check today's mail.
from Anne... Ads and more ads... All this spamming, I can't
stand it anymore! I must have one of those mail filtering programmes
installed... Ah, John writing from Holland. Since he moved there
for work he writes more often...Good for him! He and Andrew
have registered their union at last. I am happy for him.
they really are man and wife. We've been friends for so long
now but it still seems weird.
in Holland John and Andrew could get registered as a couple
but I believe it is the only country in the world where two
homosexuals can do such a thing. John really gave me a hard
time when he was here over the right of homosexuals to get married.
Now they've done it, and obviously I am pleased since John is
my friend, but still I can't shake off my doubts.
it is an issue that gives rise to many debates, and very passionate
it is a moral dilemma; there are religious convictions at stake.
In effect, those who claim that marriage is an essentially religious
institution and claim governments shouldn't meddle with it,
are usually contrary to a gay marriage just because of their
concept of a sacred union.
could argue, though, that marriage also has civil and social
implications independent of religious beliefs; and governments
introduce laws to regulate these aspects, but surely not to
interfere with the religious part. Otherwise one could also
say that governments should not make laws to punish murder because
it is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments, so it's already
taken care of.
better leave the religious aspects out of discussion though
maybe some homosexuals would be happy to have their condition
recognized and legitimized by the Church.
the religious aspects can't be subject to debate. Besides, homosexuals
are only demanding that two people of the same sex have the
same civil right to be joined in marriage.
the reasons are those of very practical nature connected with
legal consequences: taxes, pensions, health services...
If a union of two people is recognized as a marriage, things
can sometimes evolve quite differently than in case of two people
of the same sex living together without being officially married.
I had these discussions with John I found web pages with different
stories of homosexuals that have had problems because they were
take this case of one David Wilson. His partner's name is Robert
Compton, and due to health problems, Robert sometimes needs
urgent treatment. Now, Wilson fears that the same thing may
happen as happened with his previous partner with whom he had
been together for thirteen years.
by heart attack he was taken to hospital and died there without
Wilson being allowed to stay with him in hospital because he
was considered a stranger, since he was neither a relative nor
a legally recognized partner.
this other case of two lesbians, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies,
who have been together for over thirty years and are close to
their retirement now: in the event of death of one of them,
the other would have to pay more house taxes and a higher fee
to their analyser because their union is not recognized as marriage.
to mention the trouble and pain that all gay and lesbian couples
have in adopting a baby or in being recognized as parents once
they have adopted a baby.
often tried to convince me that homosexuals who demand the right
to make a proper family show a high sense of social responsibility
and that society should be thankful to those who want to marry
because by releasing their sexual energy inside the institution
of marriage they contribute to social stability and growth and
to the protection of the weakest and, furthermore, help lower
the degree of selfishness and social disorder.
marriage among homosexuals isn't just a right they should be
entitled to but it would also be a practice that entire society
would benefit from.
it is just this point that the objectors dispute strongly: they
believe that marriage among homosexuals is a factor of social
rift because their idea of marriage is totally different.
is not just a way to regulate a relationship between a man and
a woman, they claim, marriage is a social institution with the
primary aim of encouraging and safeguarding the reproduction
of our species.
why a union of two people of different sexes is a marriage,
whereas a union of two people of the same sex is not: the first
has a potential for reproduction which the second lacks.
People who think this way believe that the separation of sex
and procreation, which is making its way into contemporary society,
is a disaster.
is the only human act in which the presence of both sexes is
sexuality between men and women should be encouraged because
reproductive sex has a unique and irreplaceable function.
instead, the idea that marriage is just the registration of
a union of two people based on the satisfaction of the senses
gained ground, there would be no means for society to distinguish
between sexual activities which are useful or dangerous to society.
That's just what supporters of homosexual marriages reject:
society cannot decide that some sexual activities are bad and
dangerous in themselves.
John and Andrew are now more at peace but I am left with a doubt:
is it right, is it socially beneficial to consent to
marriages between gay and lesbian couples?
DemoKino - Virtual Biopolitical Parliament - Same Sex Marriage.