Same-sex marriages have suddenly popped up on the national radar and nearly everyone has an opinion on it. Frankly, there are very few issues which really make me vociferous and passionate but yes, I do have an opinion on same-sex marriages and homosexuality. I do believe that homosexuals should be treated on par with *straight* people at all levels and that a marriage between two people belonging to the same sex deserves the same respect and understanding as that between a man and a woman. For a long time, I had this self-congratulatory idea that my viewpoint was the *correct* one. Now I feel that my viewpoint is a function of my background, cultural, traditional, family, etc. purely. Had I been brought up in a strictly Catholic way (does Catholicism explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin?) I might have felt differently.
Therefore, if what I feel is purely because of the way I lived my life so far, there is no right or wrong to it. I think I’m veering towards the concept about everthing being just a perception, no blacks, no whites, all greys. Correction: I’m already there. No more patronising.
P.S. On the other hand, progresive thought, I think, should involve people to break out of these old patterns of thought, imposed by culture and upbringing, and explore the world with a new perspective.
shri says:
P.S. On the other hand, progresive thought, I think, should involve people to break out of these old patterns of thought, imposed by culture and upbringing, and explore the world with a new perspective.
I don’t think that is possible. One can try to do that, but it is not possible. Consciously or sub-consciously, your culture and upbringing almost always plays a role, when it comes to your thoughts and opinions. It is part of who we are, where we come from.:)
The thing is, what is right for you maybe wrong for the other person. IMO, the line between right and wrong is thin and a bit blurred.
November 2, 2004 — 7:11 am
Lakshmi says:
I don’t think that is possible. One can try to do that, but it is not possible.
Because it’s so difficult is probably why there are fewer people who buck the trend than otherwise… don’t you think so?
November 2, 2004 — 7:16 am
shri says:
Because it’s so difficult is probably why there are fewer people who buck the trend than otherwise… don’t you think so?
Yes, it may be possible. But, then again, there are people who don’t buck the trend not due to lack of courage to go against their culture or upbringing, but because they are victims of circumstances, or according to them, in the long run, chaining themselves to cultural trends and such will be the better option. And whether they are right or wrong, is subjective.
November 2, 2004 — 7:21 am
Lakshmi says:
And whether they are right or wrong, is subjective.
True, which is why most issues become a matter of personal opinion. There can be no universal stance, I guess.
November 2, 2004 — 7:27 am
appughar says:
Yes, it is one of the most difficult tasks to think non-ordinary. Following a pattern is quite easy, since you have a momentum and flow to assist you, references and footprints left by other people to follow.
But fortunately or unfortunately our society is made up with not a singular pattern, but is an assorted jumbled mixture of various individual ones. In this pandemonium of these overlapping, and not so congruent patterns, it is quite possible they mix together in a rather non-appealing way too. But you might be able to get the mix right, and make exquisite patterns never seen before also.
Infact, each one of us can be thought of as painter of our life and our concepts and our culture and our belief. Aesthetic is very subjective. The same subjectivity holds for the patterns of our concepts/belief which exists in our mind. Majority of us turn out to be imitators of certain classical styles and certain masters (and sometimes the pseudo masters who gets lots of unwanted attention). But then, a few Picassos, a few Van Goghs, a few Da Vincis sprouts among /us, who challenges the earlier styles, hence giving raise to new stream of thoughts.
Personally I am a big believer in importance of pre-defined styles. My idea of mastering an art, is to be aware of various styles. And to pick up one of the style, which strikes that special chord in you somewhere. Redefine it with your own new contribution, additions and rejections. I guess the analogy holds, while I compare it with life.
ps:- I was/am trying to come up with some aesthetic output. One of the major obstacles I face is weight of all the previous thoughts, and previous outputs. Each attempt makes be re-realise who much guts and talent it takes to be original.
November 2, 2004 — 10:42 am
parag says:
Couldn’t agree with you any more than I already do.
Catholicism: Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroed by God because the people there were practising the ungodly sinful (homosexual) deeds. The word ‘sodomy’ originates from there. So, it is explicitely taught in Catholic schools and churces that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin. This position is endorsed by the Pope.
November 2, 2004 — 8:13 am
hariputtar says:
one doubt: progressive thought is always necessary – to scan out various *evolutionary* options 🙂 do u think progressive thought is always right ? or beneficial ?
also the following two viewpoints which are relevant to the homosexuality debate:
– viewpoint#1: belief => sex (and the pleasure derived therein) is tool to promote breeding.
hence any sex that does not lead to breeding or enhance the individual’s or collective’s ability (directly or indirectly) to breed … is considered vagrant and unnatural.
– viewpoint#2: mouth was meant for ingestion / communication. hands were meant for holding things / tools etc – to further survival. humans came out with imaginative uses, like playing musical instruments … and took the usage to a new level. (well, one can, by reduction – see every attempt at sophistication / art to be a preening gesture / mating-stratagem). so whats wrong with non-breeding usage of sex ? esp if breeding may not need sex anymore with all scientific inventions at the disposal ?
November 2, 2004 — 11:14 am
rileen says:
I think I’m veering towards the concept about everthing being just a perception, no blacks, no whites, all greys. Correction: I’m already there.
‘Everything’ is rather a sweeping view – sure you’re there? Think back to this post, for instance …….
While we often say that everything is relative, most of us usually have a few ‘absolutes’ in as much as possible, somethings that we just cannot accept as being right (or wrong, as the case may be), unless some exceptional extra context exists (and perhaps not even then).
I doubt whether i’ll ever be at a point where i truly believe everything is relative, especially as reflected in my own conduct. Moreover, i don’ think i want to be there.
Do you?
November 2, 2004 — 11:20 am
hariputtar says:
😕 we have become nitpicking grumpy old men.
November 2, 2004 — 12:43 pm
rileen says:
I was a nitpicking kid, and you may call me old if you wish, a man i certainly am ….. but grumpy? Naah.
🙂
November 2, 2004 — 12:50 pm
Lakshmi says:
Everything with the exception of a few issues, if you want it that way…Chucks.
November 2, 2004 — 8:32 pm
rileen says:
Hey, i don’t want it any way – just expressed my view, perhaps a little strongly.
‘Chucks’ – feels like you’re calling me Charlie Brown, which is nice as i love Peanuts 🙂
November 3, 2004 — 4:19 am
Lakshmi says:
Me too. Right after Calvin and Hobbes!
November 3, 2004 — 5:29 am
hollowandempty says:
oh yes yes yes, everything is relative of course…people will live their lives and choose their morals and make decisions based on their past….what are we other than the subtotal of our experiences…well, don’t answer that, we are God, spirit, we are all kinds of things….but in this life; here and now, we are only the result of what has happened to us in the past and how we were brought up. So there is very little that is actually either RIGHT or WRONG…for example, opinions are neither right nor wrong…and this homosexuality thing IS a matter of opinion….the point is, what does the majority think? What decision will satisfy most of the people in America? You see…everyone is so stubborn and prideful in their way of thinking and their opinions that they want it their way. I mean, if you are not homosexual and you think it’s wrong, why vote against it? THEY (homosexuals) are the ones who are wrong in your opinion, not you…so as long as you aren’t the one sinning, where’s the problem? If you aren’t the one committing the sin, who cares? As long as you are straight and you think that is the way to be, by all means, be yourself, but what business is it of yours what they do? I have my own opinions about this….and i also have numerous homosexual friends…i mean, hell, i go to a women’s college, half the girls here are gay! So the conflict, i think, lies in the fact that it is easy to be torn between what you honestly think, and how you feel about your homosexual friends…personal vs. moral….so it all comes down to YOU….if you want to live your life that way, fine….and if you think it is a sin, then keep it to yourself, don’t sin, and don’t try to impose your opinion upon others…..i mean, afterall, who is RIGHT, and who is WRONG??
November 2, 2004 — 1:20 pm
Lakshmi says:
Couldn’t agree more with you…
November 2, 2004 — 8:32 pm
sthira says:
“there is no right or wrong to it. I think I’m veering towards the concept about everthing being just a perception, no blacks, no whites, all greys”
Moral relativism doesn’t work as an ethical theory. There are things which are definitely right or wrong, e.g. what happened in Nazi Germany, rape of a woman, infanticide.
Just a few distinctions, you seem to be hinting at morality stemming from religion. I think they are both very different. A person who is not religious definitely has morals and a view on the rights and wrongs of this world.
Another point, there is a difference between not allowing something because it does not serve a particular purpose, e.g. homosexuality because it cannot lead to reproduction , and not allowing something because there is something in the act which is morally abhorrent and wrong.
Relativism does seem to be a fairly common view that people take but there’s much more beneath the surface that the relativist does not see or understand.
November 2, 2004 — 3:35 pm
hariputtar says:
relativism has gaping holes in the arguments: right on.
some doubts:
question is can we apply ethical norms to homosexuality ? hence we go into the meta-ethics.
⋅ words like *morally abhorrent* and *wrong* would take us …
– into realm of ethical subjectivism. which is a but a stone’s throw from relativism. [ Subjectivity is not an epistemic virtue 🙂 ].(this will lead to inconsistencies across big socio-political entities. its like TX allowing gay unions (bcuz of fed regulations?) but disallowing anal sex.)
– into ethical consensus approach : again countries like US seem to be divided fairly evenly on homosexuality.
⋅ Ethical intuitionism / non-naturalism – i.e. we should go with what our *heart* says on this issue … with the gut feeling ? Well if Russell distances himself from Moore on this, i am willing to assume that this may not work.
⋅ Ethical naturalism – that is reduction of *ethical issues* to non-ethical scientific details … an approach when sex-reproduction aspect is brought in. we see that this also has no definite answers. unless they prove that homosexuality is *genetic* in nature.
and so on …
so can we have an ethical / *moral* evaluation of homosexuality issue …
November 2, 2004 — 7:30 pm
sthira says:
I think we can still have a moral viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality.
Firstly, we are all autonomous beings and all such beings have the right to lead their lives in ways that they think is right, choose whatever they want to make of their life, provided their decision is not harming anyone else and provided that they are not encroaching on anyone else’s rights. The issue of sexual orientation is a private matter. It depends on the individual who he fancies for his partner.
The unnatural argument doesn’t work . The word ‘natural’ has different meanings in different timeperiods. All of medicine would be wrong if we were to side with the unnatural argument.
The argument about sex and reproduction also takes a backseat because in this world and in the society that we live, no state and no law enters the homes of heterosexual people who don’t want to have children. And, the slippery slope argument has too many flaws.
November 5, 2004 — 6:34 pm
hariputtar says:
non-natural + sex-reproduction arg does not work. my claim was, nothing stands up to standards of *ethical-evaluation*. so we cant say anything – this way or that way.
your argument about orientation being a private matter falls under subjectivism. [ and anyway, the argument starts with the axiom – we are all autonomous beings. however this election in US seems to suggest – intellectual acrobatics not withstanding – we are not.]
November 5, 2004 — 6:49 pm
Lakshmi says:
Just a few distinctions, you seem to be hinting at morality stemming from religion. I think they are both very different. A person who is not religious definitely has morals and a view on the rights and wrongs of this world.
No such hinting intended.. sorry if that’s what my statement implied to you.
Relativism does seem to be a fairly common view that people take but there’s much more beneath the surface that the relativist does not see or understand.
I am tempted to agree with you but I feel that if you actually consider all that’s beneath the surface, everything becomes a matter of personal opinion.. and that, of course, is my personal opinion. By the same token, I wouldn’t endorse infanticide or rape or genocide… That’s stretching my argument for its own sake.
November 2, 2004 — 8:37 pm
notanangel78 says:
The Catholic church is against homosexuality mostly because it has been clubbed in the old testament with other acts such as bestiality,incest,and the concept of having multiple partners. So it has been labeled a sin.
Personally, I think everyone should have the right to a normal life, despite the choices they made. Some of the nicest men I’ve known are gay, and I’d only want them to have normal, happy lives.
November 3, 2004 — 1:27 am
Lakshmi says:
I love these new userpics of yours.. They’re lovely! And so vaguely familiar….
November 3, 2004 — 8:38 pm
rameshs says:
Hmmm…well
Okay locks, here’s a small exercise 🙂
1) Think of some *close* relative, either currently existing or future.
2) Think of one of their close friends ( of the same sex ).
3) Imagine them getting married to each other and you attending
or further, their living under a roof with you.
If you think that you would accord it the same respect
and understanding that you would accord, a corresponding
‘straight’ marriage of say, some of their siblings,
then kudos to you.
For instance, I might be inclined to say – ‘yeah – ok – whatever’
if it concerned say some random unknown couple in
hollywood, but might not feel so charitable if say,my son declared
some such intention with his friend .
[ No, i dont have any kids :-)]
Dealing with people closer home with real faces and real identities
sometimes offers a different perspective from our opinions on
general newsbits that we come across.
Of course, I do concede that you might have thought of it already
and your present opinion is a considered one.
For the record, my take on same sex weddings is –
why call it a ‘marriage’ ?
just live together and be done with it ! There ain’t no
consummation anyway !
regards
ramesh
November 3, 2004 — 7:35 pm
Lakshmi says:
Re: Hmmm…well
I’d like to think that it wouldn’t matter to me if this issue concerned any of my close relatives. Let me rephrase, I’m pretty confident that I wouldn’t think differently about it.
As for the *why marriage* question, I think the answer lies in the practical benefits couples get, tax benefits being one of them. Other issues may be inheritance, adoption, etc.
November 3, 2004 — 8:37 pm