January 28, 2013

WHAT'S WRONG WITH LOVE? CIVIL UNIONS  

Back in the very early days of my life, sexual relations between men and women seemed strictly bound by rules. It was not unusual for a couple to be engaged for several years; clearly, lust had no place in their relationship, (Anyway that was the assumption.) That a man and woman could live together without state sanction did not fit social mores; when it happened, everyone went ooh. Of course, we did not want to know the truth, that passion overrode civility, that men and women covertly enjoyed each others bodies. I had a great aunt who had lived with her married lover for decades and we kids stared at her as if she were from another planet. The adults felt sorry for her.

The same was true for homosexual love and passion, but even more so. The names for such people included fag, queen, gay, homo, et al and tell the story. Society had no use for such and its practitioners kept in the closet. For such proclivities to become public meant social and often financial disaster. The chances for such person to occupy public office simply did not exist. It was far worse than a divorced politician seeking election.

No one could come up with a coherent reason for such social absurdity. Explanations abounded, such as god did not approve, the bible did not approve, sex is for procreation homo sex is not, children might get the wrong idea about what's OK, gays in the military caused trouble and I'm sure many more. At least parental disapproval made a modicum of sense, i.e., no grandchildren.

So, now the world is changing. Homosexuals can win elections, they are OK in the military, public discrimination is illegal; we can see them approved of in some of our TV shows. But, God forbid they should marry or even have state recognized civil unions. The Colorado hoorah about such remains astonishing. Our state legislature is about to pass a civil union law making it permissible for two love birds to swear their loyalty to each other and have most of the perks of marriage. But, there are noisy people who demand that not happen because, now get this, it infringes on their religious freedom.

Infringes on their freedom? They do not assert that civil unions make it impossible for them to pray, or attend church, or marry by religious ceremony. They simply assert and are astonished we do not fall supine in obeisance to their wishes. Suppose religious Jews demanded that ham be removed from markets because its sale reduced their religious freedom. They would wind up accompanied by ambulance staff with nets to the nearest hospital.

Civilization is a mass of social doctrine, which people take seriously and are willing to kill about. Such social doctrine however serves to identify to which group we belong and make us feel comfortable with each other. Remember Henry Higgins of Pygmalion fame? He asserted that language kept us apart, but he missed that language keeps our reference group together. This country tried to force Native American children to give up their language, much to their anguish. Taking social convention seriously has lead to disasters.

It is likely that in Colorado, we will soon have civil unions, and I hope that down the road they will become marriages.

Whenever you wind up in bed

With the wrong someone, it is usually said

You have to carefully ration

Your sexual passion

Lest you wind up with a bonk on the head.