Dominique Diaz
His first argument was that, “Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason...we want to encourage what is best for the children” (Memoli and Barabak). Statements like these are spreading oppressive beliefs and behaviors to others by saying that homosexuality is wrong, different, and undeserving of the “privilege” to marry because it does not meet the requirements of tradition and normalcy that our society is used to. However, in Eli Clare’s article “Stolen Bodies: Reclaimed Bodies,” he tries to counter this mentality by presenting the idea of being “irrevocably different” (Clare 362). This changes the connotation of “queer” from “different therefore wrong and undeserving,” to “unchangeably different therefore deserving of equal rights.” Unfortunately, declarations like the one Santorum is spreading promote homophobic thoughts instead of ones like Clare’s that promote acceptance to gay marriage and the gay community. If more thoughts like Clare’s were publicized, perhaps we would be able to enlighten people who take a blind eye to what homosexuality actually is and why taking away these human rights is unconstitutional.
Santorum furthers his argument by saying, “Allowing gays to marry and raise children amounts to robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true” (Memoli and Barabak). With this statement, Santorum is not giving any reason or logical argument to back up his words, he is merely appealing to people by reminding them of what society wrongly teaches us about gender roles. These gender roles or gender norms that society has created for us, explain that a child needs a mother and a father who behave according to their gender. First of all, in his article, Gayle Rubin argues that the concept of “sex/gender system” is not something set in stone, but “a set of arrangements by which society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity” (Rubin 16). Therefore, it is unfair to deny someone rights for not fitting their gender role because it is an idea created by people, not a rule or law. Secondly, having an absent father still does not fulfill the gender role theory of it being “necessary” to have both a mother and a father because there is no father to teach the child anything about how a man is suppose to behave. Meanwhile, teaching children that criminals, whose actions put them in jail, are better than homosexuals, who commit the crime of loving another human being. Lastly, not only is Santorum’s statement an insult to single parents, but he is implying that two straight parents are the only way to have a fully functioning family and the only way to create honorable members of society in children. However, Zach Wahls, A 19-year old college student who addresses the Iowa House of Representatives regarding his life being raised by two mothers, successfully counters Rick Santorum’s beliefs all on one 3 minute video by explaining his accomplishments and ending with telling the judge that he believes the judge would be proud of him if he were his son (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ).
By listening to arguments like Rick Santorum’s, our society is taking a step back in how far we have come in LGBTQ acceptance, trusting empty arguments with no validity, and being influenced to take away human rights based off of the uncomfortableness of the topic. Instead, we should think logically when being presented with these kinds of viewpoints, and listen to and promote positive views on gay rights.
Bibliography
Clare, Eli. “Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness.” Public Culture (2001): 359-365. Web.
Memoli, Michael A., and Mark Z. Barabak. "Santorum Dwells on Gay Marriage." The Los Angeles Times. 07 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ jan/07/nation/la-na-campaign-20120107>.
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies (1993): 1-22. Print.
Wahls, Zach. “Zach Wahls Speaks About Family.” Speech. 3 Feb. 2011. YouTube. 7 Jan. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ>
Overall, I believe this to be an incredibly well written and persuasive piece. Like many others who have listened to or read statements by Rick Santorum, I am shocked and disgusted at the manner in which he speaks of other human beings (although he probably sees them as something less). I agree with the argument that people like him spread homophobic ideologies and legitimize hatred, prejudice, and rejection in a society already plagued with endless tiers of inequality. I watched the video of 19 year-old Zach Wahls, who defended the efficacy of his mothers’ parental abilities, which I found to be extremely powerful. In her article, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, feminist Adrienne Rich asks a very important question: “How and why women’s choice of women as passionate comrades, life partners, co-workers, lovers… has been crushed, invalidated, forced into hiding and disguise” (178). Author John D’Emilio explains that the harsh judgments of homophobic individuals oftentimes stem from their religious “Judeo-Christian” background, which formally declares same-sex sexual activity to be “a heinous sin… [and] a serious crime” (13). Biblical text condemns homosexuals as evil and considers “lustful behavior between men and between women ‘vile passions… against nature’” (13). This ideology originates from the belief that sexual relations should be based solely on reproductive intentions, not for recreation. It is clear that gay men and women who engage in sexual activities clearly do not have the intent to have children, so it is seen as evil and against the will of god. It is these same people who want to protect the sanctity and “privilege” of marriage for those whom they deem worthy: heterosexual, monogamous couples who intend on having children. LGBTQ communities must continue to remind anti-gay activists that marriage is not only a right for every human being, but a necessity for those who desire legal recognition of their same-sex relationship.
ReplyDeleteD’Emilio, John. “Homosexuality in American Society: An Overview.” Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities in the United States 1940-1970.
Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Professions of Desire: Lesbian and Gay Studies in Literature. ed. George Haggerty and Bonnie Zimmermann. New York: Modern Language Association, 1995.
I found a rather entertaining fact about Santorum. Type "Santorum" into google. It should be the second link (spreadingsantorum.com). But I digress.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Its rather unfortunate that in today's day and age people like Rick Santorum still exist. I've read about many of the things he says, and as you stated, Santorum's arguments are based on logical fallacies. One great example is Rick's comment on queer military, noting that "it interferes with unit cohesion". Rick then agrees with a statement criticizing racial integration during world war 2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCXgFc5It5c)
The arguments that Santorum utilizes are almost word for word the arguments used against racial integration in the 1940's. The 40's! That's a 70 year step backwards. Further added, there are a number of countries that have completely outlawed any form of queer discrimination in their armies, including most of Europe, South America, Russia, Australia and many significant others. So far, none of these have suffered any repercussions from lifting queer bans.
I feel that the most unfortunate part of Santorum’s speeches/comments is that to many uneducated Americans, his arguments reaffirm a negative view of the queer individual. This reaffirmation rebounds and echos through communities, which slows the progress that is being made for the LGBTQ community. By targeting LGBT issues, he is effectively disseminating the idea that people who don’t conform to biblical sexuality have an inherent problem.
It comes down to understanding that sexuality is something that’s varied and packaged in many beautiful forms. As Gayle Rubin puts it, “Variation is a fundamental property of all life, from the simplest biological organisms to the most complex social interactions. Yet sexuality is supposed to conform to a single standard... there is one best way to do it, and everyone should do it that way.”
References:
Rubin, Gayle. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality" from Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider. 1993.
I agree with this author in their distaste for this politicians’ view on gay marriage and parenting. Coming from a very liberal town in which gay couples are fairly common and their rights supported, this speech by Rick Santorum is personally perplexing. I cannot even start to fathom how a person can truly think that I criminal father and an abandoning parent is better qualified to raise a child than having two parents of the same sex. The author above clearly notes that Santorum alludes to the fact that a heterosexual couple is ideal and that a homosexual one is catastrophic to a child’s development. I agree with Zach Wahls, the boy in the video, that there are more important aspects to family that the sexual orientation of the parents including “Love that binds, which is what makes a family.” How much love and support could a family truly have with an abandoned, criminalized father? Two parents, no matter what sexual orientation, are better than one. Santorum is unable to prove that gay parents are worse parents and this lack of evidence leaves his without creditability. Gayle Rubin wrote in “Thinking Sex” that “popular culture is permeated with ideas that erotic variety (I.E homosexuality) is dangerous, unhealthy, depraved, and a menace to everything from small children to national security”(12) and this holds true as a man running for president presents such opinions.
ReplyDeleteRubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies (1993): 1-22. Print.
I seem to always find the reasons people oppose homosexuality amusing. I think that since much of the United States population is heterosexual, it is difficult to put yourself in a homosexual persons shoes, but some of the reasons behind not allowing same-sex couples to marry are just plain ridiculous. Some of the reasons include: homosexuality is a sin, the definition of marriage would be weakened, it could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next), children would be confused about gender roles and society’s expectations, and the gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged.
ReplyDeleteRick Santorum is adding to the ridiculous reasons behind the opposition of same-sex marriage. Is it safe to say that children should only be raised by a mother and father? What about single parents? Will children be “damaged” if they are not raised in a household with a mother and father? There are so many questions that can be asked about Santorum’s speech. In my opinion, if a child is raised in a household that provides love, support, and the child’s needs are met, then the sexual orientation of the parents have no effect on the child’s development. My parents taught me to be accepting of others that are different from me, so I think that children raised by same-sex couples well be more tolerant and accepting of all types of people.
Works Cited:
"BalancedPolitics.org - Same Sex Marriages (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)." BalancedPolitics.org - Free Balanced, Non-Partisan Discussion of Political & Social Issues for Debate (Pros and Cons - Decision Making Politics). Web. 14 Feb. 2012. .