Yeah I totally agree with your last point. One of my really good friends at work here is gay and she is (was, I guess now...) planning on getting married to her long time partner. On Wednesday afternoon, a lot of people in our office were scanning the polls to see if Prop 8 had passed or not. Finally late in the day it looked like 8 was going pass. My friend got teary and said "I can't believe that so many people in California hate me." To me, it's like what the F...how can people who have gay friends or relatives look them in the eye and basically think "No, I don't want you to have the same rights as me." I just don't get it.
Anyway, I'd rather spend $50,000 on a Lex or a Benz than a political campaign! At least mortgage your children's future for something tangible, preferably with lots of bling. Arrgggg...
--------
The no on prop 8 ad that was talking about how other races used to not be able to marry and such was Samuel L. Jackson, so I assume they were appealing to blacks with that one.
And I also have a hard time understanding, maybe the better word is believing, someone when they say they are not against gays but only against gay marriage.
I have debated, recently, a lot of religious folks, non religious but first generation Americans (i.e. strong traditional values from their country of origin), “normal folks” etc. And at this point I haven’t talked with a single one whose argument doesn’t boil down to negative reactions to homosexuality. Either they don’t want their children to turn gay, they think being gay is immoral intrinsically, it varies, but the jist is homosexuality = bad.
And of those that I have debated, in general the black folks are either insulted or just disagree with the position that gay marriage is the same thing as black civil rights. Homosexuality is a choice, it’s a lifestyle, its unnatural, and the arguments go on. But until African Americans at large can associate homosexual acceptance with civil rights, they won’t be changing their minds any time soon.
Someone else brought up the fact that in contrast to blacks or Chinese or whoever not being able to intermarry, gays CAN marry, they just can’t marry other gay folks. That is almost like the opposite of laws that existed in times gone by where interracial marriage was the taboo and black marrying blacks was no problem.
But to my main point, I reject the idea that you can be anti gay marriage and for gay rights, or the homosexual lifestyle or say that you are tolerant of their lifestyle. And all my experience to this point has proven this out.
As to abortion, I can at least accept the idea that there is ambiguity on when life begins. I can intellectually understand how two reasonable people can look at the same evidence and disagree in their final decision. No religion, intolerance, etc required. Gay marriage seems to require something extra to reject, intolerance or hate or prejudice whatever the case may be.
--------
Thx M's for the comments, and props to G for even getting to the last point on one of my long-winded emails! Regarding your coworker - I can understand why she's upset. But of course it's not like the "Yes on 8" people "hate" her specifically, or gays in general. Unfortunately we live in a very competitive, adversarial, fragmented society. Giving concessions or benefits to one group may be perceived by others as doing so at their expense. They would rather "protect what's theirs" than give gays something that seems to diminish what they already have, regardless of the hurt it causes to gays. For lack of a better metaphor, maybe it's like rich people lobbying Congress to cut their taxes by reducing welfare benefits to the poor? So it's not like the rich hate the poor and want to punish them (well, not all rich people at least), but they want what they think is rightfully theirs, and are willing to take from another group to do so.
But I heard a very sage comment from one gay woman interviewed by KQED. She said that she was planning to marry her longtime partner as well, but despite this unfortunate voting result, she knows that no one can attack the love they share - and that's more important than any official title like marriage or whatnot. If everyone was so humble, then we wouldn't even have this conflict. Not to say that gays should just accept it, but non-gays also could also say, "Gays may be marrying, but nothing that anyone else does can take away from the sanctity of my bond with my spouse, so it doesn't matter." Separation of church and state? Certainly, but let's also remember separation of public and private life. America is a great land because our private practices are no business of others or the state (within reason). But that freedom carries the responsibility that we must also respect others' wishes, even if we don't agree with them.
Yes I agree with M's comments and also think it's strange for some people to say they oppose gay marriage, but are not homophobic. Obviously people are more bigoted than they admit, and homosexuality is not well accepted worldwide (if CA gays feel bad now, maybe they could visit Tehran for a week and see how good they have it actually). So immigrants will bring those sentiments with them here. I know gays may never be able to change some minds, but better PR from them fostering better public perceptions would really help their cause. But maybe the fundamental difference is that homosexuality doesn't really affect non-gays, because in general they don't have to see it publicly. But for gay marriage, just to know that it's legally equivalent to hetero marriage, and worry that their kids will be confused in school or other stereotypes, makes them oppose it? I heard one voter say, "I am not even against gay marriage, but just I don't want my kids being taught those things." Even though most of those fears are unwarranted, how can you get through to people who think like that, especially with the anti-gay-marriage side stirs up their paranoia?
I also find it funny that interracial or inter-religious unions used to be discouraged or even illegal, yet homosexual marriage is now under fire. But the rationale seems to be similar. "Traditionalists" and narrow-minded people didn't want their faith or race polluted by lesser humans, and don't want gay marriage to take away from hetero marriage's status. It's an ideology I guess. However, I do disagree with those who want to equate their situation with the black Civil Rights struggle. As recently as the 1960s, blacks couldn't even be in the same restaurant as whites, were assaulted rather than protected by the police, and their disenfranchisement was tolerated. Gays have it much, much better, and I think it may insult or at least turn off some blacks if they try to draw parallels with their people's past suffering. Plus, it's not like blacks have totally overcome as the old song said. All the statistics suggest that blacks are still doing much worse in America than gays, even if our next president is half black. But that is mostly symbolic, and the fact that Obama won will not in itself do much to improve the lives of millions of American blacks still marginalized or burdened by the legacies of racism.
And the stakes have raised...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott
I would expect this type of response from the pro-gay movement, but it is counter-productive and hypocritical. Not all Christians are against them, and probably not all Mormons either. No matter how they may look down on or dislike Mormons on a personal level, it's not right for people who promote (or even demand) tolerance to behave so intolerantly to their political opponents. If that happens, then they lose their moral high ground. They say that Mormons have gone from persecuted to persecutor, but obviously that is quite a stretch (the latter part). Gays are not "second class citizens" in CA or most of America. They are protected under the same rights that we all are, the same rights as Mormons or the KKK (no relation). It's not like they are stoned in the streets, barred from owning businesses, or forced to wear rainbow armbands. Exaggeration won't help their cause, and in fact suggests a victim's complex. "Persecuted" is not a term that should be used lightly, lest it lose its power to describe real instances of high injustice (Darfur, Palestine, etc.), which numbs people from feeling outrage and taking action.
It's not right to deface Mormon temples or defame an entire faith just because they don't agree with you. Collective punishment is ignorant, often bigoted, and even prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but few people pay heed. Mormons were one of many groups supporting "Yes on 8"; so why just single them out? Would they dare do the same thing to black churches who were also against them? And Utah is about 70% Mormon; if they boycott tourism and commerce there (ski industry, Sundance Festival, etc.), it will hurt thousands of innocent people who don't care about Prop 8 or may even support gay marriage. Similarly, it's ludicrous for conservative extremists to call for boycotts of "gay friendly" companies, just because they may donate to some gay rights groups. It's not like Microsoft or Ford are designing gayness into their products to brainwash non-gay users. But that demonstrates how hard it will be to bridge the gulf between the activists on each side of the debate (if you can call it that).
Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.
"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."
No comments:
Post a Comment