www.samesexmarriage.ca
I found that all of the aritcles that we had to read have a great deal in common. First and foremost equality for same sex couples need to be addressed. In the article "When is Marriage a Path to Liberation", Puala spoke about the ways in which marriage was considered similar to the patriarchial system that people live in right now. I agree with her because same sex marriage still adhers to the culture of power and it really does not serve as a legitimate relationship for either heterosexual or homosexual people. Nancy Naples takes it a step further by talking about the ways in which people are constructed to understand the child rearing process. I also agree with her when she speaks about the awarness that needs to be brought to our country so that LBTQ people can raise biological kids. It is not ok for Homosexuals to be excluded from the "normal life" and from having kids and raising them when they are considered different. She brings up some good points about how the country is influenced to believe that the "welfare of the child" is at state if the parents are not from the opposite sex. Actually parents that are from the same sex have more to offer becuase they do not live in the illusion that most of the americans of the same sex do. They can challenge the culture of power, this is where the problem to me lies. I agree that people need to challenge the heteronormality of the country if it ever wants to get to a place that displays equality and democracy. To say the least, the facts about same sex marriage need to be taught in school. I say this because otherwise no one will talk about the issues that these people face on the day to day basis. United States is a developed country and it needs to legitmize the lives of same sex partners by giving them thier licsense to be together as normal people are. People are just as "normal" in canada and it has legitimized same sex marriage for their citizens why haven't we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i agree with charles in that the readings brought forth a lot of very good points. it is interesting to think about the institutions of marriage and how the system is still set up in such a patriarchal way. It actually made me think about previous readings in that we are so set on the fact that a man is at one end of the spectrum and has to act and obtain certain qualities and perform certain tasks while a woman is at the other and acting and performing in their roles however this is not the case. there is not just one side or the other it is a spectrum and men and women fall is so many different points on that spectrum. why to we put so much pressure on having a mother and father as if the child cannot develope into there "proper" gender roles if not. what about single parents? we have gender roles so ingrained that it is ridiculous to say that a man or woman could not understand how to raise a boy or girl no matter what gender they may be. not only that but these institutions of the ways in which men and women need to act within a marriage need to be altered as well, we consider this a way to legitimize a relationship when really it just follows the same system in which women have been trying to break out of. it doesnt seem healthy for a gay or lesbian couple to even want to be a part of this system, or anyone for that matter. I also found the FAQ's very interesting because i knew most of the inequalities that came with gays and lesbians not being able to marry but there were a few i didnt even think about that are some of the most important things, like about being able to visit their significant other in the hospital when they were sick. i could only imagine how that would feel, and the power that our institutions still have over so many people. i also thought that charles article in same sex marriage in canada was interesting because i was not aware of that
ReplyDeleteThese readings for today were very interesting and I think that Amanda and Charles both bring up really good points about them. I also did not fully understand the full details of what gay and lesbian couples are being denied and the FAQ gave a really good summation of that. It was also interesting to look at Charles's article and his point about Canada, because I think that's very true and not something the public knows and can use as a point of reference when discussing this topic.
ReplyDeleteThough the readings were informative, I did find myself having a bit of a problem with Ettlebrick's. I agree that there are patriarchal facets to marriage as an institution and that those are oppressing in their own ways, but to say that being gay or lesbian *is* being "different" and that to accept marriage is a step back for the community seems to me like Ettlebrick projecting her own beliefs on her whole community. Just because she is a lesbian who is "fundamentally different from non-lesbian women" and does "not want to be known as Mrs. Attached-to-Somebody-Else" doesn't mean that every lesbian feels that way. She has good points, but what id driving them seems to be wrong and biased. And I especially didn't agree with her belief that if gay marriage were institutionalized, gay sex would only be accepted inside marriage. That's not the case now, and I don't think that will be the case then. Yes, women face double standards in connection with sex, but not to the point where if they have sex before marriage, they are instantly branded a slut. I think that it is certainly easier for a woman to be labeled that than a man is, but that very rarely has anything to do with being or not being married. Once again, I think that Ettlebrick has a point, but she's not proving them in ways that I can accept. It's an important issue and something I hadn't considered before, but I just wished that it was discussed in a way that I could really think about it instead of recoiling at her biased assertions.
I agree with Brittani that Ettlebrick has some problems in her article. I think she is giving marriage a negative stigma where a woman must be a "Mrs. Attached-to-Somebody-Else" when they get married. I think she does make some good points and I do believe that in order for the LGBTQ community to have justice they need to be fully accepted by our society. I just don't agree that marriage is nessecarily a step backwards for them.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading these articles I couldn't help but notice the word traditional or tradition several times. What exactly does it mean in this context? Much of the material we have read this semester has had something to do with tradition and how things were before they are now. These lawmakers talk about defending tradition and keeping society intact, but they don't consider how much society of today is not traditional anymore. If they wanted to "protect tradition" then why is there a black man in office? It has been pretty traditional for a white man to hold that position, yet Obama has broken that "tradition barrier". It is the 21st century and until congress recognizes homosexuals as equal as heterosexuals there will be problems.
I agree with Charles that homosexual couples serve as fine parents. Also, same-sex marriage is such a hot-button issue that it should be explained more thoroughly in schooling, as Charles suggests. The fact that Canada has legalized same-sex marriage may deter some people because they are a far more liberal country then ours. However, the US government has allowed many different states to govern under different laws on same-sex marriage. This only creates confusion and difficulties for couples trying to adopt or while traveling.
ReplyDeleteI am currently writing a paper in my Political Science seminar on the generational divide in support for same-sex marriage, and in the context of my work, found Charles' point on the importance of homosexual-related education to be incredibly insightful and relevant. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that increased familiarity to homosexuals (via the media, personal contact, education) directly corresponds with increased support for all gay rights issues (including the most controversial of these issues, such as child rearing and marriage rights).
ReplyDelete