Estonia: Erki Nool Was Right
Reposted from ERR: http://news.err.ee/Opinion/36fc3d3c-6136-4fbf-badd-5572dbc41b2b
Chairman of the Estonian Writers Union Karl Martin Sinijärv facetiously finds something to agree with in recent gaybashing comments from a prominent retired athlete, but otherwise says such ideas should be consigned to history's dustbin.
In what sense was Erki Nool right? In the sense that it's the God's honest truth: one should eschew the company of practicing homosexuals. A polite person will also avoid the company of practicing heterosexuals. It's always a good policy to wait a little, until the practicing is over.
Another good question is why this same-sex (marriage) topic has to be brought up right around Easter. Because it isn't in fact just a same-sex (marriage) topic, but an elementary and important, universal human topic. The fact that some people are homosexual and some are married isn't even really the point. Even love really isn't the issue here. As I have written before, love, marriage and sexuality are completely different categories - spiritually, legally and physiologically. They may overlap, but not necessarily. It all comes down to people, and people should not be pigeonholed in the legal sense based on inborn qualities. Ethnicity, skin, natural hair color or sexual orientation are not things that a person can control in any way, or which should impact his or her opportunities out in the world of men/women.
Why should legalizing civil partnership between people of the same gender be seen as something to be condemned? Yes, in the current sense, it does mean marriage. But the word "marriage" could be allowed to remain as the word for a relationship between a man and a woman - it has served as that word for so long that there is no point in breaking a habit. If a habit wants to change, it will change itself - a hundred years ago, a marriage outside of church wasn't any kind of marriage at all, but today it is. And thanks to a few decades of diligent P.C. efforts, the word "neeger" in Estonian is beginning to take on a derogatory tone. So it isn't set in stone.
To call according of equal rights to adult citizens a "homoabielu" (gay marriage) based on narrow, sexual criteria is disorienting and discrediting. A same-sex civil partnership that is legally equivalent to marriage could also allow two life-loving widow(er)s to legalize their friendship, and be responsible for each other and their children. You don't have to be gay, you could even be extremely hetero. I wish only for an end to the bizarre situation where a certain legal relationship is permitted only to opposite-sex people. It seemed outrageous when it became permissible to marry someone from a different race or class. Today the congenial Estonian "boheet" (poet-Bohemian) Marko Mägi could, if he wanted and there was mutual consent, marry an aristocratic black Jewish female banker. But not a male banker. It doesn't seem fair somehow.
If we leave aside sexuality, that also obviates the nonsensical arguments that heterosexuality is somehow more natural or normal or right, since it allows people to procreate, or that it is the "way nature intended." Come on now. The point of sexuality is something else. Have you noticed that it is always the enjoyable and sensually delightful things that get made into an arduous and weighty matter, not vice versa. To ordain that there is only one proper way of going about the physical act of love is just about as bright as to argue that the Sun is the one true star, because it produces visible benefits for us, and that all the other celestial bodies are the devil. Yet in our firmament, the Sun is in a clear minority.
Nor does the fact that there is less of something or someone mean that it is less normal. There are fewer people than ants, fewer wise men than fools, and there is less money than we need. Hatred and ignorance are not a wise course of action in any such case. Yet alas, there will always be people who don't get something and are proud of the fact. There are plenty of good names for such people, including four letter ones. But various hedges have been developed against such failures to comprehend - thinking, for example. Arithmetic and philosophy and much more is taught in basic school to develop such powers. Quite a number of things have been discovered by way of thinking, such as the fact that one can suddenly comprehend things that one previously did not. Why not give it a try? It might prove enjoyable.
Comprehension and love are interrelated. And wasn't global poster boy and long-reigning superstar Jesus the one who tried to drive home the importance of love for humankind? We don't have all the historical details on Jesus, though it has been opined that a man of his age, in his epoch and part of the world, would certainly be expected to have married and sired a large family. Nor do we know that much about God, who created man in his own image - just as we don't know whether he constitutes majority or minority at his celestial heights. The fact that there is only one of Him does leave both possibilities open. Oh, sure, it has been impressed upon us for thousands of years that Jesus died for our sins. If that's so, it should logically follow that he was resurrected for our virtues. And that counts for a good bit more. We all understand our mortality, dying is easy, but resurrection and life will take more practice. In any case, I would beseech our learned theologians to also recognize, alongside original sin, original virtue. Put it in its rightful place. Until then, we will try to get by judiciously, fairly, resolutely and in moderation. One way or another, we won't get anywhere without faith, hope and love.