Friday, February 14, 2014
Me Change? We Change
After reading Chris Cuomo's piece this week in class, a briefly touched on discussion left me thinking after the class period was over. It has become an increasing pattern as we move toward a more tolerant and understanding society, that those considered the norm, in this case, heterosexuals, are expected to undergo a sort of outlook transformation to find complete peace with the ideas and choices of an abnormal group or movement, in this example, queers. While I completely agree with the idea that a queer individual should not be ostracized or belittled because of their sexual identity, I do not believe it right to say that one group must change their beliefs, given there is a mutual respect for chosen lifestyles. Freedom of choice and thought is not a one way road, in which one individual has the power to choose a certain way of life and another has no right to conclude for himself that they disagree. If the disagreement is also paired with genuine respect for others choices, it is inaccurate to say that those who have conviction in their beliefs are uneducated. While I do not feel negative feelings or judgment toward one set of choices versus another, I can't say that I could expect someone to change their beliefs when not stemmed from malice. While many would like to hope that we could all be friends and go beyond the step of tolerance to complete acceptance of all different choices, I think it more effective and valuable to move toward a goal of a better society starting with the word respect instead of tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shannon,
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I misinterpret your post or misremember class discussion. I have a few questions to clarify:
I do not think anyone argued that all heterosexuals must undergo an outlook transformation; furthermore, in this instance, I am unsure what heterosexual people are changing their beliefs/views from and what they are changing their beliefs/views to (if there is even a belief system all heterosexual people adhere to -- besides of course identifying as heterosexual). Could you please clarify that? Also, when did anyone employ the right to the freedom of choice/thought (or perhaps the freedom of expression of thought, or the freedom of speech) to argue that a dissenter cannot disagree or that he or she is uneducated? (That argument seems inherently illogical, as freedom of speech implies the ability to disagree.) Do you feel that Cuomo argued any of these points? If so, how? Lastly, how are you distinguishing 'respect' from 'tolerance'?
I wonder if you are considering how Cuomo recounts the painful homophobia from the common religious disagreement with homosexuality, which is to 'love the sinner, hate the sin' and assert that queer actions are sinful. As this is the most ordinary argument against accepting queer acts, I am assuming this is what you are discussing (please let me know if this is a false assumption).
It is important to understand that Cuomo never demands for these religious folk to stop believing in their religion; rather she asserts that sexual identities are as legitimate as religious identities in the sense that religious morality should not be allowed to trump the universal human right to sexual freedom. She thus calls for equal treatment under the law and protected class status. This effort concerns reducing the increased rates of harassment and suicide in LGBT youth raised in homophobic contexts and legitimizing same-sex partnerships as to gain income and estate tax benefits, insurance benefits, inheritance, the right to visitation in hospitals, adoption, to challenge heterosexual supremacy and so on -- not requiring anyone to change their religious beliefs.
Does your argument derive from her insistence on 'defusing the moral judgments of homophobes, limiting their influence in public contexts, and building up the community that does not judge [LGBTQ people] negatively' and emphasis on the 'political importance of and requirements of dignity'? In this sense, again, she does not call to change a religious person's perception that homosexuality is sinful -- she asks to limit the power of religious prejudice. Furthermore, she asks that allies extend the enlightenment perception that 'gay people can be nice and moral' and dispelling stereotypes about LGBT communities to assert that 'being a lesbian is perfectly fine'. Yet she never asks that religious people change their beliefs.
Does that make sense?
It is not about establishing a Kumbaya world where we can all be friends. It is about reducing the power of religious prejudice and promoting queer folks' dignity. Cuomo does not argue to convince those with negative subjective judgments about true beliefs (i.e., homosexuality is sinful, and a lesbian enacts homosexuality) otherwise, but rather to limit their influence.
(Also, 'non-normative' is preferable to 'abnormal' as the latter implies unnaturalness/deviance and thus fails to recognize the temporal and localized social construction of norms as well as slightly insults the non-normative actress).