ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on June 24, 2011

What is inequality or discrimination.

The name "Marriage Equality Bill" does not qualify for what is being discussed by New York State Senators to make "same sex marriage" permissible on the New York State Senate legal books as "law".

There is no question of inequality here, because nobody is stopping any other person or persons from doing what they want to do with their own lives. The law already treats all people as equals, as there must not be any type discrimination among citizens; not on the basis of race, gender, creed or sexual orientation.

It is only conventional that men will want to be members of their own clubs, just as women will choose to do the same; but that does not indicate any kind of separatism between the sexes. Such institutions give them the freedom to do the things they want, and be able to express their identity as belonging to one sexual group or another. These groups, clubs or associations rather encourage people to come together to resolve all kinds of problems. That is a great idea; and that is it.

Their members want to be exceptional, as nature intends them to be, only as people leading ordinary lives. They are also very much aware, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."; (The Declaration of Independence).

To many of them, there is no room, rhyme or reason for any type of drastic social transformation of marriage as they have come to know it. It must be a relationship between one man and one woman.

What makes the issue of "same sex marriage" controversial is that, there is already an equilibrium between people of different sexual orientations; however, some others will go to any extent to "upset the apple cart" and pulverize what is reserved as cultural and traditional entity or embodiment, with respect to procreation and its accompanying responsibility of raising families to populate communities, which in turn form societies.

There is only one institution that fits into that mold, and it is Marriage. It is set aside for one purpose and one purpose only; and to alter it or change its meaning to represent what it is not meant to be associated with will be objectionable, if not completely unacceptable.

In other words, marriage is not meant to be compromised, or to be connected with lifestyles that are not productive, when it comes to the emotional tendency, of not just having an intercourse, per se; but of having children, and knowing how they must be brought up by the parents responsible for bringing them into the world.

Primarily, there is an inherent natural concern of all primates, particularly, to socially congregate into groups or families and raise their offspring. It is also a common practice among a great number of animal species of all sorts. Nevertheless, they do not marry.

For humans, however, marriage is the foundation of all societies, and it must be protected and defended without reservation. There is no way anybody must be allowed to debase its basic, instinctive and natural endowment, now or ever, to have the sensibility to procreate to produce families. It is the "kernel" or the "nucleus" of communities; and it is the only one institution that has all the qualifications to fit into its very own specific category, in terms building societies. There is none other; period.

To many people it will be abominable, if what has been held as special or even "sacred" by generations upon generations, and by every culture under the sun as being unique, is made to become something of a gamble; and to be used as a political pawn or football, to permit politicians to make a mockery of it. It will be unforgivable of anyone to let that happen.

The controversy can be viewed from other perspectives; that those who, somehow, happen to be born out of wedlock, are interested to have marriage debunked; or people who will never have the opportunity or the chance or the experience of getting married will be glad to see it become defunct.

Or that they want it to be just as fashionable and ceremonial as wanting to have sex with a member of the opposite gender after a blind date. You will do so on a whim, or for kicks; then you will forget about it in a few days time; and conferring upon yourself an "I came; I saw; I conquered," type of self gratifying assertion.

So, people who have a grudge against marriage will do anything to destroy it. They will do so out of spite or jealousy, especially when they know that there is nobody to stop them from achieving their nefarious objective; and that is, to ruin marriage.

Besides, there is a whole lot of frustration out there, and especially among young people, about individual sexuality; and the question pops up, whether it is "normal" or "abnormal" to be this or the other type. The answer differs from one person to another, and that has made the discussion of that subject very frustrating. Many of them are confused.

As a result, they are taking that frustration out on traditional marriage, because they cannot find anything else to dump it on. They are asking the question, "why is the general public not willing to accept their lesbian or homosexual lifestyles?"

Happenstance confirms that the answer is always stirring them in the face; that they are being accepted as fellow human beings, but they cannot compel others to approve those lifestyles. They desire to have the approval of their peers, and it will not be there, because they (peers) have a different mind set, which opposes any other lifestyle, besides the one requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Will that be discrimination? Not many people think so.

Under the present circumstances, therefore, must society be forced to submit to the capricious intentions or impulsive wiles of friends and relatives, who are struggling with sexual identity problems? The answer will be a resounding "NO!". It will be a very good idea to indicate to them that what they are doing is to muck up an establishment as distinctive as marriage.

It (marriage) is designed to be honored and celebrated; as some partners get into it to last them a whole lifetime. They see it as one of their "unalienable rights" to have happy lives together, and to be a pair of role models for their children and families to emulate.

Lawmakers everywhere must realize that they are declaring traditional marriage null and void. Why? Because they are replacing it with another kind of relationship that will leave a majority of their constituents out in the cold, so to speak. Will that be fair on their part? We leave them to honestly answer that question.

Again, come to think of it in a very serious fashion, there is no case of inequality or discrimination involved in what lawmakers are deliberating on, with respect to marriage; except that some people want a "double dip" of the law; and then some. That will really be inequality or discrimination coming from them.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.