 |
|
Gay Marriage & Homosexuality
|
RE: Integral Politics & Gay Marriage?
|
On Jun 10, 2005, at 6:54 PM, Someone wrote:
I was thinking about the practice Integral politics a bit more. Let's take gay marriage as an example of a political problem.
Now, as far as I am aware the anthropological, psychological and biological evidence shows that homosexuality is normal. A certain percentage of the population are hardwired in regard to sexual preference and it has always been thus. Some societies are uncomfortable with homosexuality, some tolerate it, whilst some even institutionalise it (ancient Greece).
If it is normal and if it is not a matter of free choice then it is only reasonable that a good society not discriminate against gays - right? Except that the Abrahamic religions explicitly condemn homosexuality and the fundamentalists of all three want to make it illegal (8 Islamic states still have the death penalty).
What would be the Integral view on this?
SD doesn't have an answer because homosexuality isn't peculiar to any level. We might say that fundamentalism is a pathology of red/blue, but homosexuality was an institution in the mainly red/blue society of Sparta.
What we are left with is that one group of people have decided that another group are evil and need to be expunged from society. We can argue the facts until we go mad because they simply don't accept the facts. To them homosexuality is a moral choice that is clearly condemned in their tradition. We might be able to argue the case for tolerance except for the fact that fundamentalists blame homosexuality for a whole range of other moral problems. Gay marriage was attacked because it apparently threatened 'family values'.
What you have in this case, is one segment of society pitted against another. It seems to me that the right solution is for the fundamentalist side to admit they are wrong and for society to allow homosexuals to live free of discrimination. There is little that homosexuals can do because their mere existence is an affront to fundamentalists - should they modify their behaviour to appease the sensibilities of fundamentalists?
It would seem to me that there is no 'integral' solution to this problem. One side is clearly wrong and must surrender. What do you think- as an exercise?
Btw, the left generally supports gay rights and the conservatives wish to curb those 'rights'. Is the left wrong in this case?
|
|
Okay, I appreciate your historical perspective. This sounds like fun and may be very useful, try this...
Every human being has a different distribution of male and female hormones. If someone has the maximum amount of male hormones they may only be good for being a work horse. Maximum female and they may only be good for making babies. Equal amounts of male and female hormones and it is a toss up as to whether a person is actually a male or a female and whether or not they can reproduce at all. So, who is to say "what" a person "should" be? If a person is close enough to the "center" of hormone balance then it is possible that they might "identify" with either gender. Then, there is "society" that may identify a person as being either gender regardless of what gender they consider themselves to be or want to be. On a recent (Spring 2005) episode of the TV show "Gray's Anatomy" a fraternity brother of one of the head surgeons came into the hospital and it turned out that he had ovaries and did not produce fertile sperm and the doctor had to tell him that he was not the father of the baby that his wife was carrying. "Technically" speaking, was that a homosexual marriage?
Given the above set of "facts" who is to say what homosexuality really is or which couples have a homosexual relationship? Knowing the above how can we accurately determine what is "normal"? Gender is no longer an "either/or" situation. Similarly, politics is no longer an either/or situation as we all become more aware of the actuality of the physical and psychological sciences. Hence, discrimination is not really a factor or an option because a person is what they is or are. There is nothing really to discriminate against.
In the case of the Abrahamic religions explicitly condemning homosexuality and the fundamentalists of all three wanting to make it illegal (8 Islamic states still having the death penalty) I seem to remember that they also "define" a man as having a full beard or the having the ability to have a full beard or some kind of masculine genetic determinant like that. So, their "tribe" has a "tradition" of no male-to-male relationship. What "right" does anyone "outside of" that tribe have to tell "them" what is right or wrong? They are "paying attention" to "actual genetics" whereas most other countries and cultures do not and the issue is a little or perhaps a lot more flaky or ill-defined. Other countries and cultures end up with "in-between" hormonal results that may not be genetically stable for reproduction of their species whereas the Abrahamic religions take care of that by killing off people who demonstrate that they are "less than" male. The downside of this is of course that they may end up with "too manly men" or men who have "too much" male hormones and they may die out anyways.
It is said that God (or nature) has a way of taking care of things and maintaining a balance of necessary elements.
So, the "integral view" on this would be more of educating people of "both" sides as to the "actuality" of the "science" involved that says that not everyone is "either" a male "or" a female.
In SD homosexuality may be more of a green or an aspect of nature itself doing what ever comes natural to a specific person. So, SD "does" have an answer because the people who are "against" homosexuality are the people "demonstrating" the dynamics of the red/blue. Homosexual participants would also be "upper left" quadrant with supporters of homosexuality being half of the lower left whereas people "against" homosexuality would pretty much be all the other quadrants. If a person has UL qualities I find it hard to believe that they would be against anything outside of themselves. Yes, Sparta became strong but then burned itself out.
Again, the Integral View can not say that either side is right or wrong because both sides have reasons for their opinions. Homosexuals need to understand that ultimately there are no "rights" that need to be defended. It is through better explanations that we can all see a more accurate view of reality which at some point will nullify all opposition so that people see that they are a part of the similar whole.
Can you see that there is an Integral Solution?
I need more of this kind of mediation-oriented explanatory practice so please send me any so-called arguments. I will put this on the http://IntegralPolitics.info website and remove your name. What other "issues" can we explore together?
For more authoritative information regarding the concept of "Genetic Ratios" and their effect upon gender determination please read the article, Beyond the Binary on the next page.
[A collaborative work-in-progress. Not necessarily associated with any other organizations.]
|
|
|
