Micheline's Put-in
 
The true governor of marriage: All you need is Love?
John Lennon had quite a bit to teach us. One has to wonder why the song "All you need is Love" was on the top of the charts. Could it be because, when we take away everything, what remains is love: The motivating force to everything we do? I've seen it written that the opposite of love is fear. When our actions are not based on love, they are based on fear. Fear governs many of our decisions, helps build many roadblocks to where most of us thrive to be, which is a place of love. These roadblocks can be displayed via distractions; keeping busy so that we don't feel or absorb what is truly happening.
Lennon and the Beatles became so big, thirty years later, groups around the world are still comparing themselves to them "…almost as big as the Beatles…". When the Beatles were at the top of their success, they broke up and John appeared to have taken a step back. He was professing the need to get back to basics. He dismantled his roadblock by simplifying his life, realizing that he did not need the big hoopla that was created by the success of the Beatles, in order to deliver his message.
My point with all of this is that we are doing the same thing with the governing of our relationships, more specifically, same sex marriages. Fear of what is "different" provokes a negative reaction. I will not profess to know what life was like at the beginning of time; whether or not homosexuality was "accepted" in man's early days, though some studies show that there was more acceptance a few hundreds years ago in comparison to what is happening today. I do know that there are now all kinds of laws deciding the dos and don'ts pertaining to the union of two people; written AND unwritten laws. I can appreciate that laws help to govern society, enabling a smoother functioning. However, can one govern emotions? Should any court or government dictate the fate of two people disregarding the most important aspect: feelings? As simplistic as I may appear to be making this, I truly believe it does come down to this.
We are in the process of deciding, as a nation, whether or not gay and lesbians have the right to marry. Based on all the laws and bills surrounding the issue of marriage, it makes for a complicated situation. This brings me to my point at the beginning. We've taken the union of two people and, out of fear, added multiple roadblocks to prevent them from getting to that place we all thrive for, via various definitions, titles, rights and so on, forgetting the basics….the human factor - and most importantly - LOVE. I suppose that, because love is an emotion and non-tangible, society felt the need to base these laws on tangible elements in order to define situations, in this case, the economic aspects of marriage…keeping it black and white. Love falls into the grey areas. We can't truly define it. Something like the argument between science and metaphysics. One can clearly be defined, the other, not being tangible, gets disregarded because it's based on faith, understanding, visions etc.
Like many others, I too have discriminated against homosexuals. As a child, making fun of kids, young boys who were effeminate, teasing them because they were "different". Later, as a teen, seeing athletic women, automatically assuming they were gay calling them butches and dikes. I was no better than a KKK member discriminating against the blacks. Because they were different from me, I felt that they deserved less than me. My fear was created by my ignorance and intolerance of what was not like me….And don't get me started with the "out of the closet" expression. How dare we put them in a closet in the first place! How barbaric!
As an adult, I was fortunate to have been shown differently. Today I have many gay and lesbian friends. Montreal is quite open and accepting to the homosexual community (all relative of course). It did not take me long to discover that they are people too and deserve the same as any other. I've had many discussions/debates with blatant homophobes that I would like to share with you now. Here are the key points that often resurface setting aside religious and governmental laws:
- It's physically not natural;
- We are put on this earth to procreate, extend the genetic link;
- The population growth rate is on a decline;
- The marriage of homosexuals will instil homosexuality in their children.
I'll agree that the male and female body are designed as such to accommodate procreation. As a union, they often fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. But one has to find the right pieces. Understandably, two pieces designed the same will not match or "fit well"…like magnets, if we have two positives or two negatives, they don't stick. However, we can put them side-by-side. It's a matter of stepping out of the box and being open minded. Besides, we get many heterosexual couples whose sex life is horrible or non-existent making this argument non valid.
On the subject of procreation, there are many ways for same sex couples to have children be it adoption or artificial insemination. I understand that this screws up the genetic link. But again, perhaps we need to let go of this. This is where the love factor comes in. Seeing a child raised in a loving family is much more important than what gender the caregivers are. Allowing same sex marriages increases the number of couples able to adopt (if made legal) allowing more children the potential to be brought up in love and ACCEPTANCE. Then comes the divorce rate factor. The increase in divorce over the last twenty years is a joke. I personally know many marriages have failed because one of the two members in that union chose to be open about their homosexuality; and decided to be true to him or herself and live the life they feel they need to lead. Fed up of following what society dictates and going with their HEARTS instead (and in all of the cases, the initial couples became very good friends following the divorce). Should this not raise some questions pertaining to the imposed heterosexual communion? Men and women are changing. Men are more "permitted" to feel. Society appears to be waking up and, therefore, gone are the days when men could not show emotion, creating a shift in relationships. Society is bringing this whole situation on; this same society that is knocking down same sex marriages. Permitting us to be more open about our feelings towards one another brings out the truth of what we want and who we are. As for the population issue, it is based on economics. Again, the human factor has been disregarded. So we don't make as much money, who cares. Is money the foundation of our happiness? I think not! Perhaps that's the whole lesson here.
Finally, the issue of forbidding same sex unions from adopting based on the FEAR (there's that word again) that the kids will grow up to be gay. I'm a firm believer that in many cases (if not all cases) homosexuality is brought about by the genetic make up and not by conditioning. With that said, should we allow the government to continue to discriminate. I strongly believe that we need to side with the two Johns (Chrétien and Lennon). As naïve and simplistic as Lennon's words appear, I believe they say quite a bit: "All we need is love"! The rest will fall in to place! (I don't know what Chétien's argument/motivation is, though I do wonder…not that there's anything wrong with that!!!).
© Micheline's Put-In
Send comments to Micheline - click here
If you have any ideas how to make our country better - Send your comments to: Canadian Ideas
Thanks for your help
best regards
www.CanadianCulture.com
Get Involved!
Your Ideas are Important!
Content is contributed by various Canadians and does not necessarily
reflect the views of canadianculture.com.
|
 
|
