To give credit where it’s due, I’ll admit you’ve got nerve telling a gay Vietnam veteran that you don’t believe his spouse deserves the same rights that people like me, as the wife of a straight Nam vet, enjoy. Not for a minute do I believe you didn’t suspect that man’s sexual orientation. In fact, you admitted you knew where he stood when you said, “So we apparently disagree on that.”
The real problem is the reason you gave for being on that side of the issue. You said, “At the time the Constitution was written, it was pretty clear that marriage was between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”
Does that mean you’d consider slavery to be just fine until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Or would you have waited for the Supreme Court to declare its support of that courageous presidential action before you freed any of the slaves you’d insist upon keeping hostage?
Would you have campaigned against suffragists like my grandmother until the highest court in the land finally did the right thing and acknowledged the right to vote for my grandmother and her sisters, daughter, and granddaughters--and I must add, your wife?
Doing the right thing shouldn’t depend upon immoral and unfair laws. Granted, the First Amendment of that Constitution you mentioned states: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . ” That means you have the right to belong to a religion that bans same-sex marriage, and even relationships, within its membership.
On the other hand, the first provision of the religious freedom clause bans you and your religious organization from imposing those rules on others: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . . “
A little historical perspective is needed here: For years before the writing of the U.S. Constitution, the Church of England was not only ascendant but the law of the land, including all the British colonies. At times, all tax-paying British citizens and colonists were forced to pay tax monies that went directly into Church coffers, whether or not they were members of that religion.
Most of the Founding Fathers were active members of some Christian religion, but not all of them belonged to the Church of England. Many of the early opponents of Anglicanism had emigrated from Europe to the American colonies seeking freedom to worship as they chose.
Unfortunately, too many of those same freedom-seeking pilgrims eventually imposed their own beliefs on everyone who lived in or near the communities they established. The wise men who wrote and signed the Constitution that defined their new country acknowledged those early colonial mistakes by forbidding any religious institution from forcing rules on people who chose not be members of their organization.
Sadly, it’s taken over 200 years for most people to understand these simple principles. Too many people, like you, still don’t get that. Imposing rules allows powerful people to control others. If we truly love freedom, then religious freedom must include respecting the basic human rights of members of the LGBT community, as well as those of members of every other minority.
Acknowledging the rights of every human being means giving up a little bit of power, but it would offer more freedom to everyone. Being a bully wastes a lot of energy. I urge you to stop bullying people by using bad laws to impose your rules on other people and you will see this nation thrive in ways you never imagined.
I realize you’re campaigning to become the candidate of a political party that’s taken a clear stand against acknowledging the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. Therefore, I have no doubt who I’ll be voting for in November 2012.
On the other hand, it would be a welcome miracle if, should you win the keys to the White House next year, you followed the example of the first Republican president and declared your support for an issue that is even more popular today than ending slavery was in 1862.
Presidents don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court. They can use the power of their office by supporting the legal right of same-sex couples to marry and receive full federal spousal benefits. That is the right thing to do.
Showing posts with label LGBTQ rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBTQ rights. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
GAY MARRIAGE: WHY THE RIGHT HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG
Note: I originally posted this article in two parts on my Examiner.com page in May 2009. I’ve updated several small details, and even though there has been some progress in marriage rights, all the points are still relevant.
As I explained in a posting when I wrote a column on Examiner.com, when Carrie Prejean was ignoring her contractual duties as Miss California USA to appear in venues where she could speak against gay marriage before a friendly crowd, I felt compelled to explain why her position was wrong. Her latest move was no surprise after she babbled: “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose, same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”
Besides being inarticulate--what kind of relationship is “opposite” marriage?--this statement is false, which is the crux of the criticism against her.
Prejean followed with a Freudian slip: “In my country . . . ,“ but quickly corrected herself: “In my family, I think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Though she ended with, “No offense to anybody . . . ,“ she’s now doing everything in her power to offend gays and lesbians everywhere by campaigning against the “freedom” that her cohorts have made sure doesn’t exist in the first place.
The time has come to explain why they’re all wrong. Following are the primary arguments that conservatives make against same-sex marriage, along with facts that show just how incorrect they are:
Point: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because it is an arrangement for the purpose of procreation.
Counterpoint: If that’s the case, then marriage wouldn’t be valid for people who cannot have children, such as women who’ve had a hysterectomy or have been through menopause, or men and women who are sterile for any reason.
Point: Gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage.
Counterpoint: Only the people in an individual relationship can destroy that relationship. Any marriage is good or bad, a success or a failure, because of the behavior of the two people within that union.
Point: Gay marriage violates the religious rights of the . . . uh . . . religious right.
Counterpoint: No church can be forced to sanctify a union that the leaders or majority of members refuse to recognize. For instance, remarriage of divorced people is perfectly legal, yet many churches refuse to marry people who’ve been divorced, or even to recognize such unions. On the other hand, churches that use politics to force their beliefs on those who are not members of their religion are violating our religious rights. They are preventing us from enjoying our right to celebrate the spiritual union of same-sex couples within our religious community. That should be our choice, but fundamentalist churches deny us that choice.
Point: The Bible calls sex between two men an “abomination.”
Counterpoint: Leviticus chapter 11 lists numerous types of animals whose meat is considered unclean so eating it is considered an “abomination.” Today, the most popular of those foods is shellfish, which Christians today only refuse to eat if they’re allergic. Then there’s the uncleanness of people with leprosy, as described beginning in chapter 13. Yet that disease is now so well controlled by medication that in most parts of the world, people who have it are no longer quarantined. Chapter 19 warns against cross-breeding cattle, sowing two kinds of seeds in the same field, and wearing fabric woven of two different kinds of threads. All these unclean/abominable things are in common practice today, even by Christians. So they’re pretty selective about which “abominations” of the Hebrew scriptures they choose to avoid.
Point: But what of Genesis 1:28, in which God commanded Adam and Eve to: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth . . . “?
Counterpoint: Right-wingers quote the fruitful/multiply part all the time, but they conveniently ignore the meaning of “fill.” In fact, it is a qualifying statement that foretold a point where all that multiplying would not only not be needed, it would actually be counterproductive to the survival of both the species and the planet. At the time humans received that command, if it did come from on High--and I’ll leave that question to others--there were few, if any other, humans on the planet. For thousands of years, procreation strengthened family, tribe, and nation by increasing the population, while there was still room to accommodate the increase. But some years ago, the planet reached its “fill” point, and it’s been going downhill ever since. Genesis 1:28 does not say “overflow,” so the importance of procreation must be put into its historical context and the wisdom of moderation should now prevail.
Point: Sex between people of the same gender is unnatural.
Counterpoint: If same-gender sex occurs in nature, then it is natural. And it does occur among many species of animals. In fact, scientists have discovered that same-gender sexual activity occurs most often at times when animals are struggling to survive in areas where they’re dealing with overpopulation and limited resources. Looks like animals are even smarter than humans when it comes to managing natural resources.
Point: Then we get to the ultimate lie, that marriage is primarily a religious issue.
Counterpoint: Marriage was, first and foremost, a legal arrangement between families involving--not love or personal relationships--but property. And the primary property in the transaction was the bride, who was given by the bride’s father to the groom’s family. Thus, the tradition that the father of the bride give her away to the groom is an archaic practice best left out of modern marriages, but that’s a personal choice that should be made by the bride and no one else. The second property issue in marriage was the issue: the children that came from the marriage union. They were important because the more children a family/tribe had, the greater their influence in the community/nation. Then there was the dowry, an archaic custom in which the bride’s father paid the groom and/or his family to take her off his hands. In some societies it was the other way around: The man purchased the wife from her family. Either way, money or property changed hands so that the bride could too. This is very much a legal matter, and it’s about time it was completely separated from religious control. The United States Congress should pass a law that would grant the same legal marriage rights--or whatever they want to call them--to all couples, no matter their gender makeup, then let each church decide whether they want to bless those unions, just as it’s done in so many European countries today.
Point: Marriage is a tradition that has not changed in 5000 years.
Counterpoint: Those who think marriage has always been hearts and flowers are dead wrong. The institution has long been in a state of flux as the rights of women and children have slowly come to be recognized and protected. Throughout history, traditions that are morally wrong--such as spouse and child abuse, discrimination, slavery, and war--have changed with our growth as an enlightened society, though we still have a long way to go in all these areas. And if they’re really interested in following traditional marriage practices, they’d allow polygamy again and stop providing the cover of secrecy that allows people like Warren Jeffs to get away with all their crimes. The time has come to finally end one more form of bigotry by allowing any two people who love each other to enjoy the same rights and privileges now granted to “opposite” couples, whether money changes hands or they plan to have children, or none of the above.
Point: Gays and lesbians should be satisfied with civil unions.
Counterpoint: Civil unions, civil partnerships--whatever they’re called--only grant a handful of the more than 1400 legal rights and benefits given to straight married couples in the United States. Even marriages honored by individual states are not recognized in most of the other states, and many federal rights are not recognized for same-sex couples whose unions are fully blessed in the small number of states that allow gay marriage. The battle will not be over until everyone in the U.S. can marry whomever they choose and their relationship is recognized and honored in every state and county in the country.
Point: Children need both a mother and a father in order to grow up to be psychologically healthy adults.
Counterpoint: The American Academy of Pediatrics is only one of the many professional organizations that have debunked this piece of lunacy. While it is true that children derive great benefit from developing close relationships with people of both genders, even single parents manage to overcome the missing-parent gap by having relatives and/or friends act as psychological surrogates for their children. And when two people of the same gender live together, they tend to develop roles that span the range of psychological behaviors that address a child’s needs under most circumstances, just like “normal” couples, and provide models for good behavior as they’re developing and once the children are adults themselves.
Point: Children who grow up with gay parents of the same sex are more likely to be homosexual themselves.
Counterpoint: This is another fallacy created, fostered, and promoted by the anti-gay marriage crowd. If this were true, then no one who grows up in a family with heterosexual parents would ever turn out to be gay, but that’s simply not the case. And neither are children born to and/or raised by same-sex couples any more likely to be homosexual themselves. In fact, the percentages generally follow the same average in the population that they always have: Throughout history, approximately ten percent of the population, in every part of the world, have been gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (born with organs of both sexes). In most times and places, they were forced to hide their true nature, but they were everywhere, in all eras of history.
Point: Gay marriage violates conservative values.
Counterpoint: Traditional conservatives focused on economic issues, rejecting the notion of delving into people’s private lives. In fact, Barry Goldwater, the uber-conservative of the previous generation, believed government should stay out of the issues of abortion and gay marriage, and that churches should stay out of politics--as in the First Amendment tradition of separation of church and state.
Point: The majority of people in various states continue to vote for laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Are they all bigots?
Counterpoint: In fact, the name for this situation is: “tyranny of the majority.” In fact, the history of our country is a saga of growing beyond the bigotry of the majority to the enlightenment that sprang from small minorities, such as slavery, Jim Crow, anti-Asian policies, etc. And since the debacle of Proposition 8, polls are beginning to show that more people in California have come to regret their failure to understand the true meaning of that odious law, and polls reflect similar changing attitudes around the country. It won't be long before the votes will begin to turn things around.
Point: But what if, in spite of all these other arguments, same-sex marriage is just plain wrong?
Counterpoint: Whether same-sex marriage is morally right or wrong is not up to us to decide. We should heed Jesus’ advice and leave the judging up to God (Luke 6:37). Since the legal--and even religious, in the case of liberal sects which accept gay marriage--arrangement is between two consenting adults, it harms no one, and actually has beneficial effects on the parties involved. In the end, there is no basis for using the law to prevent people from honoring what is, after all, a basic human right.
Point: The current (now former, as of this updated posting) Miss California USA claims she meant “no offense” by declaring her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Counterpoint: Carrie Prejean can say all she wants about her belief in “opposite” marriage. But she is using her notoriety to make sure millions of same-sex couples in this country--their country too!--continue to be denied the same rights and privileges granted to her married “opposite” friends. In the end, her ongoing attempt to continue denying this basic civil right to millions of Americans is offensive!
As I explained in a posting when I wrote a column on Examiner.com, when Carrie Prejean was ignoring her contractual duties as Miss California USA to appear in venues where she could speak against gay marriage before a friendly crowd, I felt compelled to explain why her position was wrong. Her latest move was no surprise after she babbled: “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose, same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”
Besides being inarticulate--what kind of relationship is “opposite” marriage?--this statement is false, which is the crux of the criticism against her.
Prejean followed with a Freudian slip: “In my country . . . ,“ but quickly corrected herself: “In my family, I think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Though she ended with, “No offense to anybody . . . ,“ she’s now doing everything in her power to offend gays and lesbians everywhere by campaigning against the “freedom” that her cohorts have made sure doesn’t exist in the first place.
The time has come to explain why they’re all wrong. Following are the primary arguments that conservatives make against same-sex marriage, along with facts that show just how incorrect they are:
Point: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because it is an arrangement for the purpose of procreation.
Counterpoint: If that’s the case, then marriage wouldn’t be valid for people who cannot have children, such as women who’ve had a hysterectomy or have been through menopause, or men and women who are sterile for any reason.
Point: Gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage.
Counterpoint: Only the people in an individual relationship can destroy that relationship. Any marriage is good or bad, a success or a failure, because of the behavior of the two people within that union.
Point: Gay marriage violates the religious rights of the . . . uh . . . religious right.
Counterpoint: No church can be forced to sanctify a union that the leaders or majority of members refuse to recognize. For instance, remarriage of divorced people is perfectly legal, yet many churches refuse to marry people who’ve been divorced, or even to recognize such unions. On the other hand, churches that use politics to force their beliefs on those who are not members of their religion are violating our religious rights. They are preventing us from enjoying our right to celebrate the spiritual union of same-sex couples within our religious community. That should be our choice, but fundamentalist churches deny us that choice.
Point: The Bible calls sex between two men an “abomination.”
Counterpoint: Leviticus chapter 11 lists numerous types of animals whose meat is considered unclean so eating it is considered an “abomination.” Today, the most popular of those foods is shellfish, which Christians today only refuse to eat if they’re allergic. Then there’s the uncleanness of people with leprosy, as described beginning in chapter 13. Yet that disease is now so well controlled by medication that in most parts of the world, people who have it are no longer quarantined. Chapter 19 warns against cross-breeding cattle, sowing two kinds of seeds in the same field, and wearing fabric woven of two different kinds of threads. All these unclean/abominable things are in common practice today, even by Christians. So they’re pretty selective about which “abominations” of the Hebrew scriptures they choose to avoid.
Point: But what of Genesis 1:28, in which God commanded Adam and Eve to: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth . . . “?
Counterpoint: Right-wingers quote the fruitful/multiply part all the time, but they conveniently ignore the meaning of “fill.” In fact, it is a qualifying statement that foretold a point where all that multiplying would not only not be needed, it would actually be counterproductive to the survival of both the species and the planet. At the time humans received that command, if it did come from on High--and I’ll leave that question to others--there were few, if any other, humans on the planet. For thousands of years, procreation strengthened family, tribe, and nation by increasing the population, while there was still room to accommodate the increase. But some years ago, the planet reached its “fill” point, and it’s been going downhill ever since. Genesis 1:28 does not say “overflow,” so the importance of procreation must be put into its historical context and the wisdom of moderation should now prevail.
Point: Sex between people of the same gender is unnatural.
Counterpoint: If same-gender sex occurs in nature, then it is natural. And it does occur among many species of animals. In fact, scientists have discovered that same-gender sexual activity occurs most often at times when animals are struggling to survive in areas where they’re dealing with overpopulation and limited resources. Looks like animals are even smarter than humans when it comes to managing natural resources.
Point: Then we get to the ultimate lie, that marriage is primarily a religious issue.
Counterpoint: Marriage was, first and foremost, a legal arrangement between families involving--not love or personal relationships--but property. And the primary property in the transaction was the bride, who was given by the bride’s father to the groom’s family. Thus, the tradition that the father of the bride give her away to the groom is an archaic practice best left out of modern marriages, but that’s a personal choice that should be made by the bride and no one else. The second property issue in marriage was the issue: the children that came from the marriage union. They were important because the more children a family/tribe had, the greater their influence in the community/nation. Then there was the dowry, an archaic custom in which the bride’s father paid the groom and/or his family to take her off his hands. In some societies it was the other way around: The man purchased the wife from her family. Either way, money or property changed hands so that the bride could too. This is very much a legal matter, and it’s about time it was completely separated from religious control. The United States Congress should pass a law that would grant the same legal marriage rights--or whatever they want to call them--to all couples, no matter their gender makeup, then let each church decide whether they want to bless those unions, just as it’s done in so many European countries today.
Point: Marriage is a tradition that has not changed in 5000 years.
Counterpoint: Those who think marriage has always been hearts and flowers are dead wrong. The institution has long been in a state of flux as the rights of women and children have slowly come to be recognized and protected. Throughout history, traditions that are morally wrong--such as spouse and child abuse, discrimination, slavery, and war--have changed with our growth as an enlightened society, though we still have a long way to go in all these areas. And if they’re really interested in following traditional marriage practices, they’d allow polygamy again and stop providing the cover of secrecy that allows people like Warren Jeffs to get away with all their crimes. The time has come to finally end one more form of bigotry by allowing any two people who love each other to enjoy the same rights and privileges now granted to “opposite” couples, whether money changes hands or they plan to have children, or none of the above.
Point: Gays and lesbians should be satisfied with civil unions.
Counterpoint: Civil unions, civil partnerships--whatever they’re called--only grant a handful of the more than 1400 legal rights and benefits given to straight married couples in the United States. Even marriages honored by individual states are not recognized in most of the other states, and many federal rights are not recognized for same-sex couples whose unions are fully blessed in the small number of states that allow gay marriage. The battle will not be over until everyone in the U.S. can marry whomever they choose and their relationship is recognized and honored in every state and county in the country.
Point: Children need both a mother and a father in order to grow up to be psychologically healthy adults.
Counterpoint: The American Academy of Pediatrics is only one of the many professional organizations that have debunked this piece of lunacy. While it is true that children derive great benefit from developing close relationships with people of both genders, even single parents manage to overcome the missing-parent gap by having relatives and/or friends act as psychological surrogates for their children. And when two people of the same gender live together, they tend to develop roles that span the range of psychological behaviors that address a child’s needs under most circumstances, just like “normal” couples, and provide models for good behavior as they’re developing and once the children are adults themselves.
Point: Children who grow up with gay parents of the same sex are more likely to be homosexual themselves.
Counterpoint: This is another fallacy created, fostered, and promoted by the anti-gay marriage crowd. If this were true, then no one who grows up in a family with heterosexual parents would ever turn out to be gay, but that’s simply not the case. And neither are children born to and/or raised by same-sex couples any more likely to be homosexual themselves. In fact, the percentages generally follow the same average in the population that they always have: Throughout history, approximately ten percent of the population, in every part of the world, have been gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (born with organs of both sexes). In most times and places, they were forced to hide their true nature, but they were everywhere, in all eras of history.
Point: Gay marriage violates conservative values.
Counterpoint: Traditional conservatives focused on economic issues, rejecting the notion of delving into people’s private lives. In fact, Barry Goldwater, the uber-conservative of the previous generation, believed government should stay out of the issues of abortion and gay marriage, and that churches should stay out of politics--as in the First Amendment tradition of separation of church and state.
Point: The majority of people in various states continue to vote for laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Are they all bigots?
Counterpoint: In fact, the name for this situation is: “tyranny of the majority.” In fact, the history of our country is a saga of growing beyond the bigotry of the majority to the enlightenment that sprang from small minorities, such as slavery, Jim Crow, anti-Asian policies, etc. And since the debacle of Proposition 8, polls are beginning to show that more people in California have come to regret their failure to understand the true meaning of that odious law, and polls reflect similar changing attitudes around the country. It won't be long before the votes will begin to turn things around.
Point: But what if, in spite of all these other arguments, same-sex marriage is just plain wrong?
Counterpoint: Whether same-sex marriage is morally right or wrong is not up to us to decide. We should heed Jesus’ advice and leave the judging up to God (Luke 6:37). Since the legal--and even religious, in the case of liberal sects which accept gay marriage--arrangement is between two consenting adults, it harms no one, and actually has beneficial effects on the parties involved. In the end, there is no basis for using the law to prevent people from honoring what is, after all, a basic human right.
Point: The current (now former, as of this updated posting) Miss California USA claims she meant “no offense” by declaring her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Counterpoint: Carrie Prejean can say all she wants about her belief in “opposite” marriage. But she is using her notoriety to make sure millions of same-sex couples in this country--their country too!--continue to be denied the same rights and privileges granted to her married “opposite” friends. In the end, her ongoing attempt to continue denying this basic civil right to millions of Americans is offensive!
Encounter with 2011 Equality Walkers from Right to Marry Arizona
Today, August 7, Jim and I joined a group of courageous and energetic walkers for gay rights at Casa Grande Library. We regret that we can't walk with them, but if I can get my shaky video of the conversation onto my computer, I'll post it all over the place, including here. Anything we can do to help spread the word that everybody should have the right to marry--or not--as they wish, not just according to the whim of the state or the community in which they live.
They told me about the great website, righttomarryaz.org, set up specifically for the issue of promoting marriage rights for all in the state of Arizona. We need to do what we can, talk about it, write letters, post the message wherever we can on the internet, and donate money if and when we can. Every little bit helps!
So, do what you can. And check this schedule to see if these wonderful people of all ages are coming through your town. If so, you can check the route page to see where they’ll be stopping so people can meet them and chat with everybody for a while. They’re a really fun bunch, and they’ve got a lot of knowledge about the issue. You could learn something. I know I always do!
Coming up, it’s time for me to repost my originally two-part article on why conservatives are absolutely wrong for opposing a positive change to the marriage laws so everybody can marry the person they love, no matter where they live. Watch for that later today!
Friday, May 20, 2011
Sports as Metaphor for Life: Let’s hope not!
This week, two prominent men have come out as gay. In most quarters these items are being treated as the nonevents they are, especially in the case of CNN anchor Don Lemon. Unfortunately, some in the sports world might react differently to reports of Phoenix Suns President and CEO Rick Welts’s sexual orientation.
Welts informed several friends of his sexuality before going public, including NBA Commissioner David Stern. “What I didn’t say at the time was: I think there’s a good chance the world will find this unremarkable,” Stern told the New York Times reporter who broke the story. “I don’t know if I was confusing my thoughts with my hopes.”
According to Suns Guard Steve Nash, “Anyone who’s not ready for this needs to catch up.”
Unfortunately, some in his profession will not.
Many people consider sports an example of the way the world should work. Sports is usually a win-lose proposition: someone wins only if someone else loses. One team wins, the other goes home. Olympic athletes get silver and bronze medals, horses can place and show, but few remember the losers in championship games.
On the other hand, to instill confidence in people with developmental disabilities, every Special Olympics athlete gets a ribbon. But even that practice isn’t without critics. Some believe the spotlight should be focused entirely, and only, on winners.
Sadly, the metaphor explains the way things are now. In politics, one person wins and the rest return to their other lives. Some executives only consider themselves and their companies successful when others aren’t doing as well. That mentality is demonstrated in lists of companies and countries that inform everyone how participants are doing in the “game” of life.
For decades, the argument that men who compete in team sports at a young age are better prepared for life was used an excuse to bar women from advancement in business and politics. Then came Title IX and the growth of sports for girls and women, and that argument no longer fits. But despite gains for women in business and politics, as well as sports, there’s still work to be done.
The sports mentality prevails in other ways. Athletes are encouraged to push themselves beyond their limits, ignoring both physical injury and goals unrelated to sports. This leads to unnecessary injuries and damaged relationships and lives.
Young people who want to give up sports for another activity are often accused of not following through with commitment. Even people who want to change careers in midlife are looked upon as quitters for not reaching goals they set when they were young and knew less about themselves and real life.
Competitors are expected to ignore the body’s natural signals that indicate an activity is causing harm. That’s why so many participants suffer from what are casually termed “sports injuries.” The fact that head injuries weren’t taken seriously explains why so many pro football players suffer from such debilitating conditions as dementia and early onset Alzheimer’s.
This attitude reinforces prejudice against disabled people. We’re considered losers from the get-go, lesser beings than potential winners. And the strength-in-sports mentality spills over into the area of sexual orientation, especially among men.
Gender is usually less of an issue for women than for many males. Men are more apt to question their own sexuality when they learn another man is gay. Women rarely take the issue of another woman’s sexuality as a reflection on their own identity. Even women with religious convictions against homosexuality are usually more comfortable than men about working with or living near a member of the LGBT community.
With all this, I haven’t even mentioned the corrupting factor of money in sports, as well as life. Daily headlines in Arizona papers scream news of the Fiesta Bowl scandal, along with evidence of general corruption in the bowl game selection process. One look at the corruption and economic breakdown of the past few years, and it’s easy to understand the source of the mentality that led us to this abyss.
All this proves it’s time to choose a better metaphor to teach young people about life. Besides promoting win-win activities, society must provide more opportunities for women, disabled people, and members of all minorities to participate in the real “game” of life. We could do more than just “catch up”; we could actually enjoy more shared success for all.
Welts informed several friends of his sexuality before going public, including NBA Commissioner David Stern. “What I didn’t say at the time was: I think there’s a good chance the world will find this unremarkable,” Stern told the New York Times reporter who broke the story. “I don’t know if I was confusing my thoughts with my hopes.”
According to Suns Guard Steve Nash, “Anyone who’s not ready for this needs to catch up.”
Unfortunately, some in his profession will not.
Many people consider sports an example of the way the world should work. Sports is usually a win-lose proposition: someone wins only if someone else loses. One team wins, the other goes home. Olympic athletes get silver and bronze medals, horses can place and show, but few remember the losers in championship games.
On the other hand, to instill confidence in people with developmental disabilities, every Special Olympics athlete gets a ribbon. But even that practice isn’t without critics. Some believe the spotlight should be focused entirely, and only, on winners.
Sadly, the metaphor explains the way things are now. In politics, one person wins and the rest return to their other lives. Some executives only consider themselves and their companies successful when others aren’t doing as well. That mentality is demonstrated in lists of companies and countries that inform everyone how participants are doing in the “game” of life.
For decades, the argument that men who compete in team sports at a young age are better prepared for life was used an excuse to bar women from advancement in business and politics. Then came Title IX and the growth of sports for girls and women, and that argument no longer fits. But despite gains for women in business and politics, as well as sports, there’s still work to be done.
The sports mentality prevails in other ways. Athletes are encouraged to push themselves beyond their limits, ignoring both physical injury and goals unrelated to sports. This leads to unnecessary injuries and damaged relationships and lives.
Young people who want to give up sports for another activity are often accused of not following through with commitment. Even people who want to change careers in midlife are looked upon as quitters for not reaching goals they set when they were young and knew less about themselves and real life.
Competitors are expected to ignore the body’s natural signals that indicate an activity is causing harm. That’s why so many participants suffer from what are casually termed “sports injuries.” The fact that head injuries weren’t taken seriously explains why so many pro football players suffer from such debilitating conditions as dementia and early onset Alzheimer’s.
This attitude reinforces prejudice against disabled people. We’re considered losers from the get-go, lesser beings than potential winners. And the strength-in-sports mentality spills over into the area of sexual orientation, especially among men.
Gender is usually less of an issue for women than for many males. Men are more apt to question their own sexuality when they learn another man is gay. Women rarely take the issue of another woman’s sexuality as a reflection on their own identity. Even women with religious convictions against homosexuality are usually more comfortable than men about working with or living near a member of the LGBT community.
With all this, I haven’t even mentioned the corrupting factor of money in sports, as well as life. Daily headlines in Arizona papers scream news of the Fiesta Bowl scandal, along with evidence of general corruption in the bowl game selection process. One look at the corruption and economic breakdown of the past few years, and it’s easy to understand the source of the mentality that led us to this abyss.
All this proves it’s time to choose a better metaphor to teach young people about life. Besides promoting win-win activities, society must provide more opportunities for women, disabled people, and members of all minorities to participate in the real “game” of life. We could do more than just “catch up”; we could actually enjoy more shared success for all.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Why This Peace Activist Celebrates the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Flying Rainbow Flag
The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is but one step forward
in a long fight for civil rights for every human being.
Finally, the Senate has approved a bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. With an earlier positive House vote on the issue, the bill now goes to the desk of President Barack Obama, who’s promised to sign it immediately and end the discriminatory practice of preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
Why would a peace activist care about this issue? Because people who want to see the end of conflict in the world don’t feel negatively about those people who truly want to serve their country, its citizens, and its best ideals. We simply want to encourage the political leaders to find more positive ways to accomplish their goals in the world than by killing people.
Standing for peace is not anti-military. In fact, the best thing that can be done for the troops and their families is to help make the world a place where there is no more armed conflict. A world in which military forces can perform positive functions to help people, such as aiding people stricken by natural disasters around the world; helping to build hospitals and schools overseas that are not in danger of being destroyed by enemy forces; bringing food, water, and medicine to people living in remote areas of the world.
Peace people also believe in respect for civil rights for everyone. That’s why restricting people from being able to choose military service, or any other employment, simply because of their sexual orientation is anathema to us. That’s why I take every opportunity to stand for full civil rights for all members of the LGBTQ community. DADT is merely one of the ways in which gay rights are being limited or denied.
So, now is the time to celebrate, but briefly. There is more work to be done to ensure that all human beings will be treated with respect, that their rights will not be denied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
