Sunday, April 06, 2008

Homosexuality, gay rights, knuckle draggers and all that.

Earlier today, I promised to address the issue underlying the big media kerfuffle of the week, brought to you by the NDP. The gay rights debate is way over on the periphery of my political radar. I hardly give a damn. I consider myself to be pretty mainstream about it but it's not a burning issue that I have to weigh in on every time an incident, such as the Tom Lukiwski tape, hits the headlines. So here goes. These are my views on the issue:

1) I have known many gay people in my life. I've had very close friendships with some. I COULD NOT CARE LESS whether they are sexually attracted to others of the same sex. They are not pedophiles. They are not sex crazed and promiscuous, at least most aren't. They lead normal lives. Have normal jobs. Have normal views on a whole range of issues and across the full range of political perspectives. For the most part, if and when I learn that someone of my acquaintance is gay, it's pretty much a shoulder shrugger. So what. Who cares!! I don't.

2) Human sexuality is complex. It is not always joyful and pleasurable. It is not all about the sex act. It is often frustrating and the source of great pain. Witness the expression on the face of Mrs. Spitzer, broadcast all over the world as it was. I cannot imagine her pain or her strength in what she then and now has to deal with. I would imagine gay love, for most, is no different.

3) I recognize that there are many people in our society that are very uncomfortable with the existence of homosexuality and especially uncomfortable with overt expressions of it, such as gay marriage and, particularly, the ostentatious displays one gets to witness at gay pride events. I happen to sympathize a bit with the discomfort around the definition of marriage thing and I whole heartedly agree with the ostentatious display thing. I happen to find ostentatious public display of overt sexual behavior to be very cheap and demeaning to human sexual expression, regardless of whether it's gay or straight. It can destroy lives, such as the poor little tarts like Britney Speers who become nothing but sex toys for the media to play with.

4) I also recognize that gays are subjected to some pretty horrific abuse ranging from stupid remarks to actual beatings resulting in death. While stupid remarks are not illegal, most certainly no one should get away with any sort of violent behavior toward any gay person. I would say the same for any person who may be the target of stupid remarks or violent behavior. Violence based on hatred or contempt or a twisted kind of bullying is reprehensible, but is certainly not the only kind of value driven violence. By value driven violence I am referring to punks who think that it's fun and fair game to beat up on people because they happen to be different - Jews, gays, etc. - as opposed to emotion driven violence such as anger or hate that might characterize the relationship of the abuser to a battered wife. Neither motive is an excuse, but gay bashing is not based on intensely felt urges flowing from an emotional dynamic with a life partner. It is much colder than that.

So what do I have a problem with?

1) Intolerance of views that aren't in 100% compliance with the gay rights agenda. I'll expand on that below in an analysis of the gay marriage issue.

2) Priggish, humourless sourpusses who cannot laugh at gay jokes. Joking is a great way of calming the waters and breaking taboos. How many stand-up comics use their craft to discuss serious issues such as racism, sexism, feminism, Aboriginal rights or any other politically polarized issue? Most people howl with laughter at this kind of humour and among those people are individuals who happen to be part of the supposed "minority group" that is the butt of the joke. And I don't buy the argument that jokes told by members of the minority group are fine, but when told by someone outside the minority group it becomes a capital offense.

3) I especially have contempt for priggish, humourless sourpusses who are NOT members of the targeted group, gay or otherwise, pretending to speak on the target group's behalf claiming they (the target group) find offense and there was plenty of that following the recent Lukiwski videotape scandal. That is an expropriation of the other's voice and in my view, it's reprehensible. It does not allow for the fact that members of the targeted group could very well be all over the map with respect to their views on the issue. And worst of all, it helps build the walls of political correctness through which no dissenting voice is ever allowed, not even ones from the targeted group. And that contributes to further oppression within the target group. In the not too distant past Aboriginal women were victims of this kind of muzzling. It is a consequence of the school of thought I call "victimology".

Now. To state my views on the gay marriage issue. I have no problem with gay couples choosing to sanctify their relationship and solidify their commitment to each other in a ceremony, whether officiated by an ordained member of the clergy or through a civil office.

What I do have a problem with is the notion that those who object to equating it to heterosexual marriage are homophobic. Simple biology dictates that heterosexual marriage cannot be the same as same sex marriage and I believe that those who point to the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is for the procreation, protection and raising of children should not be vilified for holding that belief. This is intolerant in the extreme. In the debate (that Harper craftily put to an end when he came to power, AS I KNEW HE WOULD, rather than reopening it) a compromise was offered, which gay rights fanatics rejected. There is a huge chasm between arguing over the precise definition of a word and being allowed to enter into a formal state-recognized relationship with someone you love. Quite frankly, bottom line, they are the ones who are the rigidly doctrinaire bigots. It was this issue that taught the rest of us that the term homophobe, just like the term "racist", has been over played to the point that it is now meaningless, and that means we can shrug it off every time it is uttered. And that is of far greater danger to gays, and to the rest of us, than whether or not their unions are called a "marriage".

As far as the NDP orchestrated feeding frenzy over Lukiwski's four second remark made sixteen years ago is concerned, well calling Saskatchewanites "knuckledraggers" is just fine, I suppose. If the media can jump to conclusions on the basis of four second sound bites, (CTV, I'm talking to you) why shouldn't they be able to extrapolate and paint us all with their "we're tolerant and you're not" sanctimony.

I'm beginning to sympathize with Western separatism.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Louise, great post. I'm glad I checked out your blog!

April 06, 2008 8:21 pm  
Blogger feetxxxl said...

its very simple. merely transpose the word "black" for the words "gay" lesbian" "homosexual" or their pronouns

if it is still not offensive, then you know it is appropriate.

April 07, 2008 7:47 am  
Blogger Louise said...

No quite, feetxxxl. For one, "offense" is entirely subjective. What one person deems offensive another person will simply shrug off. Secondly, context is crucial. An offensive statement can be hurtful in one context and hilarious in another. That's the whole point of this issue.

April 07, 2008 8:16 am  
Blogger feetxxxl said...

what you are connotatiing as context is degree of sensitivity that exists about one group in contrast with another.

think of all the black jokes or use of the n word in telling the joke, that at one time was acceptable, but is no longer.

the struggle for equality and over coming racism has been around for sixty years

our acknowledgement of homophobia and the struggle for social equality for lgbts has just begun.

April 07, 2008 12:08 pm  
Blogger Louise said...

"what you are connotatiing as context is degree of sensitivity that exists about one group in contrast with another."

This is a perfect example of another of my points. You have just ascribed a meaning to my words without bothering to ask me if that is what I meant. So to be clear, that is not what I was "connotating". That's only one possible example of "context". I'll give you another. If someone makes a joke about a racist by using parody, he or she might pretend to be the racist and speak in a racist way. In that context, it might indeed be funny.

However, I would suggest you are walking down a slippery slope if you want certain types of speech to be to be deemed offensive, just because some folks may find it as such. There are countries in the world where people end up in jail or worse for the sin of "offending".

Although I do agree with you that certain subjects do take on different degrees of social sensitivity in different eras and in different communities.

April 07, 2008 1:02 pm  
Blogger Louise said...

feetxxxl, there are a couple of other things in your comments that I can't let pass.

First, the sixty years thing. History didn't start sixty years ago, darling. Struggles of one sort or another against injustice or for a particular ideological Nirvana have been around since time immemorial.

Second, given that, I would suggest that changing one's attitude from one of self-pity, blame and anger to one of patience and respect while you're engaged in whatever struggle you choose to embrace makes the going a heck of a lot easier. A wise person once told me that it's much easier to change yourself and it is to change the world. (And I don't mean to imply that one can change from being gay to not being gay, just in case you are salivating in anticipation of pouncing on me for that one.)

April 07, 2008 1:34 pm  
Blogger feetxxxl said...

its interesting the leap made as to who was or who was not gay. how much did that influence what and the way you responded?

whether easier or not, it was the
speaking out of king that changed the perpective in this country forever.


the turning point of my understanding of my own racism was when someone who was black spoke out and told me i was a racist(im white).

i was sharing living space with three people (one black 2 whites).i had never spoken to her in an overt negative way. but i did look and speak with her differently, than i did with the other two. and in the back of my mind i knew i was doing it. however, in my mind i never thought of it as being racist. it was her comment to me that connected the dots.

i cannot tell you how critically important it is to both, the injured and the injurer, that the injured speaks out.

when we break the chains of one, we break them for all.

April 07, 2008 2:53 pm  
Blogger Louise said...

"its interesting the leap made as to who was or who was not gay."
==================
Huh??? I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say. If you are suggesting that I intimated that you are gay, please do me a favour and cut and paste the words that I wrote that made you presume this. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. What I do detect in your arguments is a person with an axe to grind and a sense of grievance based partly on the assumption that the world can be perfect. If you would like to know how I have come to that assessment take a look at some of the words you used:

that exists about one group in contrast with another.

the struggle for equality and over coming racism has been around for sixty years

our acknowledgement of homophobia and the struggle for social equality for lgbts has just begun.

If you get rid of the quest for perfection, you're going to be a much happier human being. The acceptance of gays by society today is light years ahead of what it was a couple of generations ago. If you wish to deny that (as in "has just begun"), then I'm afraid you have lost credibility and simply reinforced my assertion that you are angry at the world.

Oh, and if this -(And I don't mean to imply that one can change from being gay to not being gay, just in case you are salivating in anticipation of pouncing on me for that one.) - is the passage you think constitutes a "leap", then reread it a few times until you understand that your capacity to read between the lines and see what isn't there is one of the reasons I perceive you as an angry person with an axe to grind. If you are so committed to this cause then surely you must know there are people out there who think homosexuality can be overcome and you also know that gay people vehemently deny that that is possible, as do most people with common sense. I was trying to save you the trouble of going ballistic over it, but I guess it was a waste of keystrokes.

April 07, 2008 5:22 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home