Friday, 2 April 2004

Tolerance as a mindset of choice, prejudice and hypocrisy - Part 1

Marriage for all?
One issue that seems to be of particular divisive content in America and many other as it were Western & Christian societies is the wave of homosexual contracts of partnership which presumably are undermining the institution of marriage.
It begs the question; why should marriage suffer irrelevance at the actions of people who cannot even get married without so much opprobrium and vitriolic commentary piled on them by tabloid and shock-jock radio presenters?
One would think that what undermines the institution of marriage itself are the participants in the marriage, issues of trust, abuse, adultery, lust, divorce, re-marriage, abortion and so on - those are the things that have dampened confidence in that institution.
The force of law cannot change human nature from falling prey to things that undermine what they supposedly believe in.
Examples unformed
In fact, I would contend that the participants in marriages have so undermined the significance of that sacrament that everyone sees it as a basic contract of partnership allowing that standard rights of partnership to be shared or transferred. Hence, every partnership seeks to be registered as a marriage.
It is patently unlikely that the newcomers to the established institution of failed marriage vows could further undermine what has already been condemned to sleaze and flagrant hypocrisy.
To contend that marriage is mainly for child-bearing purposes is also very flawed, it can be argued that many marriages do not flourish because the partners did not give time to knowing each other well before the children are born, after which the children have dominated their lives at the expense of the real partnership which is between husband and wife.
There are so many reasons why marriages fail, but rarely has it been because the husband ran off with another man or the wife with another woman. The absurdity of the defence of marriage on those grounds only becomes ever so evident.
What vows mean
Asking a man on the street, one would be amazed at the number who do not know the meaning of a vow, who might perjure and have relatively no insight into the value of integrity. These are the same everyday people who are convenanted to uphold the institution of marriage. One risks cynicism at this point.
The protection of marriage as an institution really should be the understanding of the vows expressed, the gravity of disavowal if there be any penalties and how to suppress selfishness for selfless sharing - at which point celibacy and eunuchry become a more pleasant prospect. Society does not underpine those pillars of successful marriage as it once did.
Marriage of sexualities
Marriage does not have the high standards on integrity, candour and discretion it once had. It is for the participants to change that, with the possibility of them learning that homosexuals might even be better are holding together a relationship of marriage than those who consider it a tenet of life and heterosexual morass.
The arch-divider and leader of the divided world in the White House waded into this issue like a wild rodeo bull set lose in a china shop - constitutional protection of marriage as the union of man and woman. I have no truck with that, but I doubt if the homosexuals were born out of another union.

No comments: