Same sex marriage a religion independent approach

. PHOTO: AFP

Reproduction and survival of progeny are the two fundamental issues of concern to any life form. Biological evolution of life has found sexual reproduction much more successful than asexual reproduction because the former can bring in many variations in genetic characteristics within a species. Therefore the fundamental and the only reason behind this division into male and female sexes is reproduction, and certain pleasure centres in the brain have been involved in the animal world in order to ensure continuation of this activity. I think this single reason negates the prime argument raised by the protagonists that sexual relationship should not be related to reproduction only.

In addition to physical survival, mankind needs to preserve and develop the clearly distinctive capacities of its brain, its emotional aspects and psyche, which are not important in animals. Through thousands of years of experimentation, in which different groups tried out different methods, mankind has found out that a clearly identified family unit consisting of a father and a mother in a society gives the best environment for proper development both physical and mental of their progeny. Thus the institution of marriage was born, and human beings restrained themselves from promiscuous behaviour, a basic instinct prevalent in both animals and humans, as it can harm the family unit.

Therefore sexual pleasure is a secondary issue compared to the primary issues of reproduction and a humane survival of our progeny. The human brain is very creative. It can get pleasure from almost anything animate or inanimate or even in its fantasy, but that cannot be an argument for any behaviour that has the potential to harm the institution of marriage which it has evolved over millenniums. If the Universe is a creation, it is natural that the Creator's guidance would fit the human findings in the long term.

I am writing in response to the letter by Mr. Kokoski published on June 7.

Mr. Kokoski took my statement "the fundamental unit of our society is subject to change and evolution" out of context. That statement was made in light of the fact that nuclear families have replaced the traditional extended families in Bangladesh clearly indicating that the definition of family is not necessarily unalterable.

Same-sex marriages are currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, three provinces in Canada (Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec) and one state in the United States (Massachusetts). It is extremely difficult to believe that same-sex marriages have been legalised in all these places simply because of "the desire of some same-sex partners to change the definition of marriage!" It is sad that Mr. Kokoski failed to acknowledge that millions of people across the world support same-sex marriage independent of their sexual orientation. I would also like to point out that the supporters of same-sex marriage include people from different religions as well. In British Columbia, for example, the Anglican Church decided to start blessing same-sex marriages last year. People from all spheres of life support same-sex marriage because they believe all human beings are equal. The fact that gay rights are human rights has very little to do with "expression of free love" as purported by Mr. Kokoski.

I find the statement "the family based on marriage is the best way to bring up happy, productive children" questionable. I wonder how many people will agree that a child with two abusive parents is better off than a child with one loving parent. World Vision estimates that approximately twelve million children in Africa have already lost one or both parents to AIDS. In many cases, theses children are being taken care of by their grandmothers and/or elder siblings. Mr. Kokoski would let us believe that none of these children will grow up to be very happy and productive whereas I would argue that each of these children is capable of reaching his/her full potential given they receive the love and support they need. Such love and support can come from a variety of sources such as relatives or foster family. How a child is being brought up is more important than who is in charge of bringing up the child. It seems Mr. Kokoski has a very rigid mindset when it comes to the definition of family. Nevertheless, I respect his opinion as he is free to believe what constitutes an ideal family. However, Mr. Kokoski is not free to impose his beliefs in this regard on others. No amount of zealous rhetoric can justify why different types of families should not co-exist in society.

Omar Sharif, Vancouver, BC, Canada