Here I am thinking it’s been ages since I’ve posted but it’s really only been since Friday. More to the point is that what I posted on Friday was only a link and not an actual post so I’ve decided to elaborate a bit.
This past Friday, for those of you who did not click on the link, was the Day of Silence. I remember having loads of fun when our group of friends took part in high school and we were scrawling notes everywhere on little bits of paper. That and the fact that the usual teachers came around the corner with worried expressions because they couldn’t hear the absolute roar of sound which usually accompanied our lunch in that particular corridor.
Recently, however, I was reminded that not everyone is so understanding of equality between sexual orientations or gender identity. I was furious when I read an article about a certain Conservative MP about a debate he had participated in at Michele’s school. A student had asked him about his thoughts on the fight for gay marriage currently going on in the United States and this MP said that he believes in the “traditional definition of marriage” as between a man and a woman and that, if he had his way, same-sex couples would have civil unions/partnerships while heterosexual couples could get married similar to what is currently done in Britain. He added afterward that, no matter what his thoughts, parliament was not going to touch the issue again. Thank God for that!
When I read this I literally had smoke coming out of my ears. I don’t know why this particular interview made me so angry but I can make a few guesses. The first reason has to be that this comes from so close to my home. This man literally lived the next street over from me for most of my life and it rankles that something like this can happen in an area which is almost a part of myself because of the years I’ve spent there. The second reason is that he seems like such a nice guy and, at least to me, in the past debates I’ve seen he has been clearly the most put together of the local candidates. To me it seems that he is the most able to represent the region with the most polish in his voice and the most influence because of his demeanour and preparation but there’s no way I want him saying anything like in this new debate where other people can hear him. The third reason is that I really thought we were leading the right way forward in Canada. I really liked having that edge in human rights but this comment has caused me to question just how safe it is to assume a moral high ground and if, for all our legislation stands, our laws really follow the majority of opinions.
The legislation I’m mentioning here is particularly the Civil Marriage Act of 2005 where our government states that civil marriage is “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. If you so desire, you can read The Civil Marriage Act here. It’s not actually that long and might be worth a gander if you’re even the slightest bit interested.
There’s this thing that governments are supposed to have that is phrased “separation the church and State” and this act is a great example. Note that the definition given is not for the word “marriage” but the joined words “civil marriage”. A marriage may be only between a man and a woman in certain religions but the governing body of a State should not force its citizens into compliance with any religion, regardless of whether that religion is a majority in the population. Here again I’m going to give a blurb from The Civil Marriage Act because they do put things so nicely in words:
Allowing same-sex couples to choose their partners and to celebrate their unions is not an adequate substitute for legal recognition. … Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not result in a corresponding deprivation to opposite-sex couples.
Nor is this a case of balancing the rights of same-sex couples against the rights of religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage. Freedom of religion … ensures that religious groups have the option of refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages. The equality guarantee, however, ensures that the beliefs and practices of various religious groups are not imposed on persons who do not share those views.
On the topic of religion in general I have one major thing to say and that is that everything in the Bible can be interpreted and is interpreted differently by different people on a continual basis. Whether something is written in the Bible in terms of expected/demanded behaviour is a matter of how one reads those words. No language is completely unambiguous and this book which so many people love to talk about is certainly not an exception. All that being said there are a few things in this book that I would like to mention.
I've heard a lot of people proclaim that same-sex couples must be something against God because “God made it Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. Let’s take a look at that, shall we?
“The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18)
Now I don’t know about you but I think there are some very individual circumstantial reasons why a woman might be a better companion for the first man in the entire world. If you’re going to create a populated world you do, in fact, need the first two to be able to produce more. Fast forward to the modern age now and look at our circumstances. There are now issues of overpopulation. The situation has changed. Is it unreasonable to imagine that God’s opinion of what would make a “suitable helper” for a man has likewise changed?
Another phrase I’ve heard used by those opposed to same-sex marriage is “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation”. Believe it or not there is a difference between the two and it’s rather important. Using “sexual preference” implies a choice in who someone is physically attracted to while “sexual orientation” acknowledges that sexual attraction is an unconscious phenomenon. Along with the usual arguments about how anyone could possibly believe that a person would choose to live in a way which would lead the their harassment or even execution in some parts of the world I will offer that, in the words of Lady Gaga, that those who prefer partners of the same sex were “born this way”. To say “conceived this way” would be an overstatement but “born this way” certainly appears to be true. Hormone levels in the amniotic fluid have been noted in many studies to have a strong influence on sexual orientation. If you want to know more about these studies I would suggest typing “prenatal sexual orientation” into Google Scholar and cruising through some of the articles there.
What I really don’t understand is how those Christians against same-sex couples can support their hate when their beloved Bible speaks so highly and so often of love. It doesn't sit well with me to have people say they believe “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23) and then act in a way which would prevent the acknowledgement of love by the law of their State.
Well ladies and gentlemen; I welcome you to the end of my rant. I hope you take some of what I’ve said and roll it around in your head for a while so that it may adhere to some of your previous thoughts and spin them off in some new directions.
Love you all,
Dina
This is quite the post Dina, and I agree with you on a lot of it, if not all of it actually.
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention the interpretability of the Bible, that really just makes me think of the Reformation, where one of the major things that people were fighting for was to have the Bible written in the vernacular instead of just Latin. The common tongues of the lands if you will, so that people could actually read it for themselves instead of having the churchmen telling them what to think.
This ability to think for yourself on ecclesiastical matters puts a lot of power in the individual, and obviously the Catholic Church at the time was vehemently against this idea.
After Henry VIII's reign and a lot of other reformers work (Thomas Cromwell and Cranmer, Henry's son, Elizabeth) England came out with the Anglican Church with the English Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Interpretation now possible! Huzzah!
But now, 400 years later, we are running into the issue of who has it right and wrong again. Canada and the USA are British colonies, and have a lot in terms of religious values akin to the British. So I find it interesting how the fight for the ability to read 'the word of God' and make the meaning of it for yourself is now being suppressed once again.
I am a history geek, I know, and I apologize for taking you on a jaunt through the ages to make my point, but it really does. Those who are once radicals will eventually be conservatives, it is an odd cycle and one that they ought to be wary of.
As to the separation of Church and State, I think this is sort of an issue that people argue touches on moral values, which the government is certainly allowed to step in on.
A very touchy subject, and I think we four have a skewed view of how Canada as a whole treats the matter considering where we grew up. Our High School is utterly unique in terms of how tolerant it is of everything people are. Sexual orientation, fashion sense, artistic application, geekishness, you name it, they take it.
Sadly this is not the case everywhere, as I have seen quite a bit in residence this year. People would get death glares in our school's hallowed halls for some of the casual gay remarks they make on a daily basis here.
Whew... Epic long comment! Almost a post in itself... Can you tell I would rather be thinking about this than my economics exam tomorrow? Oh dear...
Love you all, ALMOST DONE!!
V
Gah! History geekness! You're allowed because you're you and because you still haven't written your history final for the term.
ReplyDeleteOne problem I have with your comment is that "this is sort of an issue that people argue touches on moral values, which the government is certainly allowed to step in on". How exactly is the government allowed to step in on this as a "moral issue"?
As far as I'm concerned this is not a moral issue but a human rights issue. I'll draw your attention to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to the marriage, during the marriage and at its dissolution.
2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Note that it is never said that men must only marry women and women must only marry men. Even further is the use of the term "spouses" instead of "husband and wife" as could easily have been the case.
I understand that the government has to have some say with "morals" as a way of protecting people. For example, "thou shalt not kill" as a moral in the Bible also makes a very good law. My problem is more with you claiming same-sex marriage in the State to be a moral issue. In the Canadian law this has nothing to do with morals (there was an entire section about how any church had the right to refuse preforming a marriage via freedom of religion) and everything to do with equality.
My issue isn't with the church for believing what it believes but with the government for tying itself so closely with a particular faith. I agree with what Canada did having a definition of "civil marriage", that is, who will be allowed to access government benefits given to those couples in very long-term relationships. It is an issue of equality when a relationship with the same love, commitment and struggles receives less recognition from the State because the religion of the majority disapproves of the sex of the two people involved.
Also, same-sex marriage is in no way equivalent to the sort of moral issues (like "don't kill people") that the government must stand on in order to protect its people. How exactly is stopping people from expressing their love for each other protecting anyone? How is invalidating a couple's relationship protecting them or their peers from harm? I don't think those questions have adequate or reasonable answers.
wow. I actually read all of this. (impressed? ha ha) and there is a LOT to say here. our high school was very tolerant indeed and it is odd to see the different environments that places and communities create.
ReplyDeleteDina I know that you're a huge advocate for gay rights etc and I agree that Day of Silence was both fun and meaningful!
Polititions will ALWAYS have lots to say. Many things you don't like and sometimes good things that you do.
I don't know EXACTLLY how relevant the following quotation is but I like it and I think if we could all learn to think this way then maybe people would be more accepting? We'll see.
"Human sexuality is not an either/or proposition, and trying to deny its complexity is going to make both you and your partner miserable." - John Green
Humanity must not deny the complexity of not only human sexuality but of all aspects of humanity.
The nail you have basically hit on the head Dina is that people have a habit of contradicting themselves when it suits them. Particularly in the face of something they don't understand or fear.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the UDHR is crystal clear in what it says, but as we both know, despite being signed by all 192 members of the UN, very few actually uphold most or all of it. A sad fact but true. This sorry state of affairs is true of several international statutes and agreements.
A prime and shameful example being Canada avoiding being a signatory to part of the Genocide Convention (specifically Article II sub-clause e) because under that definition of genocide, Canada's residential schools would have been considered an act of genocide.
As to the separation of religious matters and morals, the two are often closely tied. You mentioned the not killing bit, well that is codified in law, secular law as well as being canonical in major religions. Also the concept of marriage exists in both the religious and the civil sense as does the legitimacy of children.
Things often have a dual existence, I am not a religious person but many of my personal beliefs(though not all by a long shot)exist in a religious context, the state is the same.
I am in full support of gay rights, please don't think I am not!
But homophobia goes way beyond a religious matter of contention even if that was where it was originally rooted.
The neanderthals love making insults to each other out of gay terms, but they aren't particularly pious people. In the end this does come down to what individual people believe in, which governments are free to talk about.
Women's rights are also protected in the UDHR, but calling each other 'whore' and 'pussy' are neanderthal's second favourite genre of insults to each other and a widespread bias against women in many forms still exists in society.
We have to change the way people think to make laws and statements effective, because if no one is willing to back up bold statements, they are just empty promises, as good as they may sound.