The leftward and other blatherings of Span (now with Snaps!)

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Enough of Enough is Enough

theme music: i'm coming out (i want the world to know, i want to let it show)

pretty sad that the feedback from the anti-submissions on the CUB seems to be an argument-free zone. if they don't at least have some spurious claims to base their hate on then what's it all about?

well i guess it's about prejudice, plain and simple.

i have seen several letters to the herald recently along the lines of "think of the children!" i have a colleague who is fostering two young boys, with her partner (also a woman) and they are fantastic parents. i also have three friends who have watched their parents' relationships break up as one of them realised their true sexuality and had the courage to be honest about it - in all three cases the homosexual parent is the better, more well adjusted parent imho!

i still don't understand exactly how the fact that both the parents are the same sex is actually bad for children - can anyone explain???

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Julie,

I don't know if your question was rhetorical, but I assume the argument goes something like this: children learn socialisation through their parents, and the children of gay parents will be overwhelmingly heterosexual, genetically. However, the kids will grow up with homosexuality being the norm, and will become conflicted and confused - much, I presume, as homosexual children of heterosexual couple do now. Except that while you can assume only 5% of straight couple's children will have this problem, around 95% of homosexual couple's children would.

I assume that would be the argument. More likley, it's to do with dark fears of satanic gay cults and institutionalised child abuse. You know what those gays are like, after all.

I dunno. Glad to see you are doing well, hope everything's coming up roses.

Ben

Jordan said...

I am not sure that this is motivated by hate. I think fundamentalism is a very interesting phenomenon. I have after all wondered with my Labour activity whether people hear it, and think "cult" in the same way that they do when people say 'Destiny'.

Of course they aren't the same; one is rational and one isn't. But there are clearly some common links.

I've read some blogging stuff and I think the Destiny stuff is based on a hopeful but partially wrong vision of society, and a flawed understanding of how humans work. Some of them are nasty but many of them are not.

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.....

Jordan

span said...

ben - not sure which ben from my past you are, but a mystery's always welcome :-)

i think you are being overly charitable - i think what Destiny, Maxim et al are concerned about is the possibility that queer folks means queer kids.

the argument you point to would also be wiped out if we could all be open about our sexuality, and safe regardless of it (which would be rather against what DM et al espouse, so they make a rod for their own backs their).

jordan - another awfully charitable person!

i think i didn't go a step far enough in examing DM et al's motivation when i stopped at hate - it's hate spawned from fear. (and as we say in the union movement "anger is the antidote to fear").

i think i'd hate a world where my gay friends had to be straight (and miserable). oh wait...

span said...

sorry if i seem overly grumpy in my last comment, it was my third attempt to post it and by then i think my eloquence (which i assure you was in evidence in the earlier versions) had deserted me.

Dave said...

I dont think you understand exactly why the Destiny/Maxim people are doing what they are doing, and what their motives behind their views and actions are
Perhaps if you talked with them - and Maxim bosses are easier to get hold of) you may be enlightened

span said...

nope dave i don't understand - i have read a fair bit of the stuff they have put out and i have read many many of the letters their supporters have written to the herald. i have also listened to several of the against speeches in parliament (and i must say judith collins' husband must have been a bit hurt!).

the main overarching reason seems to be "it will undermine the institution of marriage" - but then it's not clear to me why that is, i haven't really seen it explained. i would have thought that having civil unions in fact strengthens the institution of marriage, by making it a preserve of those who truly want to actually marry, not those who wanted to signal their commitment but had no other option.

the recent line they have been using has been the "think of the children" one, which was why i started this post, because of my personal experience of knowing queer parents and their children.

i think the real reason that Destiny, Maxim et al oppose the CUB is that it gives rights to homosexuals and they consider that to be A Bad Thing. i don't.