Harvey Milk: A Review
Last night I saw Harvey Milk, and boy was I excited. This movie directly speaks on perhaps the most controversial topic of today's society: homosexual rights, namely homosexual marriage.
In this movie, Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk--a 40 year old homosexual man from NYC who moves to San Francisco with his gay partner--and does a fantastic job. Milk becomes a business merchant on Castro Street selling photography services. While he is met with disdain because of his sexuality and openness, homosexuals soon began to take over the street and gain power within their district. After seeing the numerous injustices done upon homosexuals, such as being beaten by the police for no reason, Milk becomes involved in politics and begins his campaign for a city office position. He tries numerous times and is defeat each time. In the end, however, his persistence, hope, charisma, and his overwhelming support win him a supervisor position in the local government. Long story short, cities all the across the country begin to pass ordinances similar to California's Proposition 6 during Milk's tenure, which Milk and his friends were completely against, and rightly so. Proposition 6, which was a proposed bill, if passed, would have made firing homosexuals, and anyone who supported gay rights, mandatory. After Milk's extensive efforts, the state of California voted against Proposition 6, killing the bill. shortly after this historic victory , Milk and the Mayor of San Francisco were assassinated by Dan White, a conservative supervisor who was completely for Proposition 6.
Sean Penn, James Franco, as well as the other casts members, do a fantastic job of displaying the emotions of the injustice done upon homosexuals in the 1970s. Such justice is still being done upon them with the passing of Proposition 8, which eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry in California.
It appalls me that we are still a divided country of justice. Less than a century ago we were divided by gender; a few decades ago we were divided by skin color; and now we are divided by sexuality. The "us" get justice, whereas the "others" get injustice as their "justice." How do the "us", the majority, determine what is just and what is not? Religion.
The very thing that is supposed to be the basis for all human justice causes injustice. Religion validated the subordination of women; religion validated the practice of slavery; and now religion validates the continued injustice done upon homosexuals. I'm not saying religion is the basis of all evil and injustice.* I'm saying that religion has, and is, being used to commit injustice against our fellow American citizens; but the majority fails to see this because, from their heterosexual perspective, the injustice committed against homosexuals is God's justice (Homosexuality is a sin).
Nevertheless, such a belief must be questioned due to the very injustice that it causes. Maybe "God's' 'justice" isn't so just.
Humans are socials beings. We need each other, or at least someone outside of ourselves. For a lot of us, we find that special someone, the person we can spend the rest of our lives with, or at least someone we can spend ample amounts of time with. Because heterosexuality has been the tradition in this society, we maintain that marriage is between a male and a female--that is, your special someone really should be of the opposite sex.
Lets say that you were a homosexual and that you found your special someone and wanted to marry him or her, but were told that your union would not be recognized by the state. How would you feel as a homosexual? Would you not feel shorted? Would you not feel that your pursuit of happiness was violated? Would you not feel as if you were being allowed a standard of living different from everyone else? Do you not see the existential injustice in this? You cannot live your existence as fully as you want to. You cannot have the rights that everyone's existence entails.
As a heterosexual, I see the injustice being done upon homosexuals' individual existence; and I do not see how other heterosexuals do not, even if they are religious. Such an injustice is not warranted by any standard, not even God's. And, if you do see Harvey Milk, odds are you will realize this too.
*Ironically enough, religion has been used to reverse the injustices that it has caused. Perhaps the best example of this is the work of the honorable Martin Luther King Jr.
My Groups
-
Atheists Updated: 1 minute ago
-
Quotations Updated: 14 minutes ago
-
Social Justice Updated: 18 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
You seem to forget that it was from Christianity that the abolition movement arose that abolished slavery. It was a British Evangelical politician that fought for the abolition of the slave trade in England. In the Jewish Scriptures the Law and the Prophets, while not granting what we would call full political rights to women (the entire world was ruled by monarchy -- democracy only flickered in a few cities for a short while in antiquity), did protect them more than many cultures of the day. Religion, indeed, has been subverted by evil men and been used as an excuse for evil purposes, but then again so has Enlightenment philosophy -- i do not blame every atheist for Soviet Communism.
As for the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society, there are many different arguments, both religious and secular, as to why in about 5,000 years of western history this behavior has not been morally acceptable. I can think of only a few societies, all of them of the tribal variety, that has incorporated homosexuality into their societal structure in any positive way. There are well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments against the idea of homosexual marriage that do not make those propagating the argument as homophobic, unjust, ignorant thugs that just need to be as bright and well-adjusted as you. I personally believe that the Bill of Rights are applicable to any citizen of this country, regardless of ethnicity, creed, or gender (read here sexual orientation). I do believe, however, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Martin Luther King Jr.? He was a Christian minister, and understood injustice is injustice and is always caused my men and women consumed with a will-to-power regardless of the excuses they use, the religions they high jack, or the ideology they subvert. Are you saying that despite his regressive, simple minded supernatural beliefs, King made a difference? I say it is because of his beliefs that he made a difference, just as those Christians abolitionists did in the 1850s and 60s...
Keep studying -- and pay particular attention in the history classes -- that is, if they aren't American Studies classes... in them you'll just get more of the same that you've written above, political ideology disguised as history.
Doesn't matter to me, however, I still support them.
I remember when Milk was killed -- it happened when I was in college.
It's really unfortunate that the "Twinkie defense" was still valid in the 1970s. Dan White should've gotten life for his actions. I would've been outraged, had I been alive then.
Why? Is there a secular justification for this? I know the religious arguments for this belief, but find them to be invalid, obviously. I would say the majority of moral arguments against homosexual marriage is based on this premise, which is traditional but an inferior basis for human rights because of the nonsensical injustice that it causes. At the end of the day, I don't see why marriage cannot include a union between homosexuals. Marriage should extend to homosexual couples. Like I said above, I believe that marriage is a right that human existence entails. And there is no doubt in my mind that religion will eventually support homosexual marriage. Have you ever heard of Queer Theology?
Lastly, check this out. It seems that the U.S. is behind the progression of human rights, seeing how Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland all either allow same-sex marriages or allow homosexual partnerships to be registered. I find it to be interesting the these countries are some of the most atheistic in the world.
thank you, Koios - i feel exactly the same way
its pretty easy to find non-religious arguments against gay marriage, here's two:
1) post WW II gays purposely rebelled against what was considered the biological norm. Some of the greatest critics of middle class to upper middle-class bourgeoisie WASP culture. They claimed a bohemian sexual freedom that abhorred marriage on general principle, especially in the 60s and 70s. Along with feminists, homosexuals wrote scathing social commentary critical of the "plastic" social conventions of the middle class, claiming that marriage was passe.
2) I would also say that the theory of Evolution also condemns homosexual behavior (altho not on moral grounds), altho there are examples of same sex attraction in the animal kingdom. Natural selection would seem to be self-explanitory, a biological imperitive.
That marriage is between a man and a woman is based, as we say in the Union, on past practice. Historically everytime there has been a so-called "golden age" it has been accompanied by the stability of the basic family unit of grandfather/grandmother, Father/Mother, & children (you know, that thing we used to call an extended family). Decadence, the down ward swing in any culture, has always been marked by a decline of the family & sexual permissiveness.
Sorry for the condecsending tone -- my utter contempt for political ideology sometimes bleeds thru my prose. I offer my appology if you took offense to my first reply to your original post & I have tried to be as straight forward as possible in this reply.
I fail to see an actual argument in (1)
Concerning (2), I fail to see any relevant connection between the permissibility of homosexual behavior or the permissibility of homosexual marriage and the theory of evolution.
I fail to see an actual argument in (1)
I think that he was trying to say that they were arguing that they do not need marriage because it was "passe." I don't think, however, that just because some homosexuals argued this point that they should not be given the option to choose one way or the other.
Concerning (2), I fail to see any relevant connection between the permissibility of homosexual behavior or the permissibility of homosexual marriage and the theory of evolution.
I'm not sure if he was trying to connect evolution with sexual permissibility since they are separated by paragraphs. Perhaps he should have put a (3) in as well.
Right, I think I failed to see an argument in (1) because it seemed to be nothing more than a series of factual statements. Regardless, it would seem to be very difficult to pull off the argument--as you pointed out yourself--that simply because past homosexuals have rejected marriage, contemporary homosexuals should therefore not be allowed to marry. This form of argumentation would seem to lead to some implausible implications.
I'm not sure if he was trying to connect evolution with sexual permissibility since they are separated by paragraphs. Perhaps he should have put a (3) in as well.
Well, the connection that seemed apparent was that the theory of evolution, in one way or another, constitutes as an argument against the permissibility of homosexual marriage (the permissibility of homosexual behavior being rather irrelevant to this discussion). I suppose the question of importance then is: what does the theory of evolution have to do with homosexual marriage? In other words, what is it about the theory of evolution that implies the non-permissibility of homosexual marriage? Any sort of relevant connection between the two seems rather vague at best and certainly not obvious.
I agree with Mithrandir: I don't see how (1) or (2) are actually arguments against homosexual marriage. Could you elaborate more on these arguments?
You seem to forget that it was from Christianity that the abolition movement arose that abolished slavery. It was a British Evangelical politician that fought for the abolition of the slave trade in England. In the Jewish Scriptures the Law and the Prophets, while not granting what we would call full political rights to women (the entire world was ruled by monarchy -- democracy only flickered in a few cities for a short while in antiquity), did protect them more than many cultures of the day. Religion, indeed, has been subverted by evil men and been used as an excuse for evil purposes, but then again so has Enlightenment philosophy -- i do not blame every atheist for Soviet Communism.
My history may be hazy, but I believe that abolitionism, feminism, etc. actually arose first amongst rational thinkers of the enlightenment, then filtered into more mainstream religion when people realized that it made sense.
And while I do disagree with any blanket implication that religion is the source of society's problems, I also can't think of any other institutionalized belief system (whether it was subverted or otherwise) that has been as widely used to deprive humans throughout history of that which we term 'human rights' today.
As to whether this would have happened with or without religion (i.e. wouldn't men just have found some other ideology by which to excuse their persecution of those different from themselves) I would argue yes. Your argument that religion is used for good is true. I am extremely skeptical that it is the best vessel.
As for the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society, there are many different arguments, both religious and secular, as to why in about 5,000 years of western history this behavior has not been morally acceptable. I can think of only a few societies, all of them of the tribal variety, that has incorporated homosexuality into their societal structure in any positive way. There are well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments against the idea of homosexual marriage that do not make those propagating the argument as homophobic, unjust, ignorant thugs that just need to be as bright and well-adjusted as you.
Greeks? Romans? Homosexuality was quite profligate as I recall. In fact the sacred band of Thebes' was one of the few military contingents in ancient history reknowned for going head to head with spartans and winning. Their secret? They fought in pairs of gay lovers, and were able to use the freakish adrenaline rushes we get when we see a loved one in danger as a weapon in battle. Ironically they remained undefeated until they fought Alexander the Great....history's greatest gay (well, da vinci might compete for that title amongst some circles). Didn't the greeks pretty much build the foundation of western civilization?
I personally believe that the Bill of Rights are applicable to any citizen of this country, regardless of ethnicity, creed, or gender (read here sexual orientation). I do believe, however, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So marry a woman. I don't understand why one's belief that marriage should be between man and a woman must be thrust by force of law down the throat of those who disagree.
That marriage is between a man and a woman is based, as we say in the Union, on past practice. Historically everytime there has been a so-called "golden age" it has been accompanied by the stability of the basic family unit of grandfather/grandmother, Father/Mother, & children (you know, that thing we used to call an extended family). Decadence, the down ward swing in any culture, has always been marked by a decline of the family & sexual permissiveness.
I've heard this argument, and I can actually understand how the causal link is perceived, but there is an underlying pattern of hedonism there that doesn't have anything to do with sexual preference (there are many heterosexual hedonists). In fact I would posit that the reason homosexuals seem more hedonistic on par is precisely because they are outcast by more 'principled' segments of society, and thus feel the desire to rebel against it. But I see no reason why a homosexual relationship cannot be as mutually constructive as a heterosexual one.
I don't know enough about King to say whether or not his beliefs in and of themselves were the driving force behind his beliefs, though I would tend to think they were a part of the culture that surrounded and inundated him, and so drove him in so far as they were a part of that. I could be wrong.Martin Luther King Jr.? He was a Christian minister, and understood injustice is injustice and is always caused my men and women consumed with a will-to-power regardless of the excuses they use, the religions they high jack, or the ideology they subvert. Are you saying that despite his regressive, simple minded supernatural beliefs, King made a difference? I say it is because of his beliefs that he made a difference, just as those Christians abolitionists did in the 1850s and 60s...
2) I would also say that the theory of Evolution also condemns homosexual behavior (altho not on moral grounds), altho there are examples of same sex attraction in the animal kingdom. Natural selection would seem to be self-explanitory, a biological imperitive.
I don't believe there's any need to legislate the theory of evolution, though I wouldn't disagree with any motion by the right for the abandonment of creationism.
1) post WW II gays purposely rebelled against what was considered the biological norm. Some of the greatest critics of middle class to upper middle-class bourgeoisie WASP culture. They claimed a bohemian sexual freedom that abhorred marriage on general principle, especially in the 60s and 70s. Along with feminists, homosexuals wrote scathing social commentary critical of the "plastic" social conventions of the middle class, claiming that marriage was passe.
I don't understand your argument here. We're discussing the right to get married, not whether or not homosexuals would actually indulge in said right (they would), or commit to it according to any given person's subjective standards (and if you have high standards...how many heterosexual couples actually live up to those these days?).