Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Big news of the day

Comes from America! Do they care about what we do? Not so much. Are we thus unbalanced regarding the scale of interest that our country has in theirs? Most definitely. That aside, 


Obama strikes again! Today the president clarified his stance on same sex marriage; he supports it. To me, this is awesome. To others...it's less than awesome. Here's your vid:



Before I get into how I feel on this, I am grateful to those who oppose same sex marriage who keep their arguments respectful and classy, although I very much disagree with your position...respectfully.


For some like Obama said, the issue of same sex marriage lies in the strong traditions and connotations behind the word marriage. I understand this point of view and it represents a logical argument. But to this position I have two counter arguments.


First, the word "marriage" is just that, a word. It it a group of letters and sounds which relay a message to your brain. The message itself is a product of social construction. For this reason, when someone attaches their argument zealously to a word, I wince and grumble because a natural permanence is implied where there is none.


Secondly, and more importantly, those who argue for the preservation of marriage I think, are turning a blind eye to the imperfections laden within the institution. Today in North America the divorce rate is uncomfortably high. Even had divorce not been legalized, no one could argue that the sanctity of marriage was salvageable. 


This isn't necessarily because there is something inherently wrong with marriage itself. The success of a marriage depends on countless factors, not all of which we can control such as cultural dialogues of power between genders, the family conditions in which one was raised, economic status, two people's ability to work together, to forgive, mental health, I could go on!


The fact is, people grow and change. Throughout our lives, we learn and mature, gain new interests and lose old ones. Thus, sometimes the love that could keep a couple together dies, and that's ok. 


The point I'm getting at is the argument of preserving marriage is one that is full of holes, because its definition of marriage is tight and unyielding, a definition which does not fit the reality of marriage. 


For this reason, I think homosexuals should be allowed to try, to the same extent as everyone else, to share a life with the person they love, beginning with a ceremony, conventional to their culture, which signifies this promise to each other-this attempt by two people to marry life and love. 


But again that's just what I think. And to bring the discussion back to our country, what does our Prime Minister have to say on this subject?
  

No comments:

Post a Comment