As some of you may know, I have been reading my first-ever purchased issue of Time today. I am noticing by page nine that a common theme in the US today seems to be gay and lesbian rights.
There has been some thing about hospitals not allowing gay and lesbian couples visitation rights when 'immediate' family members are the only ones supposed to be let in. One example is from the Huffington Post here (from which the text below is taken) and another is from the Palm Beach Post here.
In his statement, Obama said: "Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend."
He added: "Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."
I guess their excuse has been that since the partners may not be legally married they cannot be classed as immediate family. I wonder if this works the same for heterosexual de facto couples; it obviously applies to childless widowers and widows, as Obama talks about above. Alas, that is a different story. One could propose that a certain proportion of society believe that gay people are not 'real people' (this is not my view). Certainly at least one person I know thinks that way. They are somehow incomplete, or have some kind of permanent mental incapacity, and for whatever reason stand a rung below the average heterosexual person on the social ladder.
If we look back at the views of people like Hitler and earlier eugenicists we realise that particular people of race, religion, IQ level, mental or physical disability or other supposed 'genetic malfunction' were thought also as on a lower rung. Certainly, in some situations efforts were made to remove these people from the gene pool (examples are here). [While searching for that Wikipedia article I stumbled upon this - rather scary but nonetheless evidence that certain eugenicists may not be talented web designers. I wonder if they are considering removing this obviously inept member from their gene pool.].
Nowadays, we look upon Hitler's thoughts as disgusting, immoral, barbaric; in fact most of us would struggle to come up with a word strong enough (sorry to keep referencing him, but he is undoubtedly the most infamous follower of eugenics-type ideas). So in fifty or sixty or a hundred years time, will future generations learning about our treatment of gays and lesbians as somewhat lesser human beings be disgusted and embarrassed, just as we are of Hitler?
I do not wish to compare our treatment of gays and lesbians today to Hitler's treatment of the Jews or any other party. The difference is that the world won't let Hitler happen again. (Or will it?). I am aware treatment of gays and lesbians depend somewhat on the religion(s) and 'traditions' of a country, but eugenicists often claim to be religious too ("dysgenics must constitute one cosmic sacrilege" for example, here. At the section entitled: "Is Dysgenics God's Will? Three Fundamental Truths", I could not continue reading). Other examples of gay and lesbian rights around the world are here. An interesting map interpretation is here (see further down the same page for the map's key).
I'm a little concerned this is but another naive set of ramblings, but hey, what else are blogs for?
No comments:
Post a Comment