 1970s. Yet it's hard to shake the doubts from my mind. This next part is going to sound extremely controversial, I apologize in advance, the following doesn't represent my opinion, just some of the thoughts I've had lately while trying to figure the whole thing out . . .
If everyone in the world were homosexual, humanity would obviously be in big trouble since procreation would grind to a halt. So homosexuality is okay for our species as long as not too many people practice it. Now of course, in this overpopulated world, you could argue that a little less procreation might be a good thing. But should there be so many preconditions for something to be considered moral? Saying homosexuality is okay, as long as it is limited in scope and the human population is large enough to withstand any decline in procreation?
Then a weakness to this argument occurred to me. Being celibate is not considered immoral. Heck, some religious leaders are required to be. But if everyone on Earth were celibate, humanity would suffer just as much as if everyone were gay. The same number of babies would be born: zero.
So where I stand now is that homosexuality is certainly not optimal in a Darwinian sense, but I think in this day and age consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry. The alternative is way too many loveless marriages. In fact, allowing gay marriage might actually improve the overall sanctity of marriage, since marriage is supposed to be about love.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my ramblings, I just wanted to be honest with some of the arguments that have been going through my mind. Please, anyone who makes it this far, share your thoughts, I'd love to see what you think.
B
3 comments:
I, for one, agree with your sentiment. I also hope Obama lives up to the hype that people place on him (I voted for him, I just hope he delivers too).
Sorry for the late ass comment, but I just had to offer my view on this.
In reference to the morality of homosexuality, as well as the procreation/Darwinian issue; this is my view on it:
"Existence precedes essence."
Existence is what exists. Things that 'are' as a fact. For example, a person is gay as a fact. Its not something they choose, they just are. Or that humans have a limited lifespan, or that certain traits can be influenced by genetics, or even the fact that co-operation is necessary for humans to live in a society. That is the existence aspect. It is purely the fact of what exists. But it has no value or meaning. It is merely a value-less fact.
Then you have the essence part of statement. Essence can be purpose, or value, or meaning. For example, a person might be gay as a fact, but what does that fact MEAN?
It has no inherent meaning. One must be given.
Now to talk specifically about the issue of procreation and homosexuality, it is a fact that procreation is necessary in order to maintain our species. If we don't produce offspring, then we disappear. That is a fact, but it is a valueless fact.
The problem with calling homosexuality immoral or 'bad' because it isn't as likely to cause procreation is flawed in two ways.
Firstly, gay people can have kids just as straight people can. That they choose not to, or don't enjoy 'procreation' as much is an ENTIRELY separate issue altogether, and is a matter of subjective opinion. i.e. value/meaning. Not fact. Fact = gay people can have sex with the opposite gender just as any str8 person can. all the feelings/emotions/preferences involved are not related to that fact.
And secondly, to say that homosexuality is wrong or immoral or bad because the people who are gay don't procreate, as in they don't do what they should or what they are supposed to, is also a flawed argument because it presupposes that people have a predetermined purpose. It presupposes that essence precedes existence, rather than the other way 'round.
For example, take a car. With a car, its essence precedes its existence. Before a car is built, or designed, it is given a purpose. It could be a car that is supposed to ride smoothly on gravel roads for instance. That is its essence. Then it is designed and manufactured, and hence it now exists.
Now if the car does what it is supposed to as defined by its predetermined essence, the the car can be 'good'. And if it doesn't do what it is supposed to, then it can be seen as 'bad'.
With humans however, our essence doesn't precede our existence. We are not like cars. We weren't designed, or given a prior purpose that we were supposed to perform according to, and any deviation from that can be called 'bad', as if we don't perform like we were supposed to.
There was no essence, or 'purpose' prior to our existence. We just exist as a matter of fact, and all of the things about us, such as the need to reproduce in order to maintain our species are merely facts void of any inherent 'value'.
Just as no one builds a car and then asks 'what now?', but rather it is given a task and then the car is designed around that task, so too humans have no pre-given task that we need to adhere to.
A car might be designed to do a certain thing and if it fails it can be called a bad car. But what are humans designed to do? Nothing.
We weren't designed with a task or purpose in mind, so its technically impossible to be considered bad/immoral/unnatural to be homosexual, as if being homosexual is akin to a car that doesn't do what it is supposed to, and can therefore be called 'bad'.
I hope you understand what I wrote, because if I continued I'll just keep repeating myself as the fundamental point I'm trying to make cannot be put into a single sentence or explained in a linear way. It's something you have to connect the dots with and hopefully you'll get that 'aha!' moment, where it will all just click.
It's just that a man and a woman can produce, but two men cannot. It's a fact but its valueless. To determine whether something is good or bad or desirable or not depends entirely on what one wants in the first place, what goals on has, what values one has, and so on, and these are things that come AFTER the fact. (i.e. existence before essence). even then, if two men really wanted to have kids, there are plenty of ways to do it, especially with today's medical technology. And as for the raising children issue/family structures, that is a sociological question; one of societal structure, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality or morality, and is dependent entirely on what is practical according to the desires of the society in question. one man and one woman is not universal. there are many societies, both contemporary and ancient that have/had very different views on marriage, family and raising children, as well as homosexuality.
Seriously, I hope this all makes sense.
It cannot be said that homosexuality is bad/immoral, because you have to ask according to what, and that itself is an entirely different question.
Post a Comment