Post # 280   THE FREEDOM TO LOVE

Blogpost # 280                                   THE FREEDOM TO LOVE

 

In common with most other main-stream Americans, we deplore bigotry of any kind, whether based on color, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability or some other perverse category. Enforceable legislation has been enacted, regarding bigotry, consistent with the modern societal conscience, evidencing the government’s official disapproval of the practice. Such laws and consistent  legal precedent, seem to have been generally successful in securing compliance with the State’s articulation of such societal norms, although there is much yet to be accomplished. In contrast, the laws and case precedent have not been nearly as societally effective regarding homosexuality, and the associated subject of same sex marriage. Since our own sexual orientation, as it happens, is heterosexual, we felt it would be appropriate and responsible, that we choose to comment on this hurtful injustice.

The ubiquitous theme of virtually all songs, movies, plays, literature and other public art forms is love, unrequited, as in Romeo and Juliet and West Story, or otherwise,  portrayed, down through the ages, in various settings. The institution of love, itself is specifically honored on our traditional holiday, Valentine’s day. Most people are successful in finding another person to love on a lasting basis, others may spend a “lifetime” looking for the “right person.” There is no extant, definitive understanding of the functional etiology of the dynamics of love, itself. There are those who believe that the purpose and root of the emotion is grounded in a natural desire to be child bearing, and so, for them, legitimate love can only exist in a heterosexual relationship. Yet, in most cases, love continues long after the birth or death of children and, exists as well, in couples with no children. It can be said that love has, empirically, been shown to be a separate, unique phenomenon, quite independent of the subject of child rearing.

We have been puzzled regarding the question: if the purported (child rearing) theory, as the thought fundamental basis for the dynamics of romantic love, is without merit, why is it considered by some, unnatural or wrong for homosexual people to love each other, to kiss and dance in public places, as heterosexual people do, without causing a stir. Certainly, heterosexual people, with no desire for child rearing, can do so, without any remarkable public reaction. What can the understandable basis be, for the observed disapproval and derision of the life style of the homosexual?

The answers, as we understand them, are the same neurotic reasons as any other bigotry, namely, insecurity and fear of the “other,” the neurotic need for a pecking order, and, perhaps, some religious basis. The first two proposed reasons are based on ignorance, some of which, in certain cases can be curable (depending upon the rare willingness to better oneself); the second, religious, requires an articulated clear reminder of what many centuries of sad and bloody worldwide history show, that the practice of religious principle needs to be voluntary, and not externally imposed.

The capacity for love is, inarguably, high among the most positive, creative and aesthetic traits of the human character. Its potential is present in all human beings without reference to sexual inclination. What is the problem? Each, category of sexuality, by definition, does not verily share in the same criteria as to sexual attraction, thus it cannot be, rationally, attributed to competition. It is, as described above, bigotry, pure and simple.

Heterosexual couples may choose to marry, or not marry; homosexual couples as well, may or may not, choose to marry. It is the undisputable right and choice of the individual, not his neighbor, nor the church nor his government. Every human being inherits the liberty to pursue his own peaceable path to personal self-realization. The most ignorant and irritating comments, of all the plentiful irrational gibberish that we have heard, are: “Same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage,” and:” Same sex marriage will hurt your marriage.” Really? How?  By the way, how are the facts of other’s marriage the critic’s conceivable business or concern?

Bigots of any kind, are hateful, and chronically injurious to the health and success of society.

-p.

Published by

plinyblogcom

Retired from the practice of law'; former Editor in Chief of Law Review; Phi Beta Kappa; Poet. Literature Student and enthusiast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s