Last night, I went for dinner at my partner's parents place. We had a lovely summery meal - lots of salads, corn on the cob, and a whole roast lamb cooked on the barbecue. The ever-gracious hostess had guests from the United States (Montana and Arizona, I believe), plus from the Wairarapa. We discussed travel, hunting, family, all the sort of things you'd discuss at a normal dinner party.
Then we caught the bus back into town. Now, I don't normally have a problem with public transport. But there's something... unnerving about an evening bus service on a Friday night. I feel uncomfortable - like if these young, slightly intoxicated passengers found out I was gay, i would be subject to taunting and even perhaps violence. Regardless of the truth of the nature - I'm sure most of the young people are friendly, accepting, modern young people - a gay man has to act as 'straight' as possible to avoid unknown threats. Now, anyone who knows me knows I'm not really that big a fan of public displays of affection, but still, it's uncomfortable thinking, 'what if they know? Am I giving off a gay vibe?'.
So it's within this context that I get genuinely disheartened when I read blog posts like Michelle Kaufman's "Big Gay Out: Politicians, children and human dignity?". For one, it feeds into this idea that being gay, being different is abnormal, that it's OK to discriminate against someone because they're different than you are. And it's this sort of discrimination and bigotry that makes people like me feel nervous when we're in unusual societal situations. And for those who may not yet fully understand their sexuality or have recently come out, reading comments like these from people who are supposed to love, support or represent them must be down right scary.
On top of this, the thing that Michelle doesn't seem to understand is that, just like there is no such thing as a specific Christian lifestyle, is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING IS A HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE. While an event like Big Gay Out, Auckland Pride or pride events in general are great at increasing visibility for GLBTI issues in our society in general, no one event, no one organisation can claim to speak for all queer folk everywhere. Just like the Catholic Church, or Family Life International cannot claim to speak for all Christians everywhere.
There are so many different kinds of queer folk. Undoubtedly, there are GLBTI families who have decided not to go to these events because they're not ready yet to expose their children to sex education, just as much as there are families who do go. There are GLBTI individuals who choose not to go to these events because they don't, for whatever reason, feel events like these represent them.
When you have individuals railing against these sort of events, asking how politicians can 'endorse these behaviours', they are isolating the Christian communities from families who very well might share their beliefs - monogomy, marriage, raising children in a loving two-parent family, even faith and a belief in God. You are pushing them away from the flock.
We are a nation of individuals. GLBTI individuals and families are not only nothing to fear, but many simply wish to live in a very similar way to you - as a well-balanced, happy family, the basis of which is the same as many 'Christian value' families - love. When discriminatory, hateful rants like this are posted, you do more damage to your cause than good.
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Friday, February 14, 2014
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
On Gordon Copeland's Dominion Post op-ed
While sitting down and reading the Dominion Post this morning, I came across an opinion piece by Gordon Copeland - this can be read here.
Now, to start with, my opinions on the matter are pretty clear - I've already expressed them in a few previous blog posts (here's the most recent), but for some reason this particular piece really got to me.
First, the most obvious points that stand out.
For a start, as the article points out, there's something very hypocritical about Mr. Copeland making the argument that civil unions have the same rights as married couples when he voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Act he quotes in the article. Secondly, as he well mentions, the legislations aren't the same. The most obvious difference is the adoption rights. This gets to me - if there are children who don't have any parents, surely two people who love each other, regardless of gender, are better than having nobody?
Finally, and this to me seems the most obvious point - gay people cannot get married. Mr. Copeland makes the argument that they don't need to - that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples under the legislation. But to an extent, this still creates the idea of a second-class citizenry.
He makes several arguements on this - such as women's rights to vote, arguing that we didn't do this "by redefining men to include women", but this wasn't what the legislation was about - we instead opened the definition of 'voting citizen' to include women, not having separate titles, 'voting men' and 'voting women' and having different legislation for each of them.
And then he makes the argument that " that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men". This argument falls short for a number of reasons - what about those unions that either choose to not or cannot have children? What about those civil unions that have children already, through children from prior marriages or invitro fertilisation and surrogacy (both of which are legal?).
On top of this, I believe that granting true equality in the law will help our society be more tolerant towards other people. While reporting can be difficult, especially when it comes to suicide in New Zealand, GLBTI students have more problems with bullying, are more likely to attempt suicide, and are more likely to take risks when it comes to sex (1). We need to be making societal change to make young GLBTI students feel safer, and starting at the top by doing as much as possible to legitimise these relationships, while not a solution, would be a step in the right direction.
At least in one point, Mr. Copeland and I agree. We both believe that marriage is an important cornerstone of our society, and that it is the best way to raise children. The difference is, while he sees no reason that same sex couples should be granted this right, I see no reason that it shouldn't.
(1) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2987987/Suicide-risk-for-gay-bisexual-youth
Now, to start with, my opinions on the matter are pretty clear - I've already expressed them in a few previous blog posts (here's the most recent), but for some reason this particular piece really got to me.
First, the most obvious points that stand out.
For a start, as the article points out, there's something very hypocritical about Mr. Copeland making the argument that civil unions have the same rights as married couples when he voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Act he quotes in the article. Secondly, as he well mentions, the legislations aren't the same. The most obvious difference is the adoption rights. This gets to me - if there are children who don't have any parents, surely two people who love each other, regardless of gender, are better than having nobody?
Finally, and this to me seems the most obvious point - gay people cannot get married. Mr. Copeland makes the argument that they don't need to - that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples under the legislation. But to an extent, this still creates the idea of a second-class citizenry.
He makes several arguements on this - such as women's rights to vote, arguing that we didn't do this "by redefining men to include women", but this wasn't what the legislation was about - we instead opened the definition of 'voting citizen' to include women, not having separate titles, 'voting men' and 'voting women' and having different legislation for each of them.
And then he makes the argument that " that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men". This argument falls short for a number of reasons - what about those unions that either choose to not or cannot have children? What about those civil unions that have children already, through children from prior marriages or invitro fertilisation and surrogacy (both of which are legal?).
On top of this, I believe that granting true equality in the law will help our society be more tolerant towards other people. While reporting can be difficult, especially when it comes to suicide in New Zealand, GLBTI students have more problems with bullying, are more likely to attempt suicide, and are more likely to take risks when it comes to sex (1). We need to be making societal change to make young GLBTI students feel safer, and starting at the top by doing as much as possible to legitimise these relationships, while not a solution, would be a step in the right direction.
At least in one point, Mr. Copeland and I agree. We both believe that marriage is an important cornerstone of our society, and that it is the best way to raise children. The difference is, while he sees no reason that same sex couples should be granted this right, I see no reason that it shouldn't.
(1) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2987987/Suicide-risk-for-gay-bisexual-youth
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Jeanne Manford
A very quick post.
I consider myself extremely lucky. I live in a time and place where GLBTI people have a lot of rights and general protection under the law. I know that it's not perfect, that GLBTI citizens in Western civilisations still have a long way to go, but it's a lot better than it was 30 years ago.
GLBTI younger than 40 have a lot to thank for those who fought homophobia in law and society in the 70's and 80's. Jeanne Manford, the US founder of PFLAG is one of those who we owe a lot to.
The below video comes from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. Worth a quick look at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)