Gay marriage

今天的中化culture討論是Gay marriage. 真是一個provocative的話題。
我本人的立場, (我這麼保守的人)當然是反對的, 今天的discussion 雖然是majority also agree with me 但是我們仍然給兩個6c2 班的「stab」and Mr Tse also buy their viewpoints very much.

The 2 girls in 6C2 gave a lot of false information such as
1) if single sex parents will disrupt the children's development then why those single person can adopt children?

(oh my god, no they cant! not in HK at least, only married couples as the first criteria)

2) well, if gay marriage is beyond morality lets us look at the case in Japan where incest is just legalised!

(this one is even absurd, all of us and the teacher was in gasps and everyones laughing)

Anyway, what i want to blog about is... a few things the teacher raised.
He said "why would we think gay marriage if immoral and what is morality?
Morality is a general accepted way of doing things by society.It can be changed and need some people to motivate this change like a revolution."
But as there is just a general socially accepted way of doing things. There is no exact agreement over matters. The criteria of morality comes from 心中的良知but this criteria more or less ressemble the human instincts. And then the law should follow as similar as this natural law. Then if the majority of people in society sees gay marriage as immoral then why should the law goes against this general acceptance level?

He says nowadays NOT allowing gay marriage is influencing us to think gay is abnormal. But i dont think so. It sounds like twisted to me but i cant think of any argument points against it lol.

The group leading the discussion also raised about the meaning/definition of marriage, which is a combine of one male and one female, etc. But the teacher said the meaning of marriage can be changed through time based on the change of social value. Like now is monogramy and in Muslim countries is one husband and 4 wives.
I seriously dont think the meaning of marriage can be changed so easily. Marriage is a device to stablise a society. Marriage has its biggest function; take care of the offspring and reproduce in stable relationship. This is undeniable in every cultures and every dynasty. Whatever how the form of marriage changed this function of marriage has never changed. I think he is argueing over the form of marriage rather than the functions of it. And for gay marriage, although not discriminating them, the statistics does show that the children raised in gay couples have 29% high rate of sexually harrassed by parents compared to 0.6% by heterosexual couples. This is the fact, 29 times higher, and he said we are just estimating these outcomes and he doesnt see the sudden social infleunce from passing the law.

This is one point he said that i buy...
He said even in the nature, wild animals like birds or champanzee have gay gene in their species, so it is a thing created by nature and then why human would not accept it?
But in my viewpoint, we didnt unaccept homosexual people. Gay chanpanzee and stuff can NEVER reach the position of a leader, a dominate role that has social infleunce. This is perhaps like the case in marriage, they are fine being homosexual but in they are accepted to marry, it will need to more social problems as marriage is a device which carries social function.


humm.. now i dont even know im for or against gay marriage. Or my morality limit is too high?