Thanks to everyone who read and commented on my post yesterday. I want to take some time now to jump around to a few different points in relation to what I said. As I said yesterday, it's very hard to articulate my thoughts on all of this; the jump from brain to blog is tricky.
* To clarify my personal feeling about insults that are directed my way, well, I can say that I actually feel insulted about .001% of the time. Anyone who would hurl an insult at me, with anything but love (and teasing by friends and family counts as love in my book), is not someone who even matters to me. I'm not just saying that to act tough here; even as a small child who was taunted for being "little miss perfect" or "four-eyes" all the time, I was able to brush it off because those kids had no bearing on my self worth. When I said that I find "gay agenda" as insulting as "faggot" or "dyke," I was honest. I'm not personally insulted by any of it, but I think they are often said with the same ill-will.
* I understand the point that Anonymous made about us standing up for those with intellectual disabilities, since many of them are not able to verbalize their hurt. However, I think it's dangerous to compare slurs on the basis of whether the victim is able to fight back. If I'm hurt by someone who calls me a "dyke" and an autistic person is hurt because someone called them a "retard," then both of those are wrong and arguing which is more wrong is missing the point. We don't get to call certain people names just because they can take it.
* I also agree with Auntie and Mrs. Chili about words having the power that you give them. We make choices all the time, and if we choose to let words affect us, they will. That said, I am careful about what comes out of my mouth on a regular basis, because I feel like a constant stream of negativity does start wearing down good energy. It's not that I don't vent in anger, or make self-depracating jokes. I just try not to do those things too often because I think they gain power with repetition.
* The thread on my message board about homophobia and the gay agenda currently has 149 posts in it. From the discussion about the gay agenda came another debate about gay marriage, which wasn't a huge surprise. JW made a comment (and I know he's just one of many to do so) about being okay with homosexual unions with benefits and state approval, as long as homosexuals don't call themselves "married." To him, civil unions and the like are fine; marriage is not. I've written about this before and I still don't understand what the difference is. Let me put it this way:
I believe that murder is wrong. We could change the word "murder" to "apple-picking" and I would believe that apple-picking is wrong. We could use fifteen other words for it, and I would still believe that it is wrong. No vocabulary change is going to change a core belief of mine. So, why are so many people okay with civil unions and not marriage? Now, I have heard that the problem is that there is a religious connotation to "marriage" and homosexuals are sinners, blah, blah, blah. But why aren't there laws being passed that marriage must be between one man and one woman who believe in God? Atheists get married with little problem. I want the same right.
Ok, that's all I've got for now. My head is so jumbled with my thoughts on this, but I think I've made some of my main points. Go ahead, throw some jumbled crap back at me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When you start getting into the sticky bits of language, it DOES get a little jumbled. I think, though, that you're doing a fine job of articulating some difficult-to-express stuff here.
The argument about semantics makes me absolutely crazy. Your allegory of murder and apple-picking is a good one; if it walks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage... I have NO idea what people get all worked up about.
I also COMPLETELY agree with you that "it's dangerous to compare slurs on the basis of whether the victim is able to fight back." I would extend that to include whether the intended victim is offended; if someone calls you a dyke, *I* can be offended by that, even if you are not (and, if I am, it's my responsibility to speak up about it). Language isn't a guided missile; it's more like bird shot, I think.
your point about "one man and one woman who believe in God" is actually the main argument i allowed myself to have with a few people at my school during the prop. 8 debate. frankly, i'm not going to engage them in a debate about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, whether God is or is not going to send all gays/lesbians to hell, etc. but in my opinion, the point is moot as it relates to the legal issue of marriage. we can't legislate morality/religious issues. i believe in God, i believe in Jesus Christ as the savior, all that good stuff. but i would NEVER support a law saying others had to believe the same thing, and most other christians wouldn't either. according to the bible, God doesn't want us to worship false idols, but we don't write laws saying no americans can worship non-christian religious icons. you just can't legally restrict everything that the christian God theoretically deems wrong/sinful/immoral/what-have-you.
okay, that wasn't really the point of your post, but i was thinking of it anyway. :)
Post a Comment