Editorial: RE:Where is the line? – Gay marriages.
By Michael Virata (June 21, 2004)
Equality is not generally a term which is used within the context of society as it is originally intended. It derives from the extreme focus of the word equality, upon which the stance against certain issues is achieved. The flaw with this is that it exposes the very essence of the term 'equality' as meaning something which is is exactly the same upon, or connotations within.
The basis for the debate about gay marriages is not solely based upon religion, it is not solely based upon a socio-political argument, and it is not solely based upon the legal or moral rights or beliefs of a society. Rather it is based almost solely upon this word equality. For one need only see that the basis within religion is highly contextualised. Whilst the argument for the legal aspect seems to be in breach of the Genevan convention for equal human rights. And coupled together we see the shortcomings of not only one, but of both critiques.
Firstly, the religious stance, this is extremely touchy and sensitive, and i coming from a Roman Catholic faith can see where they are coming from, but i believe that this marriage that homosexuals seek is not rather based upon the religious marriage held aloft within many religions, but rather of the symbolic equal 'consideration' for which they are recognised within society. It can be paralleled with women's right to vote, the recognisation of African American's to citizenship, and the right of a sentient being to the same basic consideration as humans. It would be foolhardy to suggest that marriage is strictly religious in this day and age, and the many machinations of marriages within society are quite evident with the laws and 'relationships' which fill our societies.
Secondly, upon the legal matter. The very essence of denying homosexuals, nay human beings, for it is a much more basic premise than of merely sex, is not only a gross injustice but also a direct violation upon the rights of not only a sentient being, but alsoa fellow human being. More or less this violation basically undermines every notion of justice and equality, two aspects which the law is based upon.
In closing, the above editorial has merely strengthened the need to become much more open minded and understand the full connotation of both sides. One cannot merely focus upon one stance or we risk not only being prejudiced but also ignorant of the facts and changing facet of life.
