Blessed are the cheesemakers
I've come to the realisation that I'm frequently unwilling to give my opinion on sensitive matters. A look back at my posts on here and comments on other people's blogs will show up the frequency of the words "seem", "appear" and heaps of conditionals in my writings, deliberately distancing myself from extreme views which sit uncomfortably with me - a defensive mechanism, if you will.
One things I've noticed I will do, when a delicate subject gives rise to a huge argument, is go to some effort to smooth over the troubled waters. An online gay community of which I'm a member recently saw a message thread concerning the inclusion (or otherwise) of straight people on the site get hopelessly out of hand, personal insults creeping in along the way with no sense of resolution in sight. While I did put forward a plea for tolerance (in all sorts of ways), my main aim was to draw out the deficiencies in both arguments, a post which unfortunately - though perhaps not unexpectedly - got lost in the crossfire. (How is it discussion threads are doomed to go round in circles or hopelessly off-topic?) It's not evident trying to calm everyone down.
The one time I will, and have, put my neck on the line is when someone I care about is unjustly attacked. I'm immensely protective of my friends, even of acquaintances with the potential to become friends. In this same online community, a new arrival struck up conversation with me and later, for reasons as yet unexplained - I think it's a simple misunderstanding masquerading as something infinitely more complex - found his profile suspended. Feeling a little responsible for what had happened (and no, I'm not going to go into the reasons) and fuelled by my own sense of ethics, I promptly took up his cause; although we're still waiting for a result, it's cemented this potential friendship.
This diplomacy thing is pretty difficult though: my interventions in cases involving only a limited number of people have thus far been fairly successful, but as my experience with larger-scale conflicts show, I've got a lot to learn before earning my CD plates!
UPDATE (10:32, 13/03/2006) A slight correction. A truly wonderful post on Gay Pride (and, by extension, gay pride) over at Andy's blog has brought about some very lively debate in which everyone has managed to remain civil. Until, that is, someone brought up the topic of same-sex adoption, putting forward their view that "if there is a homosexual couple that is equally functional in terms of stability to a heterosexual couple, the latter couple should be given priority." It was sorely tempting to let off steam in a string of expletives but I've demanded the person in question elaborates on this before I let loose. I hate to think what it's done to my blood pressure though ...
One things I've noticed I will do, when a delicate subject gives rise to a huge argument, is go to some effort to smooth over the troubled waters. An online gay community of which I'm a member recently saw a message thread concerning the inclusion (or otherwise) of straight people on the site get hopelessly out of hand, personal insults creeping in along the way with no sense of resolution in sight. While I did put forward a plea for tolerance (in all sorts of ways), my main aim was to draw out the deficiencies in both arguments, a post which unfortunately - though perhaps not unexpectedly - got lost in the crossfire. (How is it discussion threads are doomed to go round in circles or hopelessly off-topic?) It's not evident trying to calm everyone down.
The one time I will, and have, put my neck on the line is when someone I care about is unjustly attacked. I'm immensely protective of my friends, even of acquaintances with the potential to become friends. In this same online community, a new arrival struck up conversation with me and later, for reasons as yet unexplained - I think it's a simple misunderstanding masquerading as something infinitely more complex - found his profile suspended. Feeling a little responsible for what had happened (and no, I'm not going to go into the reasons) and fuelled by my own sense of ethics, I promptly took up his cause; although we're still waiting for a result, it's cemented this potential friendship.
This diplomacy thing is pretty difficult though: my interventions in cases involving only a limited number of people have thus far been fairly successful, but as my experience with larger-scale conflicts show, I've got a lot to learn before earning my CD plates!
UPDATE (10:32, 13/03/2006) A slight correction. A truly wonderful post on Gay Pride (and, by extension, gay pride) over at Andy's blog has brought about some very lively debate in which everyone has managed to remain civil. Until, that is, someone brought up the topic of same-sex adoption, putting forward their view that "if there is a homosexual couple that is equally functional in terms of stability to a heterosexual couple, the latter couple should be given priority." It was sorely tempting to let off steam in a string of expletives but I've demanded the person in question elaborates on this before I let loose. I hate to think what it's done to my blood pressure though ...
posted by Anthony at
13:57
2 Comments:
Objectively I can kind of see it from his point of view, though. As un-P.C. as it is to say this, I think we all generally agree that the biological 2-parent/mixed gender household is our cultural ideal.
The problem is that we don't legislate ideals, laws have to reflect reality (with which American conservatives have only a passing familiarity at best).
If the situation were such that same-sex households were competing with mixed-gender couples for babies, there might be a discussion to be had. One of the realities is that there are over 600,000 children in America either waiting to be adopted or in foster care right now, and American courts, even in very conservative parts of the U.S., have consistently ruled that what's in a child's best interests is to have a parent or parents who really want them. As Dahlia Lithwick pointed out in her (as per usual) brilliant article, conservatives opposed to adoption by gay people find themselves forced to argue that a child is better off in an orphanage or bouncing around in foster care than in a stable home that happens to have two parents of the same gender.
The other flawed assumption is that heterosexual parents are by default better parents than gay people, for which there is precisely zero evidence. Heterosexuals can be single parents; heterosexuals can get divorced; heterosexuals can be child-abusers, or drug abusers, or Republicans. Heterosexuals can be unemployed, or have criminal records. Of course, the same goes for gay folk, as well, which is why the argument that straight people should somehow take priority is utterly bogus.
The most laughable argument Conservatives bring up is that children raised in same-sex parent households may suffer emotionally because of ridicule from their peers at school and feelings of being "different." The way to solve that is to have conservatives teach their children some manners.
By
Andy, at 13/3/06 19:17
Herewith a link to Dahlia Lithwick's article. I'll be writing more on the subject in due course.
By
Anthony, at 13/3/06 19:40
Post a Comment
<< Home