Vanity thought #1407. “Supreme” Justice 8

Next on the agenda is effect of SSM on straight couples and the entire institution of marriage. First of all, we need to know what marriage is for, otherwise we won’t know if effects are positive or negative, and this shows once again that the root of all current problems lies in rejection of religion.

There are clear injunctions in Christianity, and Hinduism, too, for that matter, to go forth and multiply. In our case that’s what prajāpatis are for, starting with Lord Brahmā. If one says that he, personally, is not a prajāpati, it’s not a valid argument because we ALL come from prajāpatis, we aren’t self-born, and so we are all obliged to follow dharma given by prajāpatis no matter how many generations we might be removed from Dakṣa.

The accompanying pleasure of the family life can be explained in different ways. For the conditioned souls it could serve as a justification in itself, for the designers of the universe it might be a sweetener added to the pill of dharma, to religionists it might be proof that dharma works. The court seems to have sided with atheists here, though they probably see themselves as secular, not atheist, as all judges are either Catholic or Jews. In either case, secularism here means putting rational reasoning above scriptural injunctions, so atheism.

For atheists, the only standard of measuring anything, including marriage, is their own empirical experience. They look at themselves, look at others, reject the outliers, reject religious reasoning, and settle on democratic average. The injunction to multiply, therefore, does not carry any weight for them, only the amount of resulting pleasure vs resulting pain. For each person the balance is different and so they leave it up to individuals. If they feel like it, they should go for it, if not, it’s up to them. In courts own words, these decisions “are based on many personal, romantic and practical considerations” – note that “religious” is not even on the list.

This means that procreation is not the goal, as given by religions, but a result. If it happens (for whatever reasons) it happens, if it doesn’t – no foul.

The effects of SSM on traditional marriage, therefore, should not be judged on effect on procreation, not that it would even be any, as the court states. It quotes from a precedent: “[I]t is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples”. This sentence is probably taken out of context but I don’t see how it could possibly be true, I don’t see how it is “wholly illogical” to expect people to take laws of the land into consideration when making personal decisions.

One could say they are talking about recognition of “love and commitment”, not law’s stance of pro-creation, but to believe that these two are not connected is wholly illogical in itself. Recognition of love and commitment means that love outweighs objections on the grounds of procreation. If gay people love each other then there’s no fault in not procreating and their union should be recognized as marriage anyway.

One could say that love-procreation tussle here is a false dichotomy that exists only in the minds of religious people but then these are the same people the court says will not be affected. Nope, it’s the atheists who will not be affected, but for religious people the decision is an affront to their most fundamental values. To say they will not react to it is wholly illogical.

Some will probably strengthen in their faith, but many on the fringes will gladly accept one more argument in favor of not procreating. If gays are not obliged to do it and the state says it’s no foul not to procreate, then some won’t accept the sacrifice of personal time, freedom, and energy to raise children.

It would seem ironic how, considering designer’s POV, adding pleasure to the pain of procreation now leads not to an increase but to a decrease in the activity. Perhaps other design considerations are more important here – souls must be given a chance to indulge in decidedly irreligious activities, souls must be given a real choice, not a 99% certainty that duties will also be pleasurable. At one point in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam Nārada Muni mentions indulgence in sex as a means to eventually overcome sex desire, leading to the moment when one finally gets bored with it and seeks something better.

Perhaps gays should be given this chance and this experience so that they see for themselves that there’s no spiritual fulfillment there that is present in the lives of married religious people. ATM they believe their marriages are exactly the same, spiritually speaking (whatever it means for them), and they need to see it for themselves that śāstra does not lie and speaks the truth.

Fact is, nothing can outweigh personal experiences. We can argue and prove things and present tons of valid reasons and it might help us overcome our material desires but as long as we experience sex as pleasurable we will always KNOW that it is, and it will always remain an anartha in our hearts. It will go away only when it becomes utterly insignificant compared to the pleasure of bhakti. We can SAY we want to spit at the thought of sex but if our body reacts differently we’d be lying. That’s a whole other topic, though.

So, I think there’s a reason in letting gays have a go at marriage to prove to themselves that it actually isn’t, just a poor imitation.

In court’s defense, they said that they didn’t hear convincing arguments from opponents of the SSM and that might have been the truth. Could they have gone and looked for better arguments themselves? I can understand how they might have thought it’s not really their job to go an extra mile for one of the opposing sides, which they also happen to disagree with.

Maybe it shows that the corruption has reached the highest levels of Christianity. If they can’t present convincing arguments in defense of their followers in such an important case they probably deserve (or are destined) to lose.

Next section is about effect of the ruling on religions themselves, it’s gonna be interesting.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.