In the Western world there is this often-misguided notion that once a person dies, they instantly are in an ethereal plain, devoid of pain. Heaven, for lack of a better term. Now as not one being knows the exact experience after death§ , I shan’t postulate this further. However using this assumption, that a being does not experience pain after death, this makes rape a more notorious notion. As not only does the victim experience the pain of the rape, the subsequent trauma experienced is life-long. In essence the rapist is murdering the woman/man’s psyche in one act. Murder in the sense that, it changes the individual in a manner so detrimental that it eliminates an aspect of personally formed sexuality. This is the other reason in which it is an act considered to be intrinsically wrong. It exposes the individual, it strips an individual and projects their mind into a spiralling cycle of pain. Imagine, a lifetime of constant fear, trauma, and superficial joy. Strange considering rape, correlate closely to the notion of power, as though one feels so insignificant so as to feel the need to assert dominance over another being. Then I would ask of the Corrective Rapists, where this intention of Correction was derived. Perhaps the rape is an attempt to isolate the victim, so as to deny any future possibility of intimacy and relationships.
Whether these be, simple men (I understand exclusively male implications) recruited by some higher power of social moralist, or a religious fanatic it is still in every sense of the word hateful. What right does man have to degrade their fellow human, to destroy the capacity to live a life not plagued with fear and guilt. The power of society dwells within social acceptance and indeed the widespread form of subjective morality evident within the individual. This is the benefit of living in a nation with diverse cultural aspects and belief systems. Thus I must stress the importance of taking a stand for equality. To destroy the notion of objectification evident within societies across the globe, where women (and some men) are viewed as objects through which to achieve sexual, socially based or personal satisfaction (more on this topic at a later date). However as educated, citizens of a primarily well off, household I would ask you all to take action. Now I do not ask for torches and pitchforks regarding the international ignorance of such atrocities. But I call for a personal level introspection, to ask the question: What can I do to stamp out inequality in mine own social groups? It might be as simple as defending a person when they are being attacked regarding their morality, race or sexuality. It might merely be, changing one’s own mannerisms so as to not autonomously attack that which is different, but to weigh up the argument logically, before deciding what is intrinsically wrong. One thing can be said, before those evident in our society decide it is imperative to fix the issues of other nations, one must alter the issues within their own. I bring this case of a violation of human rights so as to raise awareness, perhaps place into perspective the issues evident in our own nation. However, in order to help others, we must take moment of introspection so as to not overlook the problems rooted within the very heart of ones own society. Carpe Diem.
§ Those that use the notion of NDE’s or near death experiences are mistaken, as humanity does not require the presence of death to experience such a phenomenon. The human is a marvel of evolution, and through apt electrical stimulation a person may experience the exact same traits of an NDE (minus the death aspect). For further information please see:
“Humanity is imperfect.” – Or is it? As beings of finite existence, the ideology is thrown around that only deity figures exhibit innocence, purity and that which is desired above all things, perfection. This is evidenced in numerous photo-shoots, airbrushing and the invention of PhotoShop, so that people might gloss over their appearance, aiming closer and closer to perfection. But where does this leave the entirety of society? What purpose does this constant pursuit of perfection serve? Perhaps it caters to our most desperate desire to be loved, for the person that one has come to be. In this sense religion works against the esteem of society, stating that perfection is holy and something that must be desired. This ideology merely serves as a catalyst for personal degradation – It is amusing how if a person is told by another that they are a “bad,” person, it is merely brushed off, water off a duck’s back. Yet if a faith, or moral ideology states an exact or similar stance, thousands of people enter a personal quest to reclaim their own morality. It as almost as though humanity – at least a particular percentage of it – believes that it is justified to be judged upon their actions, if they are being judged from a religious standing point.
Numerous cultures and religious texts claim that it is only the eternal deity or deities duty/divine right to judge humanity. But what separates humanity from the animal population? Humanity differs in that, they have the capacity to reason, the ability to be creative, free will and indeed the capacity to love.
What is love? Is love a humble emotion? An intricate farce? Illusive? Non-existent? To fully understand what this means, it would be a good idea to analyse what love has the capacity to do to a human:
Confuse, empower, inspire, irrationalise, hurt, destroy, create, seduce, steal. Love has infinite capacities.
But before continuing, one must ask the question: Are these positive or negative capabilities? It could be defined as an almost equal balance of both positive and negative. The interesting thing about the human condition is that it is constantly changing, therefore an opinion I sate today on the matter of love may simply change in an hour. However in our contemporary society, love is portrayed as a deep sentimental feeling of attachment to a person or object. Thus when this object or person is abruptly taken, results in immense feelings of sadness, guilt and may even begin an endless cycle of depression. One thing can be universally stated. Love is a powerful force that has the capacity to transcend nature, race, social status, sex and law.
In our post-modernistic society, a famous psychologist (Erickson) postulates that humanity undergoes eight stages in their, all that have their own unique conflicts that must be resolved. Positive and successful resolution of these conflicts will result in the successful development of self-confidence, and this notion of an ‘ego’.
N.B. This notion of ego is in no manner a negative element of our nature. Ego in this sense refers to this idea of people’s self confidence and willingness to participate in the wider society due to this ego. (Thus keeping society, the economy and the world in constant perpetuality)
According to this psychologist the stage at which the human becomes a young adult, that is, 19-40, the most important event in this stage of development, is love relationships. This period of their lives need to be spent searching for true intimacy and that is not exclusively sexual. Physical intimacy is not indicative of emotional intimacy. The young adult must learn to be truly open and honest with their partner, thereby experiencing these love relationships.
The issue with the topic of love is that it is so ambiguous that the young, often misled by numerous sources mistake love for lust. The exposure of adult material to those that are underage has a direct correlation to this confusion of lust with love. Viewing this same kind of adult material is one of the factors behind this desensitisation from graphic imagery thereby cheapening the concept of an intellectual love, relationship even.
One of the major factors of this detachment or desensitisation to the true power of love is technology. Texts, Instant messaging, e-mail to an extent, whilst having the capacity to connect those half way across the world, cheapens the humble communication that can occur without words, but through touch. Ironic I communicate this through the Internet, but is the best medium to reach people. When was the last time that you were told “I love you?”
Now ponder when was the last time you were told “I love you,” by a person you haven’t even met. I will acknowledge that in my own life this is an annoyance and waste of time. I love you, in the form of a text message from a person that you know nothing about is meaningless, or is it? It was once stated, that is what humanity communicated to sound sweet. This would logically mean that in our contemporary society love has been replaced by the emotional form of ice cream –This could at least be true in a biological context as love is comparative to that of eating huge amount of chocolate.
Culture also has a direct correlation to what a society perceives love to be. Do arranged marriages constitute love? At times this can be the case, but for the bulk of these financial arrangements the notion of love does not exist, finance is of more importance. Then as the couple lives together, a growth, of fondness occurs. Using this logic, love is nothing more than large amounts of chocolate combined with fondness? Well that certainly doesn’t sound right to Western Civilisation.
The second essential aspect to humanity is the ability to rationalise, to reason, to apply logic to almost any given situation. Some may chose to discredit logical reasoning as the more bland aspect of existence, yet it is key to the attribute that allows humanity to defines themselves as indeed human. Yet it must be stated that creativity – another key aspect to the identification as human – is almost a contradiction to logic. In this sense humanity is a complete paradox in itself. Humanity reasons, yet it can ignore reason, to be creative, to have faith, to experience an essence of existence that is evident within each being – Spirituality. One of the fundamental, logical reasonings behind the existence of God are the patterns that appear in nature. The manner through which the world has been organised, the numerous eco-systems, in addition to the delicate creation of bacteria and microbes that keep the higher order of life functioning.
What does this examination of the attributes of humanity mean for this discussion? Consider the notion that humanity was created in the image of the eternal creator. Yet, humanity is imperfect, God is perfect. Let us use one of the attributes that humanity was endowed with, logic. Using this facet of humanity, it is possible to see God in a different, perhaps more imperfect light.
God existed before life. This eternal deity created all manner of existence on this planet and indeed the universe. If this God were indeed intrinsically perfect, then why would there be the desire to create anything in the first place? God being the embodiment of all perfection would mean this deity would not require nor feel any desire to do anything other than exist in his own self righteous glory. Humanity being made in the likeness of God would mean two things, either humanity is perfect in its imperfection or indeed God is not perfect.
But I would postulate the former to creatively viable. Humanity has the capacity to be perfect. But the only action detrimental to this ideology is seeking perfection. As a species we must acknowledge our imperfections, embrace them, thereby changing the minds perception of immaculacy. Yet seeking for it, merely demeans humanity, as it places our own desires and power to be complete within a being, object or image that exists outside ones body, thereby hindering what could be perfect.
This is where issue of marriage is particularly crucial. In effect, whilst civil partnerships, unions are a step in the right direction (to borrow form the phrase pool of Rudd) they are not equal to marriage. Civil unions are legally recognised for residents within the three states and territories present within Australia. In addition these unions also vary from state to state in the level of protection offered by the Government, some may receive adoption rights, whilst in another state couples may only receive property rights. Civil union may not even be portable, two may be considered ‘life partners’ in one state, and nothing legally binding in another. Marriage offers an entirety of protection, it establishes a spouse as the next-of-kin, substitute blood relatives in the eyes of the law. This title is essential for loving couples, as it provides peace of mind, knowing that your partner may have an official say in medical, property or funeral matters. Marriage is also legally recognised by all Governments across the globe (currently between a man and a woman, but this stresses the importance of the global community to expand the notion of marriage), and it can be performed anywhere and still be recognised, which is more than what can be said for civil – unions. Theoretically these unions were designed to provide protection and equality for single sex relationships, whilst remaining separate from marriage. Why? – To keep the sanctity of marriage in tact, to not redefine the notion of marriage, to keep the status quo. On those points I feel it is essential to meticulously dissect each argument for the purpose of revealing the sheer paradoxical and illogical beliefs behind this lack of equality.
This statement would be one of the more sound arguments in this debate had it statistical evidence to support the particular notion of minority. Regardless of sexual orientation a Galaxy Poll, which was performed in June 2009 found that 60% of Australian’s support the idea of homosexual marriage (see: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/news/20090616.htm). Therefore it would simply illogical to state that only a minority desire the expansion of marriage to include diverse sexualities.
If that were too much for the Government to handle, then it would be wise to provide the same protection with a different name. However this was tried in the introduction of civil unions, and these partnerships did not achieve what they were theoretically designed to do. In this sense, the only manner through which equality may be achieved is through the expansion of marriage. Surely a homosexual couple that ties the knot in Tasmania has no detrimental impact upon a heterosexual couple residing in Western Australia. In much the same way as relationships between people in Queensland have no adverse effect upon myself, who is evidently single.
But without bringing into question the accuracy of these polls, would it matter if less than 60% of the populace support single-sex unions? In this instance, people are being denied the right to express their love in a manner which lawfully protects them. These same people are law abiding tax payers, that provide revenue for the country. One might argue that heterosexual singles also pay tax, but the fact is there is a choice. True, not all couples apt for marriage, yet the choice is still evident. Regarding the GLBTI community, the choice has been made for them and the same people that claim the right to marry, also deny this same right to other human beings – it sounds rather hypocritical.
As for this redefinition of marriage it would stimulate the economy, in that homosexual couples would purchase and use all manner of services for their ceremonies. This means more money being placed back into retail, and indeed public function venues and catering services. This ‘minority,’ provides a positive impact upon the economy as whole and the Government has spent enormous amounts in preparation for Global Financial Crisis – Why not allow for this redefinition for a positive impact on the economy? – Not to mention the joy and happiness it brings to couples and communities across the nation.