The marriage debate: Why the disability community
should examine it carefully.
First, I'm not going to discuss my views, on this because they don't fall neatly into the "yes/no, liberal/conservative, oppose/favor...
I'm not talking about anyone's scripture or religious belief that opposes homosexuality. Everyone who holds that view, certainly can defend it. That is a matter of faith My faith or my own beliefs are not at issue here. No community of faith should be *forced* to marry anybody they don't want to.
The former pastor of the church I attended refused to marry my husband and myself on the grounds that my disability would preclude me from doing all the things he felt a wife was Biblically obligated to do. [Snark: of course my *husband's* disability, being mostly invisible was not mentioned but whatever. ]Luckily he left his post before our marriage. We were married in that church by another pastor who had no reservations whatsoever about us and didn't just marry us, he counseled us as well prior to the wedding.
I'm not talking about religious and secular individuals visceral, gut, gross out reaction ("It's just wrong, " often followed by a shudder, or an Ewwww because that individual could *never* see themselves that way) That's understandable by anybody who vicscerally reacts to something they dislike...lima beans, liver, acorn squash,or seeing someone with an obvious physcial difference or disability that they find "ugly," or "wrong" "or disgusting.) It happens. People are going to "feel" what they feel.
There has been acknowlegement that scientific study shows that being gay may be a genetic marker for some or most in the gay/lesbian community.
I submit that adding the ban on gay marriage to the Constitution would be the first step, not just in the political slogan "Don't enshrine discrimmination in the Constitution" It goes into more dangerous territory than that.
If the ban passes, it essentially means our constitution has language put into it that giving state sanction to the interpretation that *persons with certain genetic markers will not be permitted to marry.*
Think about what that would mean. The very studies that have been done pointing to a genetic root to homosexuality could then be used by the government as a pointer toward, well, we just banned these persons with these genetic markers from marrying....this will allow for discussion of forbidding persons with *any* other genetic markers we don't like from marrying.
Those with genetic conditions considered "abnormalities" could be next in line for denial of that marriage license.
Sounds like a first step on the road back to eugenics to me.
First, I'm not going to discuss my views, on this because they don't fall neatly into the "yes/no, liberal/conservative, oppose/favor...
I'm not talking about anyone's scripture or religious belief that opposes homosexuality. Everyone who holds that view, certainly can defend it. That is a matter of faith My faith or my own beliefs are not at issue here. No community of faith should be *forced* to marry anybody they don't want to.
The former pastor of the church I attended refused to marry my husband and myself on the grounds that my disability would preclude me from doing all the things he felt a wife was Biblically obligated to do. [Snark: of course my *husband's* disability, being mostly invisible was not mentioned but whatever. ]Luckily he left his post before our marriage. We were married in that church by another pastor who had no reservations whatsoever about us and didn't just marry us, he counseled us as well prior to the wedding.
I'm not talking about religious and secular individuals visceral, gut, gross out reaction ("It's just wrong, " often followed by a shudder, or an Ewwww because that individual could *never* see themselves that way) That's understandable by anybody who vicscerally reacts to something they dislike...lima beans, liver, acorn squash,or seeing someone with an obvious physcial difference or disability that they find "ugly," or "wrong" "or disgusting.) It happens. People are going to "feel" what they feel.
There has been acknowlegement that scientific study shows that being gay may be a genetic marker for some or most in the gay/lesbian community.
I submit that adding the ban on gay marriage to the Constitution would be the first step, not just in the political slogan "Don't enshrine discrimmination in the Constitution" It goes into more dangerous territory than that.
If the ban passes, it essentially means our constitution has language put into it that giving state sanction to the interpretation that *persons with certain genetic markers will not be permitted to marry.*
Think about what that would mean. The very studies that have been done pointing to a genetic root to homosexuality could then be used by the government as a pointer toward, well, we just banned these persons with these genetic markers from marrying....this will allow for discussion of forbidding persons with *any* other genetic markers we don't like from marrying.
Those with genetic conditions considered "abnormalities" could be next in line for denial of that marriage license.
Sounds like a first step on the road back to eugenics to me.
posted by imfunnytoo at 9:04 AM
4 Comments:
Wow, you've had some very philosophical posts lately! I am worried about the face of disability. With all this talk about gene therapy, I fear that disability will be devalued. The problem is, they may come up with ways to prevent today's diseases and disabilities, but there will always be new ones cropping up. The idea of knowing all about your baby before it's born is downright scary. And with all these ethical conundrums, come the implications of how we live with disability around us. I can absolutely believe that it will try to be controlled, just like our genes.
The thing that we are also seeing more and more coverage of is the cases of adult caregivers murdering their charges...and the killers are the ones that recieve the sympathy
That's the scariest thing of all.
What, you "fear that disability will be devalued"?
You mean it isn't now?? News to me...
I should I suppose have made some note of being "further devalued." I agree.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home