Wednesday, June 22, 2005
well, its only appropriate
being that its gay pride this week, and everyone and everyone is talking about gay marriage, i wanted to add my two cents worth. i was watching citytv today and they issue was on the table, and ppl called in to give their opinion. here's the thing. these ppl were trying to pass off their opinions as well crafted and even intelligent arguments. let me paraphrase one caller: "i'm against gay marriage b/c its not natural and the bible says that its a sin". these were just two of her points. first of all, when you're making an argument, make sure your audience, and you, know the definition as usage of the terms that you're going to be using. what the hell is 'natural'? marriage is a man made institution (economic at that) and there is nothing natural about it. we have adopted it as a regular practice. its not like marriage sprung out of the group and made itself. so pls refrain from throwing that term around when speaking about something that was fabricated out of nothing simply for comfort and economic gain (i'm not bashing marriage, casue i believe in marriage. i'm not speaking of worth and meaning, simply pointing out that it's not natural and its history).
second of all (and i'm catholic so i'm not bashing anything) but 'because the bible says so' isn't a logical argumentative point. if anything, i would argue that its a fallacy b/c its an appeal to authority (loosely). last i checked, this was a secular country, and we cannot let religion guide our laws (and don't worry, i'm not naive, i know that that is utopian and unrealistic since religion does have something to say in canadian politics).
another caller called in and said that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman (but we have, for long periods of time in the world's and canada's history, held traditional beliefs that proved to be wrong- slavery, racist, pre-women't movement rights treatment of women etc etc etc). the test for evaluating 'traditional' views, laws, and rights should be looking to the future, not to the past (for example, i often think what would ppl in 50 yrs think of what we are doing today).
in the end, gay rights (gay marriage) is ONLY a question of human rights. that's it, finito, bottom line. its not a religion issue (not in the political scene- keep it in your churches), its not a question of tradition, or history, and anything else that you think weighs in on this issue. it only boils down to the following: canada is a country that favours group rights (right or wrong) and when dealing with human rights, if you're going to give rights to groups, then you have to give those same rights to all the groups. its so unbelieveable to me that a woman, or someone in a religious minority could call in and say that they don't support gay rights when they themselves are obviously making use of the rights that they have been recently given, and that they did not 'traditionally' have. isn't that a little hypocritical? i would have to say that homophobia and the lack of gay rights is the last allowable discrimination of our time. and for those that are opposed to gay marriage, can you imagine as a woman or as a black minority, the government saying that you couldn't marry? would you be ok with that? same thing. it doesn't matter whether you approve of homosexuality. the issue is whether its constitutional not to allow homosexuals to marry. IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!
second of all (and i'm catholic so i'm not bashing anything) but 'because the bible says so' isn't a logical argumentative point. if anything, i would argue that its a fallacy b/c its an appeal to authority (loosely). last i checked, this was a secular country, and we cannot let religion guide our laws (and don't worry, i'm not naive, i know that that is utopian and unrealistic since religion does have something to say in canadian politics).
another caller called in and said that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman (but we have, for long periods of time in the world's and canada's history, held traditional beliefs that proved to be wrong- slavery, racist, pre-women't movement rights treatment of women etc etc etc). the test for evaluating 'traditional' views, laws, and rights should be looking to the future, not to the past (for example, i often think what would ppl in 50 yrs think of what we are doing today).
in the end, gay rights (gay marriage) is ONLY a question of human rights. that's it, finito, bottom line. its not a religion issue (not in the political scene- keep it in your churches), its not a question of tradition, or history, and anything else that you think weighs in on this issue. it only boils down to the following: canada is a country that favours group rights (right or wrong) and when dealing with human rights, if you're going to give rights to groups, then you have to give those same rights to all the groups. its so unbelieveable to me that a woman, or someone in a religious minority could call in and say that they don't support gay rights when they themselves are obviously making use of the rights that they have been recently given, and that they did not 'traditionally' have. isn't that a little hypocritical? i would have to say that homophobia and the lack of gay rights is the last allowable discrimination of our time. and for those that are opposed to gay marriage, can you imagine as a woman or as a black minority, the government saying that you couldn't marry? would you be ok with that? same thing. it doesn't matter whether you approve of homosexuality. the issue is whether its constitutional not to allow homosexuals to marry. IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!
The End of Privacy - Whitaker