A lot has already been said about relationships -- who should it between with, how should it be worked out, when should it be allowed and prohibited, and things of that sort.
We will try to clarify three of the most fundamental issues regarding this crucial yet fragile aspect of human existence and hopefully become more dynamic to the changing times.
"Marriage is an exclusive social institution between a man and a woman."
Well, it is a social institution and that's true but what makes this particular idea flawed is the existence of the word "exclusive".
People strongly hold on to the belief that the Holy Scriptures have clearly stated that Marriage should be between One Man - One Woman but they are actually wrong, or at least, the knowledge is deficient because the same Holy Scriptures define Marriage as One Man - Many Wives (E.g. Abraham a.k.a. Father of all Nations), A Rapist and his Victim and a Conquering Soldier and a Female Prisoner of War. Proving that, at best, the Holy Scriptures are morally outdated, or at worst, the Holy Scriptures are evil by itself, which is unlikely, so let's just go with the former.
The invention of Marriage is not for any other reason but to bind two people together and to mediate their relationship by mutual love, trust and support. It may not have been intended to cover all kinds of relationships at its inception but its purpose is aligned with the universal principle of love.
Why should two people, who are both in their right minds, be deterred from enjoying the blessings of Marriage, such as Next of Kin Rights, Insurable Interest, Right against Infidelity, Adoption Rights and Property Relations, if they choose to be bound by it thru mutual consent?
Love recognizes no economic standing, age, even gender, if people opened themselves to experience it. It may be true that we can choose the recipient of our love but what if the only person that could make us happy is unfortunately someone who has the same genitalia as ours? Do we stop there and just let go of the feelings we even may have struggled to resist at first? Or do we follow our hearts and bet on that chance to be happy?
It's true that our choices aren't absolute. For instance, as a general rule, we can't marry someone already married as much as we want to, because this time, the harms are tangible and it would affect third persons. But even so, there is still an exception to this, as granted to the male members of one religion who are allowed to marry up to 4 times even if it would break the hearts of their first wife. Just by looking at this, we can surmise that the law can be stretched to accommodate culture, religion and even customs, but why can't that same thing be done to allow certain people to be happy? The law shouldn't be selective rather universal. It shouldn't be derogatory rather protective. And it shouldn't deprive rather provide.
"Homosexual Relationships are evil according to the Holy Scriptures."
Let's start with the Old Testament. Well, they did say something against it but along with that, they also said that eating shellfish, wearing clothes woven with different fabrics and eating pork are sinful. *slow fading clap*
Now, with the New Testament. Its original language speaks about condemnation of Male Prostitution, Molestation and Promiscuity, not Homosexual Relationships. Well, our dear Paul said something against it but he also said that women should always remain silent and should not aim to have authority over men. *bravo*
From the looks of it, the Holy Scriptures shouldn't really be followed by blind obedience and idiotically literal interpretation rather through a conscientious construction of the real intention of its framers which is to set guidelines for the happiness of all people, not just the majority but everyone. I don't think the Holy Scriptures would be best complied with if it will be invoked to deprive even a single person of the chance to be happy.
"Homosexual Relationships will lead to Human Extinction."
The main logic behind this idea is this: Since Homosexual Couples can't pro-create, sooner or later, our race will cease to exist."
Firstly, unless one absolutely believes that all people are homosexual by nature, this logic can't be accepted as valid. Just because Marriage would be accessible to all doesn't mean that everyone will now marry the same gender as they are. It's just that this time, two people can be legally bound to each other, regardless of their gender.
Secondly, even if it could really affect the growth of the population, so what? The Earth is now populated with more or less 7 billion people. Unlike the time of Adam and Eve when breeding is a major issue, this time, the problem is even controlling that from growing drastically because directly proportional to it, especially in third world countries, is poverty and suffering.
To conclude everything, the portion of the populace demanding for this is asking no more than equal treatment. They are not asking for anything extra special because what they are asserting is something that is already being given to others who have the same circumstances as them: they met someone, they fell in love, they wanna stay together, they wanna build a family, they wanna enjoy the blessings of marriage. How could gender create the great divide if no substantial distinction is established in between?
With all those things said, let's all advocate LOVE WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARIES.
Let's create a Philippines where HAPPINESS ISN'T JUST A CHOICE BUT A CULTURE.
No comments:
Post a Comment