On Same-Sex Marriage
The MingPao Columnist Sekki has written an entry expressing his opinion on same-sex marriage. I'll first give a translated version of his entry, then give my own opinion. (The wording of the translation might be strange, since the grammar structure of Chinese greatly differ from that of English; I've chose to maintain the Chinese grammar structure.)
Against Same-sex Marriage
Marriage to be a couple, is the privilege of a man and a woman, or even a sacred right. Mankind has always been paired up by the two sexes, hence divided into husband and wife, must this law be broken? This is why I disagree with same-sex marriages, and I had talked about this before in this column.
To say it again, this is not discrimination. The gays can very well "freely live together", set down a contract for the sharing or not sharing of properties, and also fight for a legally familial position, receive certain familial rights. However for the same-sex relationship and different sex husband-wife to be equal, is not reasonable, is crossing the boundary, because the two "essences" are different.
As long as there is a difference between male and female, and it requires male-female reproduction, there should maintain heterosexual marriages, husband-wife, father-mother these special definitions, which is not wise to mix with same-sex relationship. Improper terminology thus leads to impropriate communication, I don't disagree same-sex partners searching for an alternative legal name [for their relationship], but why should they insist on an ancient privilege [that is to say, marriage] that is only for male and female to be husband and wife?
However, rebellious confusions are the modern ways, the world has also greatly changed, the constitution of marriage itself is in great danger. In the future world, perhaps men and women will not marry at all, allowing only same-sex lovers to be husbands and wives. Marriage may not be restricted to human beings, those who love cars may marry legally with their cars, those who love books may ask books to be wives, and also be married with computers, or even marriage with chickens and dogs.
In the future human reproduction as due to the advance of technology, will have no need for a male-female cooperation, all will be test tube reproductions, the manipulating of genes, the changing of seeds to reach its goal. In the future humankind will be asexual, nor do we need the hassles of marriage, which will of course mean that the joy of marriage will be lost.
I have spoken too far into the future, actually I believe a one-male one-female system of marriage is still full of life, others are not exactly marriages.
I was furious after I had finished reading the entry. For some one who claims to be non-discriminatory this is a pretty discriminating entry.
We can divide this column into roughly two parts, separated by a "however" in the fourth paragraph. In the first part, the columnist Sekki is confused about what is biological and what is social. Sexual reproduction is biological: that is an undeniable fact. Marriage, however, is artificial and entirely a human-made action. There is no ultimate Platonic "essence" to what we call "marriage" (unless you are religious, in which religious doctrines may define "marriage"; in that case I entirely respect this definition; but Sekki is hardly religious in the column entry). Just because marriages have always been male/female does not make it its "essence". Sekki may define marriage as a union between a male and a female which results in reproduction of children, but that is only his definition, not the definition. After all, lions mate and have little lions, but they do not get married. Hence his argument against same-sex marriage because it cannot reproduce a new generation fails. Part of his argument calls for respecting the antiquty: "marriage" is "an ancient privilege" for heterosexual couples. But what "privilege"? Is it a privilege when one arbitrarily and forcefully exclude the Other? Certainly, but an unjust one. In this modern age should we allow this injustice to continue on? However, it is not the first that makes me made; the first part is merely an argumentative mistake, which we all commit and is acceptable.
The second part is a satire, illustrating what will happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. The satire is certainly inappropriate: on the one hand, this is not the kind of matter to be joked about, anymore than an issue like interracial marriage; on the other hand, Sekki can give the impression that 1. homosexuals are animals or inanimate objects and 2. same-sex marriages are going to lead to the end of the human race. How are these words not discriminating? The fact that Sekki is "othering" homosexual in something as artificial as marriage is already discriminating; his argument, flawed; his humour, disgusting. If, however, an article as such gets published in a major newspaper in HongKong, I think this is an accurate portrait of how the mainstream population sees homosexuals, and this portrait is not at all pleasant.
Against Same-sex Marriage
Marriage to be a couple, is the privilege of a man and a woman, or even a sacred right. Mankind has always been paired up by the two sexes, hence divided into husband and wife, must this law be broken? This is why I disagree with same-sex marriages, and I had talked about this before in this column.
To say it again, this is not discrimination. The gays can very well "freely live together", set down a contract for the sharing or not sharing of properties, and also fight for a legally familial position, receive certain familial rights. However for the same-sex relationship and different sex husband-wife to be equal, is not reasonable, is crossing the boundary, because the two "essences" are different.
As long as there is a difference between male and female, and it requires male-female reproduction, there should maintain heterosexual marriages, husband-wife, father-mother these special definitions, which is not wise to mix with same-sex relationship. Improper terminology thus leads to impropriate communication, I don't disagree same-sex partners searching for an alternative legal name [for their relationship], but why should they insist on an ancient privilege [that is to say, marriage] that is only for male and female to be husband and wife?
However, rebellious confusions are the modern ways, the world has also greatly changed, the constitution of marriage itself is in great danger. In the future world, perhaps men and women will not marry at all, allowing only same-sex lovers to be husbands and wives. Marriage may not be restricted to human beings, those who love cars may marry legally with their cars, those who love books may ask books to be wives, and also be married with computers, or even marriage with chickens and dogs.
In the future human reproduction as due to the advance of technology, will have no need for a male-female cooperation, all will be test tube reproductions, the manipulating of genes, the changing of seeds to reach its goal. In the future humankind will be asexual, nor do we need the hassles of marriage, which will of course mean that the joy of marriage will be lost.
I have spoken too far into the future, actually I believe a one-male one-female system of marriage is still full of life, others are not exactly marriages.
I was furious after I had finished reading the entry. For some one who claims to be non-discriminatory this is a pretty discriminating entry.
We can divide this column into roughly two parts, separated by a "however" in the fourth paragraph. In the first part, the columnist Sekki is confused about what is biological and what is social. Sexual reproduction is biological: that is an undeniable fact. Marriage, however, is artificial and entirely a human-made action. There is no ultimate Platonic "essence" to what we call "marriage" (unless you are religious, in which religious doctrines may define "marriage"; in that case I entirely respect this definition; but Sekki is hardly religious in the column entry). Just because marriages have always been male/female does not make it its "essence". Sekki may define marriage as a union between a male and a female which results in reproduction of children, but that is only his definition, not the definition. After all, lions mate and have little lions, but they do not get married. Hence his argument against same-sex marriage because it cannot reproduce a new generation fails. Part of his argument calls for respecting the antiquty: "marriage" is "an ancient privilege" for heterosexual couples. But what "privilege"? Is it a privilege when one arbitrarily and forcefully exclude the Other? Certainly, but an unjust one. In this modern age should we allow this injustice to continue on? However, it is not the first that makes me made; the first part is merely an argumentative mistake, which we all commit and is acceptable.
The second part is a satire, illustrating what will happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. The satire is certainly inappropriate: on the one hand, this is not the kind of matter to be joked about, anymore than an issue like interracial marriage; on the other hand, Sekki can give the impression that 1. homosexuals are animals or inanimate objects and 2. same-sex marriages are going to lead to the end of the human race. How are these words not discriminating? The fact that Sekki is "othering" homosexual in something as artificial as marriage is already discriminating; his argument, flawed; his humour, disgusting. If, however, an article as such gets published in a major newspaper in HongKong, I think this is an accurate portrait of how the mainstream population sees homosexuals, and this portrait is not at all pleasant.
posted by Tristan at 3:57 p.m.
1 Comments:
hm .. interesting article. I'm glad you translated it. The author seems to be sliding down a very, very slippery slope.
I think it just comes down to - what is the definition of "marriage"? should we base its current meaning and implications on a historical definition, or should we allow for semantic change, as is the inenvitable way of words in an ever changing world? Why is the word "marriage" subject to rigid constraints that other words are not? I mean, the word "gay" in the first place meant "merry", then slowly evolved to refer to homosexuality. I think it's unfortunate that actually, no one cares about the word usage (except linguists and no one cares about linguists) it's the principle they're fighting for. I agree with you - it's a disheartening article.
Post a Comment
<< Home