Monday, February 16, 2004
The New Racism
Ok, I had been trying to keep off of serious/political topics for a while, but the issue has become extremely topical, so I might as well stop avoiding it. That topic is the ridiculous amount of anti-homosexuality that's in our culture today. Frankly, it's disturbing. Honestly, I believe that fifty years from today, being anti-gay will be viewed as racism is now seen. It's this simple: If you are anti-homosexual, you are ignorant.
Why is this issue important to me? Because, it's an issue of justice. I not gay, and have only a couple of gay friends, so it's not particularly personal. It's only personal in that I'm a human and find the way we act as a culture with respect to gays disgraceful.
I think it starts at the lowest levels: When a boy acts feminine, other call him "gay". Heck, even I've done it at times. Now, I'm the first to state that words, in and of themselves, don't do harm. BUT, I think this is one colloquialism that has gone too far. People use the term "gay" without even thinking of what it means or how it affect people. Frequently, kids' will use this as an insult without knowing anything else about homosexuality - they're too young to understand the try meaning of the word, and before they know what it really means or have a chance to understand it, they're conditioned to think it's bad. Parents, who themselves are often uncomfortable with discussions of sexuality, certainly aren't comfortable with discussion of homosexuality. The ignorance is perpetuated, and kids, fearing public embarrassment, have no incentive to educate themselves. Of course, with age, it just gets worse - from "gay" to "fag", from an ignorant, yet relatively innocently-intended insult, to a slur said with hatred and alienation in mind.
That's just the cultural approach. The religious approach, in my mind, is even worse. As I've stated before, I'm an atheist, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice of religion...unless it harms other people. And, I believe the religious view on homosexuality brings untold harm to not only homosexuals themselves, but to all the people that take those ignorant and bigoted views to heart. Some of them just don't question what they're taught (a grievous error), and some of may just like to perpetuate hatred because they're not comfortable with anything that's significantly difference. Nevertheless, the arguments are pretty similar and narrow, and NONE of them make sense.
One of the main arguments is that homosexuality is a choice. The whole nature vs. nurture thing. While certain people may make this decision for themselves, I believe a lot of people are just born gay. People being "conditioned" to be gay doesn't make sense to me. I don't really understand why, given another option that would make them happy, people would choose that lifestyle, knowing all of the intolerance and assumptions that would be heaped upon them in the foreseeable future. That certainly doesn't make sense. One of the main concerns about gays that the anti-gay movement has is that it's a "deviant" lifestyle, and exposing children to deviancy makes them more likely to accept it as normal and ok. Well, for one thing, this isn't true - homosexuality occurs just as often in children of gay parents as it does in children of straight parents. But it begs a couple more questions: What makes it "deviant"? And, even if it is "deviant", what makes it wrong?
The latter question is actually more relevant. By a strict definition of "deviant", without the bad connotations, yes, being gay is deviant, in that it does differ from the norm. I think many people would like to categorize homosexuality as strange sexual behavior that has just gone out of control. To these people, I imagine, their view of healthy sexual behavior is very narrow. To them, enjoying sex may even be seen as a sin, or at least, sexual variety is sinful. On a religious level, there's not much to argue about. They may quote the Bible to show how different sexual acts are wrong, but I'll say it for the first time on the blog here: Quoting the Bible is a terrible argument for ANYTHING. Arguments have to make sense within the confines of society. The Bible says a lot of things. I'm particularly familiar with one section, which was my Bar Mitzvah passage - it says that a man with a mangled penis can't be let into the "House of God". It says that if a child is insolent, he should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. Same goes for adulterous women. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that thinks that's ok nowadays. Standards have to adapt with the times. Of course, you can always change your interpretation of the Bible, but if everything's up for interpretation, then you can't take any words of the Bible as gospel. (Heh. Nice pun, eh?) I'm serious, though. Times change. The Bible was written by people. It's not the word of God. Even if you believe it was the word of God, it was written down by people, and interpreted by people who are always flawed. So arguments have to make sense in and of themselves.
What, then, is morally wrong about "deviant" behavior? It may be weird or different, but who does it hurt? The answer, any way you slice it, is no one. The one people that may get hurt by homosexual behavior, are those that then have to deal with any shame or intolerance that society brings upon them for doing those acts. But whose fault is that? The people that are just acting in the way that seems natural to them? Or the society that condemns them for being themselves. Each of us gains pleasure in a different way. Many say that as long as a behavior doesn't hurt someone else, it's ok. I'll make the rules even stronger - I think you have an obligation to accomplish all that you can with what you've been given - it's not ok to just seek pleasure and waste whatever natural gifts you have. Nevertheless, being gay, or doing whatever you like in the confines of your own bedroom, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and as long as it doesn't prevent you from fulfillment in other areas of your life, is therefore not morally reprehensible at all, but any reasonable definition of the term.
So, back to the other question I skipped over: What makes the behavior "deviant" in the first place? Sure, it's different than the majority of people, but I imagine that if you look hard enough at enough people, you wouldn't be able to find two whose sexual proclivities are identical anyways. Some prefer it once a week, some once a day, some once a month. Some prefer one position. And some prefer same-sex and some prefer opposite-sex.
But, the main argument here is that homosexuality isn't "natural". Imagine if the whole world was homosexual? We'd never be able to procreate! And procreation is a moral obligation - we need to further our species and propagate our genes. Except that this is crap as well. First of all, the concept of "natural" is suitable for an entirely new blog entry - this one's getting damn long as it is. But, let's say we go with a standard definition of natural - scientifically, nature decides what's right by determining what will effectively promote a species' longevity. Birds having wings are natural. Fish having gills are natural. But humans have long ago surpassed the evolution argument. If we only want to promote those genes that would naturally be selected, then we shouldn't figure out ways to help disabled people. Technology is wrong because it makes things easier to obtain or accomplish, thus subverting evolution. In fact, following the laws of nature, humans should never marry - men were created as so to be promiscuous, and women were created so as to form a bond with their children so the baby would have a caretaker while the father went out and fathered some more. We've made natural selection obsolete. Natural does not necessarily mean right.
So, it's with a lot of fondness that I look upon the recent actions of Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, as he ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. I think there are some legal ramifications of this, and they're surely be addresses, but I really think it's about time someone took a moral stand on this issue. Bans on gay marriage are absurd and a disgrace.
Pardon my lack of historical knowledge, but someone had to take a stand for schools to be integrated in Alabama. At the time, it may have seemed radical, but now, it seems heroic. I think this action should be seen in the same light. Maybe the courts will overturn it - as I said, I'm sure there will be legal ramifications of this action. But I think it needed to be done.
This comes shortly after the President threatened a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a women. Putting aside the federal vs. state issue on this matter, this is incredibly absurd. Proponents of the ban will say that allowing gays to marry threatens the sanctity of marriage. Did allowing blacks or women to vote threaten the sanctity of your vote? No, in fact, making an establishment more inclusive, in this case, makes it more worthwhile and valuable. This isn't economics, this is about society. Marriage has religious implications, to be sure. But it has legal ramifications as well, and if the government is going to provide benefits to straight couples, there's no rational justification why it can't provide them to gay couples. I'm willing to bet (without any evidence to back me up - please let me know if you have some) that gay couples are at least as stable, and likely more stable, environments - I'd imagine the divorce rate is lower, the abuse rate is lower, and that their children generally grow up to be healthier and more well-adjusted, on average, as compare to the average straight couple. These things are all in society's best interest.
I believe Gavin Newsom has done America a great service, by waging a little guerilla warfare against intolerance. Maybe it'll pan out, and maybe it won't, but someone needed to do something - a lot of this anti-gay rhetoric, sometimes shielded in discussions about "the sanctity of marriage", or "preserving our families", or whatever, was starting to become accepted. But it shouldn't be, and I'm glad someone with some measure of power decided to take a small stand. I hope we can all start to do the same - it's tough to confront anti-gay rhetoric, because it appears so often that I think we've become more comfortable than we should be with it. But it really does us a great disservice as a society, and it really needs to be combated. Especially kids - don't let them slip into intolerance just because it's easier or doesn't personally affect you. It's hard to predict the future, and even harder to do what's right, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Fifty years ago, people grappled with similar issues, except it was blacks instead of gays. That battle is still going on, but it's come a long way. Think about how history views the issue now. Maybe you don't agree with me now, and maybe you think I'm making too big a deal out of it, but once again, it's not about if it affects you - it's about justice. In fifty years, will you be able to explain to your grandkids your role in what could end up being one of the defining issues of our generation?
Why is this issue important to me? Because, it's an issue of justice. I not gay, and have only a couple of gay friends, so it's not particularly personal. It's only personal in that I'm a human and find the way we act as a culture with respect to gays disgraceful.
I think it starts at the lowest levels: When a boy acts feminine, other call him "gay". Heck, even I've done it at times. Now, I'm the first to state that words, in and of themselves, don't do harm. BUT, I think this is one colloquialism that has gone too far. People use the term "gay" without even thinking of what it means or how it affect people. Frequently, kids' will use this as an insult without knowing anything else about homosexuality - they're too young to understand the try meaning of the word, and before they know what it really means or have a chance to understand it, they're conditioned to think it's bad. Parents, who themselves are often uncomfortable with discussions of sexuality, certainly aren't comfortable with discussion of homosexuality. The ignorance is perpetuated, and kids, fearing public embarrassment, have no incentive to educate themselves. Of course, with age, it just gets worse - from "gay" to "fag", from an ignorant, yet relatively innocently-intended insult, to a slur said with hatred and alienation in mind.
That's just the cultural approach. The religious approach, in my mind, is even worse. As I've stated before, I'm an atheist, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice of religion...unless it harms other people. And, I believe the religious view on homosexuality brings untold harm to not only homosexuals themselves, but to all the people that take those ignorant and bigoted views to heart. Some of them just don't question what they're taught (a grievous error), and some of may just like to perpetuate hatred because they're not comfortable with anything that's significantly difference. Nevertheless, the arguments are pretty similar and narrow, and NONE of them make sense.
One of the main arguments is that homosexuality is a choice. The whole nature vs. nurture thing. While certain people may make this decision for themselves, I believe a lot of people are just born gay. People being "conditioned" to be gay doesn't make sense to me. I don't really understand why, given another option that would make them happy, people would choose that lifestyle, knowing all of the intolerance and assumptions that would be heaped upon them in the foreseeable future. That certainly doesn't make sense. One of the main concerns about gays that the anti-gay movement has is that it's a "deviant" lifestyle, and exposing children to deviancy makes them more likely to accept it as normal and ok. Well, for one thing, this isn't true - homosexuality occurs just as often in children of gay parents as it does in children of straight parents. But it begs a couple more questions: What makes it "deviant"? And, even if it is "deviant", what makes it wrong?
The latter question is actually more relevant. By a strict definition of "deviant", without the bad connotations, yes, being gay is deviant, in that it does differ from the norm. I think many people would like to categorize homosexuality as strange sexual behavior that has just gone out of control. To these people, I imagine, their view of healthy sexual behavior is very narrow. To them, enjoying sex may even be seen as a sin, or at least, sexual variety is sinful. On a religious level, there's not much to argue about. They may quote the Bible to show how different sexual acts are wrong, but I'll say it for the first time on the blog here: Quoting the Bible is a terrible argument for ANYTHING. Arguments have to make sense within the confines of society. The Bible says a lot of things. I'm particularly familiar with one section, which was my Bar Mitzvah passage - it says that a man with a mangled penis can't be let into the "House of God". It says that if a child is insolent, he should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. Same goes for adulterous women. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that thinks that's ok nowadays. Standards have to adapt with the times. Of course, you can always change your interpretation of the Bible, but if everything's up for interpretation, then you can't take any words of the Bible as gospel. (Heh. Nice pun, eh?) I'm serious, though. Times change. The Bible was written by people. It's not the word of God. Even if you believe it was the word of God, it was written down by people, and interpreted by people who are always flawed. So arguments have to make sense in and of themselves.
What, then, is morally wrong about "deviant" behavior? It may be weird or different, but who does it hurt? The answer, any way you slice it, is no one. The one people that may get hurt by homosexual behavior, are those that then have to deal with any shame or intolerance that society brings upon them for doing those acts. But whose fault is that? The people that are just acting in the way that seems natural to them? Or the society that condemns them for being themselves. Each of us gains pleasure in a different way. Many say that as long as a behavior doesn't hurt someone else, it's ok. I'll make the rules even stronger - I think you have an obligation to accomplish all that you can with what you've been given - it's not ok to just seek pleasure and waste whatever natural gifts you have. Nevertheless, being gay, or doing whatever you like in the confines of your own bedroom, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and as long as it doesn't prevent you from fulfillment in other areas of your life, is therefore not morally reprehensible at all, but any reasonable definition of the term.
So, back to the other question I skipped over: What makes the behavior "deviant" in the first place? Sure, it's different than the majority of people, but I imagine that if you look hard enough at enough people, you wouldn't be able to find two whose sexual proclivities are identical anyways. Some prefer it once a week, some once a day, some once a month. Some prefer one position. And some prefer same-sex and some prefer opposite-sex.
But, the main argument here is that homosexuality isn't "natural". Imagine if the whole world was homosexual? We'd never be able to procreate! And procreation is a moral obligation - we need to further our species and propagate our genes. Except that this is crap as well. First of all, the concept of "natural" is suitable for an entirely new blog entry - this one's getting damn long as it is. But, let's say we go with a standard definition of natural - scientifically, nature decides what's right by determining what will effectively promote a species' longevity. Birds having wings are natural. Fish having gills are natural. But humans have long ago surpassed the evolution argument. If we only want to promote those genes that would naturally be selected, then we shouldn't figure out ways to help disabled people. Technology is wrong because it makes things easier to obtain or accomplish, thus subverting evolution. In fact, following the laws of nature, humans should never marry - men were created as so to be promiscuous, and women were created so as to form a bond with their children so the baby would have a caretaker while the father went out and fathered some more. We've made natural selection obsolete. Natural does not necessarily mean right.
So, it's with a lot of fondness that I look upon the recent actions of Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, as he ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. I think there are some legal ramifications of this, and they're surely be addresses, but I really think it's about time someone took a moral stand on this issue. Bans on gay marriage are absurd and a disgrace.
Pardon my lack of historical knowledge, but someone had to take a stand for schools to be integrated in Alabama. At the time, it may have seemed radical, but now, it seems heroic. I think this action should be seen in the same light. Maybe the courts will overturn it - as I said, I'm sure there will be legal ramifications of this action. But I think it needed to be done.
This comes shortly after the President threatened a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a women. Putting aside the federal vs. state issue on this matter, this is incredibly absurd. Proponents of the ban will say that allowing gays to marry threatens the sanctity of marriage. Did allowing blacks or women to vote threaten the sanctity of your vote? No, in fact, making an establishment more inclusive, in this case, makes it more worthwhile and valuable. This isn't economics, this is about society. Marriage has religious implications, to be sure. But it has legal ramifications as well, and if the government is going to provide benefits to straight couples, there's no rational justification why it can't provide them to gay couples. I'm willing to bet (without any evidence to back me up - please let me know if you have some) that gay couples are at least as stable, and likely more stable, environments - I'd imagine the divorce rate is lower, the abuse rate is lower, and that their children generally grow up to be healthier and more well-adjusted, on average, as compare to the average straight couple. These things are all in society's best interest.
I believe Gavin Newsom has done America a great service, by waging a little guerilla warfare against intolerance. Maybe it'll pan out, and maybe it won't, but someone needed to do something - a lot of this anti-gay rhetoric, sometimes shielded in discussions about "the sanctity of marriage", or "preserving our families", or whatever, was starting to become accepted. But it shouldn't be, and I'm glad someone with some measure of power decided to take a small stand. I hope we can all start to do the same - it's tough to confront anti-gay rhetoric, because it appears so often that I think we've become more comfortable than we should be with it. But it really does us a great disservice as a society, and it really needs to be combated. Especially kids - don't let them slip into intolerance just because it's easier or doesn't personally affect you. It's hard to predict the future, and even harder to do what's right, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Fifty years ago, people grappled with similar issues, except it was blacks instead of gays. That battle is still going on, but it's come a long way. Think about how history views the issue now. Maybe you don't agree with me now, and maybe you think I'm making too big a deal out of it, but once again, it's not about if it affects you - it's about justice. In fifty years, will you be able to explain to your grandkids your role in what could end up being one of the defining issues of our generation?
Comments:
Post a Comment
