Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Short Response 10/13
Both Naples and Ettelbrick feel that legalized gay marriage is not enough to liberate and equalize same sex couples. Ettelbrick focuses on society as a whole and the discrimination and oppression gay people feel. In essence, they are pretty much excluded from society, or at least not generally accepted. She argues that having the right to marry will not change the fact that they are not accepted. In fact, if gays are allowed to marry they will be supporting an institution that is fundamentally opposed to the gay movement. Additionally, she believes that if gays are given the right to marry (legally), then their movement will come to a halt because people will no longer have much motivation/ incentives to continue fighting and protesting. As Naples mentions, many politicians, leaders and communities are opposed to gay parenting because they think it will ruin the mores and values of our society. Many believe that two same sex parents will corrupt the child's psyche and thus seriously damage the child's future. Personally, I feel that a bad parent is a bad parent- whether they are straight or gay. There are plenty of awful heterosexual couples, who are truly unfit to raise their children. At the same time, I do feel that it is important for a child to be raised with a male and female figure. This might not have always been the case, but it certainly is in today's society. I don't just think this for gay couples, I also think it is important for single mothers and fathers to try to find a figure of the opposite sex that their child can talk to and look up to. With this being said, I feel that gay marriage would definitely be a positive step for an incalculable number of gay people. I feel that Ettelbrick might be a little too pessimistic on this subject, even though I can understand her pessimism. However, having spoken to several gay couples in the past, I know their extreme desire to get married and how much it would mean to them to be able to make their union legal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting post, Drew. I believe that the defense politicians use to justify their opposition to gay marriage - that any children raised by gay couples will be corrupted morally and will not grow up to be contributing, value-guided citizens - is complete bogus. Why do we need our children to be raised by heterosexual couples? Why is that so much safer, especially since so many heterosexual couples are splitting up or divorcing? Is having a mom and dad who are divorced and hate each other as parents better than two gay moms or dads that love each other? I think that having two parents, regardless of their gender, that love each other is much better because children will see how love, respect, and relationships should work which leads them to ultimately form better, healthier relationships. I don't think that having both a mother and father figure is necessary for a child's healthy development, especially if one of these figures is a horrible role model or just not involved. Would it be better for a child to have a father who is a drug addict and disrespects women or to have two moms that love each other and work through their problems together respectfully? Or what about a mom who ignores her child because she is too busy going to parties and getting spa treatments than two dads who are actively supportive in their child's life and go see his games or plays? While I do think it is important for children to have both male and female role models (teachers, coaches, friends, other relatives, etc.), being raised by a father and a mother is not crucial to a child's well being; being raised with love is.
ReplyDelete