Social Commentary - To Wed or Not
To speak in the colloquial and refer to gay marriage as an issue comparable to heterosexual relations would be to equate the differences for convenience sake. Gay marriage proponent’s rightfully claim a need for equality but are wrong in their understanding of the concepts.
Just as regular marriage is distinct from other forms of
relationships and if the gay community is successful with their demands of inclusion
and acceptance, they must by right of humanity, succumb to the same constraints
which define the opposing views. Exclusivity, separation from all others,
forsaking all manner of lasciviousness for the benefit of a partner, are
demands which make most traditionalists think long and hard before making a
commitment. These conditions are endemic in all situations were people link
themselves to one another, whether between parents to children, children to
family, men to women, lover to lovers, friend to friend, man to God, citizen to
government,or tribe to tribe, man to
man.
This is not to say that those who would choose the gay marriage lifestyle are incapable of committing to it. Rather it is in the choice were decision matters most. As with all relationships, loyalty is paramount to its maintenance. Comparisons are useless unless one is equating one for one in like manner. For gay rights activists` to force the issue of equality is problematic, as the comparison with heterosexual marriage remains an inconvenient item whose plausibility is questionable. Lacking examples of fidelity, there remains no evidence available to them so as to lend credence to authenticity. Gay marriages and unions are distinct and stand on their own definitions.
The issue is more of equality of commitment with two different philosophies arguing for dominance.
As with all things human, one only commits out of self
interests insofar as cooperation with another is possible. The vices that
mankind is plagued with are the very equal nuances that determine outcomes
of personal, moral and political principles. They burden all, are cumbersome,
and excuse no one; no one escapes the precision which binds the victim to the act.
In any relationship there are variables and like a good equation, rely on structure to eliminate confusion.
Events and time are factors that form and mold any union into a result that is unlike any other. Gays disservice themselves when the assumption is made as to equal terms for unequal philosophy. Despite the best of intentions, persuasions or demands, comparisons to traditional marriage hold no ground. The formula will not work simply because it is a formula that must function as demanded. The structure of any relationship must pattern itself to those variables which are most flexible to achieve success. This requires boldness, openness, risk; manipulating the formula to factor in other methodologies reveals no solutions. Only open ended insertions that confuse the argument.
If only the issue of gay marriage could be reduced to a simple equation. One equals two, two equals one and no ambiguities in between to meddle with. People like formulas, would blend easily into equal portions of individuality defined by their likes and dislikes, their wanton needs with their complexities hidden from view so as to make them all comparable with each other and render them as equal yet different; only if the two could take the chance on the outcome and see courage and bravery welcome them to the door of reason.
