|
theobserver -> RE: Humanity and inclusivity are not difficult concepts to learn. (11/7/2008 2:24:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
The people of the United States have elected Barack Obama to be their new President. I have witnessed the debates and the arguments over this election for the past 18 months and the past couple of days it would seem that Americans have woken up from a long sleep and have found their spirit. I witnessed the celebrations, watched the speeches, and have read numerous articles, threads, postings, etc and therefore am able to share in the sense of euphoria and happiness of an Obama victiory. But what does it mean for Americans? What does it mean for the rest of the world? And what does it mean for you?
Some people have said that this is a new era, for Americans now have a black President. I disagree somewhat here, and don't believe that it is a new era, but I strongly believe that it can be a new era - and that new era can be one of humanity and inclusivity.
You see I have a sincere hope when it comes to celebrating this victory of Obama making it to the White House. That hope is that one of the reasons behind the celebration of his victory is not because he is a black President, but rather because consideration of the colour of a candidate's skin or ethnicity is no longer an issue. Therefore I would hope that he was elected on the strength of his policies and for no other reason.
I am not American, but I am British, and I am proud to be British no.. I will rephrase that. I take a pride in being British and one of the reasons for this sense of pride is that I feel I am part of the world. This is partly due to the fact that not just me, but people who are also British come in all shapes and forms of humanity and that they are British irrespective of their skin colour, size, gender, sexual orientation and religious beliefs. I wonder how many of you out there feel the same. How many of you feel part of this world?
Race may be seen by some as just one issue, but for me there is no issue, there is one race - the human race. But here again race, or if you prefer skin colour (or shade) is but one part of this whole issue and that issue is humanity. I write this with reference also to the debate over same sex marriages recently in California. We are taught that marriage is a commitment between two people who love each other - traditionally a man and a woman - and who join together in matrimony to start a family. However there are successful families raised by same sex couples, so what is there to stop them getting married too?
Some would say religion. But is there a religion which exists which does not stand for love, kindness, and friendship shown towards one's fellow man? Is it really religion which stands in the way, or someone's own prejudices? Should not marriage be open to everybody who are capable of honouring their vows and creating a marriage out of love?
Love is not a heterosexual feeling, it is a human feeling, something someone feels, and needs, irrespective of who they are, and the same can be said about someone's need to be a part of a family. This can further be extended to say that we all need to feel part of a community, and part of society as a whole. Love is about as fundamental to someone - a human being - as freedom and life. It doesn't matter who you are, whether you are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, you are still capable of giving and receiving love, you still need a family and are able to be a part of that family, you need to be a part of that community and are able to be so, and you are a part of society.
It isn't religion nor the Bible which prevents same sex marriages, but the fears, hostility, prejudice and hatred from other people. It is what I would describe as a mentality of exclusivity, of holding others up to a standard. Yes ideally in accordance with the words in the scriptures a man and a woman should come together to love each other eternally and to procreate and have children, but how many people actually live up to that ideal? Is it not hypocrisy to exclude some people because they cannot fulfill that ideal, but then accept others who do not live up to that ideal?
I cannot see any threat to the institution of marriage coming from allowing same sex couples to marry, none at all. It doesn't change the fact that the family is the bedrock of society, nor does it take away any of the importance of having children or being a parent. From what I can see allowing same sex marriages is something which is inclusive, and as such is something which makes communities and society much stronger through making them more unified.
This election victory no doubt will mean different things to different people. It will mean something completely different to someone living in say, Dothan Alabama than it will to someone like me here in London. However for me nothing can take away anything from the fact that during this election with not much it would seem to choose from Americans were able to think inclusively and not discount Obama for reasons of skin colour. However if one can think inclusively in terms of skin colour, then why not gender and sexual orientation?
This is not something I feel which is exclusively American, it isn't, but an issue which can be found anywhere you go in this world and irrespective if who you are and where you come from I am asking the same question. Is it really too much effort for people to start thinking inclusively?
Your thoughts and comments please.
Stella, I am so in agreement with you on this subject. A couple of days before the election a friend and I had a discussion about Prop 8. She lives in California and I live in Washington, but neither of us could understand why anyone would want to prevent adults in committed relationships from having civil unions (the act of marriage is ceremonial and I don't see it as an issue to be legislated)?
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their business. Why would I be opposed to two adults in a committed relationship, having the protections under the law I would be granted, simply due to their sexual orientation?
|
|
|
|
