Ok, this may be a bit long-winded, but I've been doing much philosophising of late, so bear with me (or not, it's your choice
)
Jascar said:
And since you seem to think anything we did in the past is ok, did you know that homosexuality was practiced and accepted in many ancient cultures? Spartan men used to take young boys as their lover/student. Since it was ok then.........
Actually, it appears that Spartan's were rather intolerant of homosexual relationships. In Athens, it was very common and socially acceptable for an older man to adopt a younger one and act as a sort of mentor. A sexual relationship was figured to be part of this mentorship in which the older man taught the younger one social grace. Of course, women were a completely different story, being confined to the home and to their husbands or fathers. It's quite shocking to read some of the more current translations of playwrights such as Aristophanes and to see how much fun was poked on homosexuality in quite blunt language. Anyways, I am starting to sound like an expert here, it's just that Classics was my minor.
----
As for your points Muskrat:
- People talk about the threat to the "institution of marriage". I think that a 50% divorce rate is a far greater threat than the (relatively) few same-sex couples that want to get married.
I completely agree with you. What I want to see come out of this if a Canadian definition of what marriage
is, not what it
isn't. One of the reservations I have about the entire debate is the opening of the flood gates. Okay, marriage isn't a man and a women; so what do we say about polygamists, how about people who want to marry their relatives?
I've seen no logical explanations to justify sticking to a heterosexual formula. Before we go further, I want to see a logical formula that justifies what Canada will consider a marriage.
- I truly think what bothers most right-wing conservatives (like me) is the appearance of making this normal. Some posters have mentioned "throwing it in our face". Accepting something, or not treating people meanly or discriminating against them is not the same as condoning it. I think that line is getting more and more fragile. Look at "Will & Grace" - it practically glorifies homosexuality. I think that is a different (and wrong) message than what I am comfortable with.
What I figure is that straight-shooters like you and I are bothered by the erotic nature of it. Could I care less if two men live together - no. Could I care less if they care for each other deeply - no, although it is of a different nature, soldiers can attest to the strength of male bonding.
But I'm not too keen on guys swapping spit with eachother. But is that the only form of eroticism I find morally questionable? Some people like gangbangs and hardcore pornography, while others like shit-porn and fat chicks. Some tight-laced prom queen may consider anything beyond missionary to be a sin. I figure the line should be drawn at the point where eroticism goes beyond consensual and starts to be harmful (ie
edophiles like kids, many rapists prefer the empowerment, some people screw animals) then it moves into the realm of deviance and we should deal with that.
As for the "throwing it in our face." Some "metrosexuals" like to do nothing but go to bars and screw as many people as possible. Flaming gays like to dress flamboyantly and express themselves. I find both to be rather annoying. "Will and Grace" is stupid, so is "Sex in the City". But as Allan said, it is pop culture at best, and it appeals to me as much as the "gangsta" culture that is popular among teens. For the most part, I consider all these "in your face" sub-cultures as part of the rudeness that is so prevalent among Western society, and to be honest none of it quite appeals to me.
For the most part, I would think most gay men and women are like most straight men and women; they just want to live their lives out dignified and quietly. My belief in a free and open society commits me to let them have that, regardless of my personal thoughts of how they choose to live it.
- I do think long term same sex couples should have hospital visitation rights, etc.
Sure, I don't think anybody could argue against denying a human of their most important form of support when they are ill or hurt.
- Why does it have to be "marriage", which most people agree is more a religion- based concept? What about a civil union, common-law, or whatever.
I think for the most part we are speaking of state recognized unions. As a nonreligious Canadian, I could care less about what the church wants to do regarding marriage. However, I don't want the church meddling in what is a matter of the Canadian public sphere; the separation of Church and State works both ways.
I think the crux of the matter is that the government should give the same recognition to monogamous union, regardless of whether its is mixed or same sex. That is the point of equality and justice we a seeking to establish here. Although it may simply be cosmetic to refer to gay couples as "civil unions" and straight couples as "married", it is distasteful in the notion of an egalitarian society. We wouldn't tolerate white people have "Citizen" on their passport and minorities having "Resident" on theirs, so it is clear that the phrases we use are considered as well.
- I recently heard a homosexual man call in to a radio station that I listen to - he said many gays could really care less about marriage, per se - but that it was a way to politicize their issue
Yeah, we were having a debate in one of my classes and this one guy, an obvious homosexual, thought that gay marriages were a bad thing because they made the gay movement "mainstream". He figured marriage is an obsolete institution and then proposed that we should move to some sort of Platonic society where everyone screws anyone and everyone cares for the children. Like some weirdo communists, there will always be those fringe people who aren't satisfied with the status quo, but I don't think they are representative of the whole.
- How can you say "yes" to a homosexual, but "no" to a bigamist?
That is an unfortunate byproduct of the PC culture we live in. I can fully admit here that I don't really like the idea of homosexual relationships, I guess that is my right. If people want to label me a bigot, they can go right on ahead. But I figure as long as I am willing to respect another citizens choice in how they live their life, I've done nothing wrong, and those accusers can kiss my ass.
- Right or wrong, "traditional" values seem to be eroding. People are afraid, not necessarily of this issue, but what comes next. Where does one draw a line, and make a stand on their values? "You're sitting in a tub of water, and the temperature of the water is increased, one degree at a time - at what point, do you scream?" I think this is further demonstrated in that it almost seems that some kids are gay now, for the "cool" factor...
Well, like I said before, I think this is a relatively harmless issue. The world will not end if we allow gays to be married in the eyes of the government, they are fully engaged in relationships now and will continue to be down the future. For what comes next, I suppose we can deal with that when it comes up. But for me, my "value" of respecting the private sphere as private is more important than the "value" of how I think other people should live.
As well, I would hesitate to use the term eroding of traditional values. No society stays the same, culture is constantly running through an evolutionary process as it collectively experiences new things. I would rather have an open society that can contemplate changes based on their merit to our values than one that is ossified and facing an "erosion".
- People say "its genetic" or "its not their choice"... they've isolated genes related to alcoholism - does that mean it's OK to be an alcoholic? That we shouldn't nudge, steer, counsel people towards a life of sobriety?
I think that is comparing apples and oranges. Alcoholism is a self-destructive addiction, while homosexuality is a preference. To quote a councillor acquaintance of mine "I've seen too many dead teenagers who hung themselves to think being gay is a choice." Heck, my genes are oriented to women with big boobs and nice berthing hips, this is probably the predominant gene; does it mean it is the only (acceptable) one?
- I'm supposed to be more accepting of someone's lifestyle choices, but they can't be accepting of the fact that I don't want my 6 yr old daughter to watch 2 men sucking face in public?
I wouldn't want my young sister to have to watch a man and a woman suck face in public. In our society, excessive shows of affection are generally frowned upon, no matter who does it.
I guess, in my ramblings, here is what I think - both sides seem to try and pull us to one extreme or the other. I would like to think that many people are more in the middle, and that somewhere in the middle, a compromise can be found..
Well, here are my ramblings as well. I agree with you entirely, extremes are trying to pull us to one side or the other. However, I think there is a happy medium to be found between the flaming gays that like to march down the street on parade and the redneck who thinks they should all be shot. It all goes back to that concept of "live your life quietly and respect the privacy of others" (Bossi, do you have a quote that fits that?).
If we can do that, I think the issue will disappear in the long run.
Here is a rambling of my own though, related to the current political "hot-button" nature of the issue. My local MP, a Conservative running for re-election, openly opposes gay marriages and puts it right on his brochures. I challenged some of his supporters on the issue with most of the ideas we've seen here. Basically I asked, "Why should we not allow them to marry?" Low and behold, I never got a satisfactory answer. Someone brought up the Bible, and quickly ended that line of thought when I said that idea was no better than Imams who find ways to restrict the rights of people through their interpretations of the Koran.
All in all, these rabid social "regressives" really take the "eye off the ball" for the Conservative Party. I consider myself politically conservative, especially when dealing with fiscal matters and the structure of government. But, conservatism means small government, which is out of the private sphere. One of the key social differences between the US and Canada is that Americans live in a much more religious society for the most part, where as Canadians don't. Whereas Stockwell Day turned off many voters with his religious overtones, a Republican Candidate almost requires the support of the Christian Coalition lobby in the States to win the nomination for the party. Going on what I see as an advantage, I would really like to see Steven Harper clean out the party of these yahoo's and concentrate on what we need, a party dedicated to maintaining a strong and accountable government that can run things properly.
Try not to go mad with enthusiasm.
)
