Reflections During My Dermatology Clerkship - Marriage Equality

One day, I ran into a dermatology professor who kindly and rationally asked about our opinions regarding the current controversy of the marriage equality special law vs. the civil code.

Although spoken with earnestness, tracing the context subtly revealed that her questioning had two main threads. The first was the belief that, since rights are equal under the protection of a special law as they are under the civil code, why keep fighting relentlessly for inclusion in the civil code? Moreover, she argued, it's only a minority expressing their views radically while the majority remains silent—can the people fighting for civil code inclusion really represent the majority's opinion? The second was that the children from homosexual families who speak out in the media are all seemingly successful, glamorous examples. Aren't there more tragic examples to show us for comparison, so we could run an A/B test to prove the point?

My basic stance is that the civil code, from the perspective of human rights, is more progressive and aligns better with ideals than a special law.

Let's consider the first question. The professor believes that in modern society, due to the diversity of channels for voicing opinions, those who speak the loudest on television or get the most likes from netizens online are not necessarily representative. However, I think the professor overlooked one point: the silent majority, which may include you and me, does not absolutely stand on either extreme. The various channels of expression and social movement groups—which may seem "chaotic" to the older generation—are actually the diverse pulling forces society presents through the interaction of issues. Thus, contemporary society's overall tone on an issue achieves a dynamic equilibrium amidst this continuous tug-of-war. The silent majority is also constantly influenced during this process, continuously adjusting their own direction based on what they see and think. There is a part the professor cannot understand: that the radical nature of fighting for civil code inclusion might, in her view, be traded for better results through compromise and obedience. Yet, once two opposing sides suddenly lose one end, it will abruptly careen out of control like a game of tug-of-war. Imagine, if there were no unyielding guidance from the side supporting civil code inclusion, would the overall direction decided by the silent majority today gradually be pulled completely towards opposing the legalization of homosexuality altogether?

Even though some harbor ideals, it cannot be denied that society needs time to progress. The process of this progress often moves forward in a continuous tug-of-war similar to the one described above. We cannot arbitrarily presume, based on our own perceived height of knowledge and thought, that public opinion in every corner of society will align exactly with our wishes. Perhaps today the silent majority leans toward establishing a special law to maintain their version of the middle ground, and I can regretfully acknowledge the fact that the final result might still be the drafting of a special law. However, I will still try my best to support the voices calling for inclusion in the civil code. This is because I want to be part of the progressive pulling force in the debate of the issue, rather than trying to use what I consider the most correct stance to dominate and look down upon those whose stances differ from mine.

Regarding the second question, I don't feel this is an issue that can be objectively "A/B tested." Furthermore, I feel the professor's words were actually just subjective opposition packaged in a facade of scientific rationality. Rashly applying a scientific attitude to human issues intertwined with multiple social factors is merely a kind of arrogance, attempting to simplify—or even evade the complexity of—the problem using an observational perspective that belongs in a laboratory, which is extremely simplistic for society. Not to mention, examining the children of homosexual family environments under a magnifying glass is fundamentally unfair when legal protections and respect for homosexual human rights are not yet fully widespread. I don't know what kind of mindset the professor had when suggesting an A/B test.

Finally, here is a link to a "lazy packet" (a quick guide/infographic) about marriage equality. I hope everyone can learn more about this issue.