January 30, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.
A just society cannot condone discrimination, period
So let's protect our gay citizens
Opponents of the amendment claim, in essence, that in protecting the rights of “gay” people we will open the door to same-sex marriages.
Supporters of the amendment, of which I am one, believe that a just society cannot condone discrimination, period.
By excluding any group of people from protection under Human Rights legislation we legitimize and even invite prejudice, and worse, on that group.
I remember when left-handed children were treated as aberrations.
Being left-handed in those days meant you were castigated as being of the devil.
No one in any civilized society today would think of laying such a guilt trip on a left-handed child.
But the same arguments — coming from the same circles — are put forward these days about people with same-sex orientation.
This human rights issue has broader implications. People belonging to religious organizations are insisting more and more that their values are to be imposed on everyone in society.
I reject that thinking. As MP Webb points out: “We live in a secular society, not a Theocracy.”
For example, earlier this week some religious people tried to exclude Mark Anderson from joining the Heritage Parade in the guise of ‘drag queen’ Sybil Barrington.
The arguments range from it being a bad example for children to the claim that: “Mr. Anderson does not represent the heritage and culture of this island.”
Don’t get me started on bad examples for children, such as the children trained to parade while gyrating their bodies suggestively. And one could argue, given that approximately 10 per cent of any community is likely to have engaged in same-sex activities, Mr. Anderson represents a significant portion of our heritage — more so than the individual clubs or other entities that take part in the parade.
Religious groups are free to promote or decry certain lifestyles, such as not eating pork or no meat on Fridays. They can require their adherents to follow or eschew certain behaviours. But I reject in the strongest terms any attempt by religious organizations to require that I or anyone else outside their flocks live by their rules.
Of course, many religions have principles and rules that I share. The Ten Commandments are a good example of a set of religious rules, most of which are universally adopted; some of which, however, are rejected.
Our economic system, for example, survives through the exploitation of peoples’ covetousness.
Our advertising industry devotes most of its energy toward trying to make us covet the things our neighbours (real or fictitious) might have. If “though shalt not covet…” was a rule we all adhered to, our economy’s balloon would collapse.
Then there’s “Thou shall not kill”. Not kill what? People? Animals? Plants? Insects? And is killing okay for food, or in war, or by the state?
With all due respect, many who profess to be religious have enough in their own lives to be working on.
Let’s see them driving with respect for the law on their way to church on Sunday mornings.
Let’s see them teaching their children by example about the difficulties the rich will have getting into heaven. Let’s hear them judging not; and loving their neighbours.
Meanwhile, let’s protect human rights for all.[[In-content Ad]]
Comments:
You must login to comment.