Here's a perspective of the changing of humanities belief systems:
FROM the traditional Western Values/belief of 2000 odd years built on the Talmud's Mishanh & Gemara that probably point back to man's earliest written myths & beliefs - estimated to be roughly another 2000 years older.
TO a largely 1960's/ 70's post-modern perspective/belief that social interaction can be studied, quantified an evaluated 'scientifically' . Particularly in significant in this regard is the popular work of Michel Foucalt, Crime & Punishment (the most cited humanities book in 2017) and the significance of power structures. Power structures in the vein of Marxian views on false social assumption.
Both belief systems SHARE a cornerstone assumption - "That they stand for GOOD" these is boths ontological bedrock.
The Western concept is based heavily on the Crucifixtion of 'their' God, so as to free humanity from their sin - implicit is that the pain on the cross is the price or burden we all have to pay to achieve good.
Each human has a 'cross to bear' and bear it with stoic determination is the dogma. If you happened to be gay, where born stupid, dumb, blind, short, with macromastia, one legged, of poor family or lowly class such was God's will, and as a sin, was a cross to be borne.
Importantly we all have our crosses to bear. No human is unique. I do buy into this in so many respects?
That CROSS is the ubiquitous symbol of 'our' Lord's suffering...and hence 'ours' too.
Words to this effect.
WHEREAS
Foucault assumes the crime & sin are constructs of man. Men of power in particular. GOOD is only what is shown to fair by man's 'scientific' enquiry. Included therein is the ethics of the 'pursuit of pleasure'.
To express this Michel Foucault went to some length explaining his favoured pleasure. in his attempt to reconcile the discipline/domination coupling of power (an asexual perspective) to that of the aesthetics or desire/pleasure, which at some level he found contradictory.
He went into some deep analysis in the pleasure he achieved (and sought) from having his lovers insert their fists into the upper region of his rectum or the lower reach of his sigmoid colon - as his sort of benign earthly hagiography. A pleasure that de-genitalizes sex & sexuality.
No cross to bear here. As with much of Foucault, the real point is rather more arcane. Doubtlessly so... I believe he leaves the question 'open' for post analysis growth & hegelian type of development.
That FIST is the ubiquitous symbol of Foucault's pleasure ... and hence 'ours' as a right to pursue too.
I personally believe we (West) are making a huge error of constitutional construction.
I deeply believe that GOVERNMENT has no role in any sort of emotional commitment humans make with each other. Humans bring their deepest emotional attachments to the social groups for blessing, and in whatever form or method that my be, has absolutely NOTHING to do with government and the rule of LAW.
Unless, of course, that expression is sought by the parties, for or from a contractual agreement, with the enforcement power of the CIVIL courts.
We are taking the power of Government in the wrong direction with SSM.
I only accede to SSM as a failure of clear thinking on the greater subject of marriage, and it's role in a state (for a state?)!
