The Gay
On Canada’s political scene, there is currently the contentious issue of whether or not to allow homosexuals to marry with the full rights and terminology of heterosexuals. Why is this contentious? The very thought that some Canadians do not want to treat other humans with equal rights is shocking to me.
Harper et al. seem ‘happy’ to provide the rights, they just want to preserve ‘the traditional definition of marriage.’ While that is better than nothing, why give homosexuals official rights but not treat them with humanity? I tried to think of why it is so important that the word ‘marriage’ be kept sacred. The last word of that sentence is likely at the root. Religion, once again, is being used as a defence for disrespecting and mistreating others. It is fascinating that seemingly all the major teachers/prophets upon which religions are based are usually thought of as peaceful, kind and wise, yet the followers prefer anger, violence, hate and stupidity.
Homosexuality is not a disease, it is not a virus that will spread, and it is not something your child can be ‘recruited’ to join. Read something other than ‘hate’ literature, really think about the issue and you just might come out with a reasonable opinion.
The best thing about this issue is that the bigots come out of hiding. Often, one cannot see the true level of intolerance around, but some issue force bigots to stand up for their bigotry. This way, one can avoid them or intellectual harangue with greater ease. I suggest the latter.
I usually prefer calm questioning of those whose views I disagree with. The reason for this is twofold: (1) To gain insight into the thought processes (or absence of them) that are involved in such a stance, and (2) People are more likely to change their mind if there is less hostility and aggression involved in a challenge.
Yet, I keep feeling the urge to change my tactic.
Someone: I support preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
Me: That’s a stupid thing to say, and you’re a stupid person for saying it.
Harper et al. seem ‘happy’ to provide the rights, they just want to preserve ‘the traditional definition of marriage.’ While that is better than nothing, why give homosexuals official rights but not treat them with humanity? I tried to think of why it is so important that the word ‘marriage’ be kept sacred. The last word of that sentence is likely at the root. Religion, once again, is being used as a defence for disrespecting and mistreating others. It is fascinating that seemingly all the major teachers/prophets upon which religions are based are usually thought of as peaceful, kind and wise, yet the followers prefer anger, violence, hate and stupidity.
Homosexuality is not a disease, it is not a virus that will spread, and it is not something your child can be ‘recruited’ to join. Read something other than ‘hate’ literature, really think about the issue and you just might come out with a reasonable opinion.
The best thing about this issue is that the bigots come out of hiding. Often, one cannot see the true level of intolerance around, but some issue force bigots to stand up for their bigotry. This way, one can avoid them or intellectual harangue with greater ease. I suggest the latter.
I usually prefer calm questioning of those whose views I disagree with. The reason for this is twofold: (1) To gain insight into the thought processes (or absence of them) that are involved in such a stance, and (2) People are more likely to change their mind if there is less hostility and aggression involved in a challenge.
Yet, I keep feeling the urge to change my tactic.
Someone: I support preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
Me: That’s a stupid thing to say, and you’re a stupid person for saying it.
posted by That which is called Darren at 8:47 PM
2 Comments:
I like eating pizza. Thank you.
Considering the topic was a serious one, I am a bit confused by the comment. I feel your comment's irrelevance is only matched by its degree of uselessness. Perhaps "Anon" would like to clarify the matter?
Post a Comment
<< Home