what comes before

Symbols & ideographs
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1595034.html#cutid1
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1588298.html#cutid1
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1594535.html#cutid1

Blog task:
Is same-sex marriage (SSM) a practical consideration in this age of globalization?

Some argue that globalization can be compared to that of the age-old capitalism. However, it signifies notably, an age of transition. A transition to global integration as our practices, values and technologies diversify and advance. Such integration can be celebrated as a new birth of freedom and should be seen as breaking down barriers in the form of cultural and social homogeneity.

As such, SSM should be considered as assuring them the support they need and ensuring that homosexual relationships are stable would boost the stability of society as a whole, bringing them closer to society’s mainstream.
However, this can be seen from another viewpoint where the basis of marriage is reformed so as to accommodate homosexuals and SSM (This, often resulting in instability rather than, of the previously mentioned.)Thus, let us now reconsider the merits and demerits of SSM.

Firstly, marriage as defined by WordNet is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce marriage) where some believe is a contract between a couple and God and as such, no authorization from a legal body should be required. Civil marriage (the legal concept) is, however, the most frequent occurring form which brings a man and a woman together as husband and wife. Countries such as Canada and Spain have legalized SSM with a status equivalent to that of opposite-sex marriage. In attaining equal rights for homosexuals in sectors such as housing, vocation and government benefits, it is a wonder why there is a jaundiced view of SSM.

Some argue that while homosexuals are at a disadvantage economically, educationally and culturally, they too, fall short behind in their ability to raise children of their own. Furthermore, since they are unable to procreate through natural means, many turn to adoption or other artificial methods of reproduction. This i feel is a reason why SSM might not be practical considering how procreation is an essential cycle that needs to carry on.
According to an article (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2231.html) there have been bans on overseas adoption for homosexuals, as well as homosexuals being taxed for marriage penalty (in the United States).This perceptibly reflects on the prejudice against homosexuals and the qualm society has of homosexual couples producing healthy families.
Picture this. If a heterosexual couple starts a family only to see it breakdown in the later years, the children raised in the family face not only the emotional toll, but the onset of other problems due to the dejection and such disintegration. Such problems would eventually affect their school performance, learning abilities and behavior…most of which could stay with them for a lifetime.
Considering the possible damage inflicted on the future generation, I think it is with greater reason, more appropriate to allow homosexuals to adopt and start a family of their own.
For much as some would agree, homosexuals are faithful and monogamous partners who value and engage in family life, community services as well as try to be good citizens who abide by the law. Their relationships are mainly based on trust, love and affection. A study by Anton N. Marco shows that “Homosexuals have an average annual individual income of $36,800- $41,000, depending on which study one cites (an estimated 55% of gay individuals earn more than $50,000 per year), versus $12,287 for the general population and $3,041 for disadvantaged African Americans .Thus, gay individuals' average income is at least 300% higher than average Americans' and more than 1,200% higher than that of disadvantaged African Americans.” Thus it would also be more economically viable to trust that children raised by homosexual couples would see to a better livelihood with less difficulty in monetary terms.

In the same vein, homosexuality is also a natural process that can be explained through the principles of evolution and there exist homosexual animals in nature. According to a book “The side effect model of homosexuality can explain many same-sex sexual behaviors, such as male mallard ducks and stickleback fish courting each other when deprived of females (West, 1977, p. 43; Denniston, 1980)” Hence, I think it would be ignorant to dismiss such a fact and deprive homosexuals of legal rights to get married.

Nevertheless, children raised by homosexual couples could be exposed to much bullying and affliction in school, or in public as society has not fully embraced the idea of homosexuality. With that said, children would also have a changing view on how homosexuality is perceived. For example, a child might not accept the idea of heterosexual couples in the long run or they might be inclined to disregard their homosexual parents as society places more stress on them. They could also question their sexual orientation and have a narrow view on how they should act towards the opposite sex. Thus I find that in this aspect, SSM could be more of a bane than boon for societies.

Lastly, human beings should be entitled to create a history of elation and enjoyment for themselves, be it through different forms of procreation and production, heterosexual or homosexual. Where globalization comes into the picture, I think should welcome integration and acknowledge the differences in society in order to progress further.