Gay Marriage

GAY MARRIAGE
Gay marriages have a history. It is said that Nero married a slave-boy and also one of his male friends. Gay marriages were legal and common in ancient Rome. Ancient Greece was teeming with gays. And Cretans encouraged homosexuality as a population controller .Many modern states are now falling back on this tradition and have given legal recognition to gay and same-sex marriages. Netherlands became the first country to do so .Others that followed include Belgium ,Spain, South Africa and Norway .However the flag-bearer of the modern states, the U.S. does not recognize same sex marriage –at the federal level- after the passage of Defence of Marriage Act in 1996.At the state level Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut recognize same-sex marriages. .

The legal recognition of gay-marriages entitles them to the same protection and benefits that are enjoyed by heterosexual or opposite sex couples. Much of these benefits will accrue in the form of ‘spousal benefits’ that companies and organizations offer to their heterosexual employees. In 1990 Lotus [now a part of IBM] became the first publicly traded company to offer the same ‘spousal benefits’ to gay couples as given to opposite-sex couples. Since then more than 200 of the Fortune 500 companies have extended spousal benefits to gay couples. The companies have done this to retain their gay and lesbian employees.
As the amount of consent for gay marriages is increasing, so is the amount of dissent. Religious leaders and right-of-the centre conservatives are decrying these marriages .Their main plea is that such legalization is harmful for the society and the institution of opposite sex marriages. That the day is not far away when same sex marriages would become the norm. However, empirical research seems to refute their claim. The most extensive research on this subject has been done by Darren Spedale. Spedale, also an author and investment banker, studied the data of the 15 years following the legalization of registered partnerships of gay couples in Denmark. He found that the rate of opposite-sex marriage has actually gone up after Denmark granted legal status to gay couples. The rate of divorce among opposite-sex couples has also gone down.

A large number of gay couples are raising foster children. The impact on children raised by same-sex parents is another issue. Researches indicate that children raised by same-sex couples have been found to be no different from children raised by opposite-sex parents. On both psychological and biological indicators children raised by gay couples have scored equally well. The quality of upbringing, according to these evidences, seems to depend not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on the quality of relationship between the parents and the child. However, since most homosexuals show distinct psychological traits [like high fashion consciousness and creativity], it is hard to agree that children raised by them are not affected by their parents’ traits. Another important issue is the affect on the sexual preferences of these children. Do such children show a tendency towards homosexuality? Does the sexual orientation of the parents affects the sexual preferences of their children? No significant or conclusive research on this subject has been done till now.
Gay marriages don’t fulfill the ‘ purpose of procreation’ of marriage. The institution of marriage originally started so that personal property could pass to the man’s biological child. Gay marriages therefore don’t fulfill the biological purpose of marriage. But they do fulfill the emotional and psychological purposes of marriage. Like companionship, a stable environment and a home to return to. The rate of divorce among same-sex couples is higher than that of opposite-sex couples. One of the reasons for this may be that same sex couples don’t have that strong incentive to pursue life-long marriages.

One may support or oppose homosexuality. But it’s a big question of civil rights. Should a minority be discriminated against and deprived of its right because of its sexual preferences. Isn’t an individual free to choose his or her life partner. Does the law has the right to interfere in one’s personal issues like marriage. And then there are other questions also. Like the health hazards associated to gay couples. They have been found to be susceptible to various diseases like AIDS and prostate cancer.

To end on a happier note. As gays celebrate their marriage where they are legalized, the floundering US economy will be much more happier if gay marriages are legalized all over. According to Dr. M.V. Lee Badgette , an economist with University of Massachusetts and the Institute for gay and lesbian strategic studies , the legalization of same sex marriage would bring a windfall of $2 billion to the US wedding industry. This is based on the assumption that half of the same couples get married. And each of them on average spends one-fourth of the average $27000 spent on a normal wedding. Well, they would definitely marry much more and spend much more. Hear any wedding planner!!!

BAN THE BURQA

One cannot hide behind any reasoning, any logic whatsoever. The truth is staring in our face. That the practise of wearing burqa by islamic women is the assertion of the fact that a woman is the property of his man. And only his man , his husband has the right to see his face and body. The woman looses the right over his body. The burqa is symbolic of the fact that women are second-grade creatures, there to serve the existence of men. That a women is not free and is subject to the diktats of a male society.
Many would argue that if a woman has no problem in wearing a burqa how can the society or law direct her not to wear one. Burqa is also a form of religious symbolism. Religious symbolism serves the purpose of segregating members of that religion from the rest of the society. Its a provocative assertion of one's separate identity. Religious symbolism therefore divides the society. Therefore all forms of religious symbolism, including burqa , should be done away with.
The irony is that the customs once instituted by men to suppress women, to oppress the women's nature is later supported by women itself. Therefore we find so many voices from amongst the muslim women in support of the burqa. Wearing burqa has become an epidemic in Muslim society everywhere. To prevent it from turning into a pandemic, in the face of globalization, right vaccination has to be given. And that right vaccination is to ban the burqa.
Three cheers for Sarkozy for raising the issue. And three boos for the intellectuals, for the women who use specious reasoning for defending the burqa. You cannot get away by tweaking words and defeat the underlying cornerstone of the modern civilization that women are equal to men. And any custom, any practise that contradicts it , even if it is supported by women should be done away with.I would conclude with what Salman Rushdie once said about the burqa,"Its not a great thing to keep half the humanity wrapped in bags." So you women throw away your burqas and celebrate existence, celebrate your body. And look to men beyond your husbands.love ankur.