In her speech on LGBT rights in recognition of International Human Rights Day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton forcefully stated that "gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights." The speech and other actions by President Obama commit U.S. foreign policy to advancing gay rights internationally.
An important aspect of the speech is the claim that "being gay is not a Western invention." Clinton made this point to counter claims by regimes that defend oppressive policies and laws against gay people as a reflection of local culture. Such regimes reject claims for gay rights as Western interference and explain their anti-gay stand as a valid anti-colonialist assertion of their independence. For example, recently, after Britain said that it would assess the state of gay rights (among other factors) when determining a country's eligibility for foreign aid, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe condemned Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, saying, according to the Telegraph, that "homosexuality was inconsistent with African and Christian values." Clinton correctly noted that regardless of cultural and religious convictions, countries across the world have advanced gay rights. Notable among these is South Africa, whose constitution protects gay people.
I believe that Clinton's assertion that "being gay is not a Western invention" is important because it makes a foundational claim about the presence of a global gay person with a stable gay identity for whom civil rights can be claimed. Clinton describes LGBT people in language regularly used to refer to other groups, such as women and racial/ethnic minorities, that deserve human rights protections.
But this characterization of a gay identity -- as valid across national and cultural boundaries -- has been debated by academics. Already Clinton's speech has been criticized. For example, Jim Downs, on The Huffington Post, retorted: "Actually, being gay is a Western invention." Downs warns not only that Clinton's speech will not help gay rights but also -- echoing Mugabe -- that she "posits a familiar strand of American cultural imperialism."
Downs and other critics reject the idea that we can talk of a global gay person in the sense that Clinton describes when she said that "gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world." The critique is that by using terms like "gay" and "LGBT" globally, we inappropriately apply Western terms and ideas that bias our understanding of sexual orientation in non-Western regions of the world. Critics like Downs view sexual orientation and sexual identities as culturally bound, closely tied with Western cultures (and white Western cultures at that). Related to this is the critique that sexuality, however we understand it, is fluid and changeable. Because sexuality is fluid and sexual identity culturally bound, the critique continues, it is impossible (and even wrong) to talk of a gay person beyond the confines of white Western society and culture.
I disagree with this critique. To some extent gay identity is a Western invention (indeed, that can be said of the very notion of identity), but that misses the point. That identity and LGBT rights movements first emerged in the West does not make them improper for use by others. Indeed, the gay rights movement, like the women's and civil rights movements in the U.S. before them, have served as important (although not sole) models for the advancement of civil rights in the West and beyond.
The problem is that some of the critics have taken the idea, referred to as "social construction," that the meaning of sexual identity stems from social processes to suggest that it has no stable meaning at all. But in fact, social processes create strong and enduring meanings. Social construction theory teaches us that these meanings get transferred across generations and across national boundaries -- we learn about categories such as "gay" through social and cultural interactions.
It is such social processes that explain why we see some global convergences about the meaning (or construction) of LGBT identity. In many parts of the world, people -- and rights organizations -- have been using concepts of LGBT identity and community that had their origins in the West. But these are not simply mimicked; rather, concepts are intermingled and grow integrally with the local culture and history. In part, the increasing similarities across nations in using LGBT rights language may have resulted from cross-fertilization that comes with globalization and tourism. More generally, social processes unrelated to LGBT identity may have led to the emergence of rights discussions that have, in time, included a focus on LGBT rights.
This is not to say that there are no significant cultural variations in understanding and expressing sexual identity. And, of course, this is not to suggest that the actual words "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT" are (or must be) used uniformly. LGBT identities and communities are different across the world (and even within our own culture), and meanings and understandings are continually in flux. The same is true of other social concepts: the ways we understand "woman" and "man," "black" and "white," or "Christian" are different, depending on culture and other social conditions.
Recognizing cultural differences should not preclude us from talking about women's rights, the rights of racial/ethnic minorities, or religious freedoms in language that is applicable globally. It is true, though, that by talking about LGBT rights globally or locally, we are conveying a value that is not shared by all. It is for that reason that I think Clinton's speech is important. She did not shy away from asserting that the U.S., with all its own imperfections, stands for civil rights for gay people globally.
Follow Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ilanmeyer
If you are a man who falls in love with other men, or a woman who falls in love with other women, some of the specifics of your relationship might be determined by culture, but the heart of it will be the same as for other gay people anywhere or in any time.
IMHO
But 2 guys who marry should not get this privilege, because by definition they have excluded themselves from the breeding pool! Adoption of a baby (not a teenager!) may be acceptable under certain circumstances to qualify for civil benefits, but the Sandusky situation points out that this must be carefully monitored to avoid abuse. All couples should be allowed the right to inherit the estate of their partner, however.
I know, you may not like it, you may not want to believe it, and it destroys the FALSE importance that you may have placed on heterosexuality, but it is a FACT: Heterosexuals are not needed for reproduction of offspring. Children can be born from the egg of a lesbian and s p e r m of a gay male. They can do it NATURALLY or with a third party (as heterosexuals OFTEN do) and either way, it does not automatically change their sexual orientation. Again, male s p e r m and a female egg are the requirements for procreation and reproduction, NOT a person’s sexual orientation (straight or gay).
Also, procreation is NOT a requirement for Straights or Gays to marry or have Civil/Equal Rights. Try EDUCATING yourself before making ignorant comments . . .
Civil Rights/Equality are about many DIFFERENT Groups, and this is NOT about the DEGREE to which ANY group has been discriminaÂted against/mistreatedÂ, or COMPARING one atrocity or STRUGGLE / PLIGHT to another. Many groups, ie. Blacks (and other races), Women, Jews, Gays, Religions, Disabled, etc. have HORRIFIC stories to tell about discriminaÂtion and Unequal treatment aimed at their groups. The POINT is regardless of the horrific degree of discriminaÂtion/atrocity, ALL of these groups should be given respect and Equal Rights. Whether you like or support a group or not is IRRELVANT: Most people are NOT looking for your approval, they just want the same rights as everyone else. You may not like Blacks, Women, Gays, Disabled, Religious people, etc, but ALL of these groups need/deserÂve Civil/Equal Rights.
I consider myself very lucky because Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, has allowed me to distinguish the difference between right and wrong concerning such difficult issues as gay rights, drug use, euthanasia, suicide, abortion and many other very important subjects. The practice is available on line and thank you for your consideration.
Knowing what you have come to understand about these issues would certainly help others to understand more about Falun Gong.
Based on the Choice logic, an argument could be made that heterosexuals, homosexuals, religious people, smokers, divorced people, single people, ex-cons, bigots, murderers, etc, should NOT have Equal Rights or be allowed to marry because of Choice.
And then we hear the rel. conservs saying they are being discrimianted
The whole scene stinks of blaming the victim while being the victimizer. Oldest poltiical trick in the book.
We are a diverse family but very close, just the same. Like you, I get angry when people make stupid remarks about gay families and suggest that gay parents are not as good as families headed by two opposite-sex parents. It means that they haven't seen or refuse to acknowledge the mounting evidence to the contrary.
All I can say is that your generation and my kids' generation will have to make it your mission to continue helping people see the truth about gay families. We're no better and no worse than our straight counterparts. And the best way to prove that is in the way our kids live their lives --- with integrity, dignity and pride in who they are and who helped raise them to be that way.
Your righteous anger on behalf of your mothers is very powerful. Never stop standing up for them. Just remember every time they stood up for you, as I'm sure you do.
***********************************************************
Your parents should be very proud of you. Well said!
F&F
Hi ABK, its dad in SPMD (my daughter reads on Huffington Post.)