The debate over marriage equality in our country requires us to examine the psychological and cultural contexts that produce the political phenomenon surrounding it, which we inhabit today. Like any issue that can produce major controversy, it cuts across all the planes of our experience; sexual, religious, political, cultural etc... While the majority of Americans and myself can agree that this is a human rights issue which is self evident, we are left with a sizable percentage of our population that will be left to lament the moral, spiritual and social decay of the society around them. We know the arguments for and the arguments against marriage equality. Personally I seriously doubt that anyone with a solid opinion on the matter will have their minds changed by any such arguments. But what I find more fascinating, is the complete lack of philosophical common definitions and common framework that exist, which impede any actual communication. Where are the opponents of marriage equality coming from? I mean besides traditional hate groups, where are they coming from?
Non religious opponents of marriage equality are engaging the debate on the very definition of marriage, its intrinsic purpose and form. This is an essentialist approach, in that it attributes a specific and exclusive purpose of marriage, and by definition human sexuality and "the family". This type of thinking aligns with most religious dogmas, in its consistent narrative of human sexuality. It also aligns with baser forms of knowing, i.e. ignorance, bigotry, and fear (which are all essentially the same).
I am very interested to see how these hearings at the Supreme Court tomorrow will play out. After all the rhetoric is over, it would seem to me that the basic question we can distill this debate down to is the definition of marriage. Marriage has been being redefined, over the course of social evolution, for thousands of years. See "Origins of the Family Private Property and the State", by Fredreich Engels, or "Ancient Society" by Lewis H. Morgan or "The Bible", or the "The Quran" and you will find very diverse definitions for and purposes of marriage. From historical materialism, to anthropology, to theology we can see the diversity of the history of legally enshrining and sanctifying different sexual relations. While I am not building an argument here, I'm attesting to the fact that history has a very loose meaning for the word "traditional". These are subjective mores dictated by power structures. It would seem to me that attempts to make religious arguments against marriage equality, a-religious, by mounting a philosophical defense through a natural definition of marriage, fail because they are founded upon a subjectivity that has documented history of its malleability. I feel that in addition to redefining marriage and family, attempts to define and legally control/permit forms of human sexuality have also been well documented. Humanity's attempts to confine itself by narratives of morals, motivated by both fear and desire are universal. It is clear we have a propensity for dictating different sexual morals through law, we are just another moment in history, the question is only whether we will move forward or let ourselves be dictated to by power structures that claim to explain the infinite depth of human sexuality.
Could the cultural opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality be, in itself, a libidinal response? Fear of the unknown and the decision that something is unknowable, rejection, domination, and objectification are all part of both, the spectrum from homophobia to opposition to gay marriage, and the libidinal consciousness. I find it ironic that one culture's sexual fears, or definitions or tensions would subjugate the sexual realizations of another to the realm of the disordered, illegitimate, and non-familial. It is precisely in structuring homosexual persons out of the notion of family that our society does the most psychological and physical violence to the LGBT community. In separating their love and their children from societal protection and recognition as a family, our culture all at once demeans their freedom, their love, and their children while at the same time attesting to its own disregard for freedom, love, and children.
No comments:
Post a Comment