On "Traditional Marriage"

One of the guest bloggers over at Pharyngula has done an excellent article which exposes yet another catchphrase from the "Family Values" crowd for the empty phrase it is. In this case, the phrase of the day is Traditional Marriage.

Go read, and then consider just how empty the catchphrase that is so often thrown around really is.

The Price "Christianity" Exacts From People

The outright abusiveness of some who profess that their actions are done in the name of "all that is holy" annoys me to no end some days.

We often hear of the horrors of so-called "reparative therapy". It's awful enough what they will attempt to tell someone who is gay or lesbian to do to themselves.

Then there is what they will do to their families. Read that link - it is heartbreaking how the writer's relatives pressured the father in all sorts of ways, ultimately separating father from his offspring - solely because of their moral objections to his partner.

I admire the writer's clarity and strength of character at such a young age, and I am appalled by the behaviour of her aunt and uncle in particular. If those are "family values", then it's time to hold these brutes up to account for what they are doing to individuals and families.

Thoughts On A Comment

Back here, where the discussion around candidates for the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont got going, a commenter left the following comment that I want to spend a few minutes discussing.

I shake my head at anyone who styles themselves "liberal" or "progressive" who gasps in dismay when someone mentions they attend church. Do you understand the meaning of those two words?

Not everyone who goes to church on Sundays (or temple on Saturdays, etc.) is a nutter. In fact, I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas. It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.

I commend someone who has the gumption to run for public office, and not hide who they are and what they believe in. Good luck to you.

First off, I don't actually care if someone goes to church every Sunday or not (or whatever faith observance you wish). The fact of someone's faith, or its absence is quite immaterial to me. The vast majority of church-going people are pretty rational and sane about things, and similarly the majority of people who choose not to attend church are pretty rational as well - neither has a lock on "rightness" or virtue.

However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do we live in a country that gives primacy to any specific religious tradition. In such circumstances, we must reasonably view matters of faith as matters of personal liberty, and bound their exercise of those freedoms appropriately - especially if they are standing for public office.

I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas.

Since our commenter is being amazingly broad in such statements, one can only guess what they might be referring to. Any particular system of beliefs or perspective on the world can be twisted into some pretty hideous conclusions - a brief review of various periods in the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that quite clearly. (Most people would be quite horrified by the reasoning present in the Malleus Maleficarum, for example)

Broad-based accusations of this sort are really quite meaningless, providing no grounds upon which to address them.

It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.

My grandfather used to have a saying "It is your responsibility to pay attention to our government and vote because if you do not, those whom you would least want in power will get there".

I'm sad to say it, but in recent years the rise of so-called "values voting" has dragged a particularly unpleasant form of "Christian" faith into the public arena, and given it a prominence that it does not deserve. Under such circumstances when someone proclaims themselves to be "a person of faith", is it unreasonable for the voters to question just what that catch phrase means? (One must, in fairness, be similarly vigilant about how others put things forward as well - politics is a game often filled with evasion and partial statements)

There are a number of similar "catch phrases" out there that are seemingly "empty", and often carry some surprising implications. "Pro-Life", "Family Values" and "Values Voter" are among the best known such catch phrases - fairly empty, innocuous sounding combinations of words whose full meaning varies from faction to faction among the voters - and some factions take some pretty unpleasant interpretations of those phrases.

One example that comes to mind is that the so-called "Pro-Life" movement in some corners is beginning to represent not just "anti-abortion" activists, but is going so far as to advocate against contraception of any sort.

Some so-called "Family Values" advocates in the United States are beginning to demand that funding aimed at AIDS research be directed elsewhere - primarily on the unfounded assertion that AIDS is primarily a disease of "the gay lifestyle".

It is the extremism, which often shrouds itself in the cloak of religiosity, that must be watched for and stood against, as it ultimately works to all our disadvantage.

One For "Family Values" Crowd

This ought to warm the very hearts of the so-called Family Values crowd.

The Calgary woman gave birth to a child in August 2005 after getting artifically inseminated with an anonymous donor's sperm. Her common-law husband had said he didn't want the parental or financial responsibility of a child.

She and her common-law husband had asked the courts to allow them to enter into a binding, written agreement absolving her husband of parental responsibility under Alberta's Family Law Act.

In February the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the agreement, saying the common-law husband would inevitably take on a parental role because he lives with the child.

The so-called family values crowd has long complained that the gradual liberalization of divorce and parental law in this country has made it too easy for people to walk away from their responsibilities as parents.

This ruling is actually quite clear that one's obligations as a parent - even as what amounts to a "step-parent" - are not easily absolved. I think that this is a good thing - while I am absolutely a proponent of broader, more flexible laws with respect to marriage and the recognition of varying forms of Family in law, I do not believe that anyone has the right to "walk away" from their responsibilities towards others, especially children.

I imagine that this ruling will be conveniently ignored by those who bleat so loudly about "activist courts"...

Treatment of the "Others" Among Us

In recent months, there have been quite a few discussions in the blogosphere around the fundamental notion of transsexuals - particularly focused around the situations that Susan Stanton and Julie Nemecek found themselves in.

What has been particularly disturbing has been some of the commentary from various so-called conservatives regarding how transgender people , and in particular transsexuals, should be treated (or not).

There is an amazing amount of hostility that ranges from blatant to veiled behind the mists of ignorance (and/or blind ignorance based on theology that I would call questionable).

From "Americans For Truth":

We must pray for these poor souls who are so confused that they would destroy their healthy, God-given bodies to assuage their inner conflict.

Or from a religious apologetics blog:

My personal view is that the transgendered operation should only be embraced by those who are born hermaphrodites or whose sexual genitalia are opposite their genetic endowments. I do not currently buy the view that being “mentally” or psychologically a woman and “physically” a male (or vice-versa) somehow justifies surgical change. The mental phenomenon may or may not be legitimate, but that’s irrelevant to me. For a believer, I don’t believe the experience justifies the surgery.

By analogy, a mental or genetic predisposition to violence doesn’t justify abuse. Similarly, a mental or genetic predisposition to thinking like the opposite sex, or being attracted to the opposite sex, also doesn’t justify cross- dressing, transsexualism, or homosexuality.

Or from a rather rednecky blog:

*(And personally, I would argue that no matter what sort of mutilation you subject your genitalia to, you can't change the fact that if you were male you were born without the same plumbing and you will die without it, too. In my humble opinion, Steve should always be referred to as a "he" even if he goes through with the sex change operation.)

*Note: I choose not to link to these sites because I feel that their content is fundamentally hostile to other human beings' life experiences.

The commentary carries a common theme throughout that I find quite objectionable - namely that transfolk, and transsexuals in particular, should be denied not only basic courtesy in the world, but worse, denied treatment for their conditions.

Perhaps the greatest irony comes from the religious blog I mentioned earlier, the author of which asserts:

My personal view is that the transgendered operation should only be embraced by those who are born hermaphrodites or whose sexual genitalia are opposite their genetic endowments.

Just consider the logic here - if someone has a physical ambiguity, it is perfectly reasonable to allow medical intervention; but in contrast, if someone's psychological gender is ambiguous relative to their body, it is not acceptable to provide treatment?

This kind of non-linear reasoning astounds me. On one hand, imposing a gender on intersex babies is argued as acceptable (even though the baby is neither aware of, nor able to participate in, the decision being made on their behalf. (For cross reference, consider the case of David Reimer to get some sense how wrong things can go if such a decision is made for the wrong reasons)

Meanwhile, most transsexuals that ask for medical assistance in making a gender transition are adults - not merely of legal age, but often old enough to more than fully appreciate the implications of the steps they are taking. Further, if we have medical treatments that are constructive for these individuals, I see no compelling moral or ethical reason to deny them treatment. To date, all such "moral" arguments I have seen rely upon interpretations of biblical scripture, applying that scripture to a situation that could not have been understood or

Interestingly, the advocacy around intersex children is towards waiting until they are old enough to make a choice intelligently, rather than simply imposing a surgical gender on the child while they are still infants.

My assertion in this regard is quite simple - if nature can provide the diversity of expression to produce (albeit rare) physical ambiguity, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that psychological gender may similarly be highly diverse. The argument that because we are talking about a hard to verify condition in the case of transsexuals (it's hard to know what someone is thinking or feeling beyond what they provide words for), that we should not provide them with access to treatment is fundamentally unreasonable. (Please note that both the HBIGDA SOC and the DSM IV are quite clear about the need for demonstrated persistence, a key point in establishing whether one is dealing with a "fleeting fantasy" or a more persistent condition - as well as a demonstrable ability to adapt socially to a new social role)

Other arguments, such as insisting that a post-transition transsexual that no longer presents in their birth gender should be treated as though they do are simply demonstrating a fundamental disrespect for other people. As soon as we allow ourselves to see someone as "Other" (different, and somehow apart from "us"), we create a serious problem in society. The "Other" is always the "alien" - incomprehensible to the greater masses. Whether we denote otherness based on someone's religion or ancestry (as Bush has done with Muslims in the US), language or behaviours doesn't matter. As soon as we provide that tag of "Other" to be applied, we create a serious problem where society can condemn without actually knowing.

This is the fundamental tactic being applied by "family values" adovcates throughout North America - by portraying GLBT people as essentially "aliens among us", they dehumanize that population, and then proceed to tar them with blame for all of the ills they see in society. Of course, when you get a little closer to these people and see them as human beings with lives little different from the rest of society, it becomes much more difficult to judgmentally push them to the margins.

Fundamentalist Misogynist

There's good reason to watch the so-called "family values" crowd carefully. Every so often, one of them opens their yap and lets the truth of their "values" spew forth.

In this case, it's a SBC theologian/leader speaking at a "Family Conference". If you didn't listen too closely to him, you'd think he was just spouting the usual "family values" line so often spouted by right wingnut religionists.

It's the little gem came spewing forth in the midst of his tirade that tells us so much:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson says families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female. He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women.

Patterson laments that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children.

Ummm ... wow. In short - women should not be as educated as men? More importantly, this guy feels that women shouldn't have active careers outside the home?

The undercurrent of this is obscene. Starting with the assertion that educated women is a bad thing (especially if there are more educated women than men, it would seem), and moving into the blatant assault on the very idea that a woman might want to work outside of the home. I know quite a few ladies who have careers and family...and they work amazingly hard to make sure that they look after the kids and their careers. In at least two cases, they have told me to my face that they need their career for perfectly valid human needs.

I won't even go into the utterly vapid comments that are attached to the article. The assumption that there is a "perfect" family model out there is horrifying - especially in light of just how horribly dysfunctional the "ideal" families of so many of my friends grew up in turned out to be in reality. Thanks - I'll take a dozen slightly unusual families that are basically happy over one dysfunctional disaster.

Frankly, it appalls me to no end that these people keep fetishizing a social structure that never really existed - largely to create a pretext for making second class citizens out of women.