The following blog post is a response to Ignatius Chan's arguments against gay marriage as presented in the following post:
"Man i'm gona be critisized and shat on for sayin the followingï...
I actually dont support gay marriage. Yes i come from a religious backgorund that doesnt encourage gay marriage, and that is christianity(im catholic and i'm a strong believer and practising catholic too). Alright, traditionally, marriage is called Holy Matrimony. Its originally a one of the seven sacraments between a man and woman,and its a promise before God to love each other and to have a Christ centered relationship and to grow together in faith. Alright, that was probably bla bla for some of you. Key word is, its supposed to be between man and woman. Now you might say we live in a society today that doesnt take christianity into consideration anymore because were in a multicultural society. True, but mind you, the purpose of marriage in the first place is a promise to stay with each other for the rest of their lives and to found a family. Suppose we allow gay marriage now,even if it against the nature law(nobodys gona argue that one i hope),but we allow it to satisfy a part of the population,what if in future years,people would wana marry animals? I know this sounds a bit weird and like wtf am i talking about,but canït you picture people finding arguments to legalize that? like we love each otherï and we want to, itsour right kind of argument. I wana make something clear though, im just against homosexual marriage, this doesnt mean im against homosexual relationships. They are allowed to do whatever they want,they can have homosexual relationships(im speaking of lover relationship,not sexual because that goes into another discussion implying my religious values). In my humble opinion,as long as they dont bring marriage into their relationship,then its all good. If youre going to reply or retort to my blog,plz give it some thought and consider my position first. Thx =)"Here is my reply:Alright Ignatius, don't take this personally, but I must take the other side of the argument on this one. I would like to say, before I begin, that I appreciate that you took a stand for your own beliefs even though they run counter to many of the views presented here. That takes integrity and courage, and I respect that. With that said, allow me to address the ideas and arguments that you have presented. I would like to begin by acknowledging your religious background and the central place that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony has within the Catholic Church. As I was raised Catholic, and even taught at a Bible camp when I was younger, I can understand why you would see marriage in this light. Now, the description that you provide of an ideal marriage, in the Catholic sense of the term, is "to stay with each other for the rest of their lives and to found a family," and is "a promise before God to love each other and to have a Christ centered relationship and to grow together in faith." I do not see anything in these definitions that precludes a homosexual couple from fulfilling the conditions stipulated within them. Two men or two women are capable of being very devout, having a Christ-centered relationship, growing together in faith, staying together (ideally) for the rest of their lives, and even founding a family. The latter condition may be met by adopting children, which can be a praiseworthy deed in the Catholic Church's eyes if, for instance, the children are thereby extricated from an abusive life or from a poor life situation and raised by two parents who really care about them. Since all of these conditions may be met without the people in the relationship necessarily being male and female, why should homosexual people, even on Christian grounds, not be allowed to marry? Furthermore, we should also consider the practical aspect of marriage, that is, marriage as it is actually practiced. If we do this, we find that many Christian couples frequently divorce (the divorce rate now stands at around 40% in Canada, and around 50% in the United States), and also, that many non-Christian couples currently marry. There is thus already some diversity in marriage practices in contemporary society. In a multicultural society, marriage may still retain the traditional notion of being a powerful, symbol of lifelong commitment, and there is nothing in homosexual relationships that precludes them from meeting this symbolic definition, which is already accepted by many in our present society. Since those who go through with somewhat traditional marriages presently include people of many faiths, including even atheists, why should the definition of marriage not be extended to include a group of people who have a capacity to love, to make a lifelong commitment, and even to be faithful in the relationship sense and in the Christian sense? We note, in addition, that Christianity is not incompatible with homosexuality. The United Church presently welcomes homosexuals into its congregation, insisting that Christ died to redeem all people from their sins, including homosexuals, and that homosexuals are as capable of faith, and as worthy of God's love as heterosexuals. When two people are as capable of a lifelong commitment, as capable of love and as capable of being good parents (even if the children are not born of them, but of others), why should they be denied the freedom to marry? Next, you assert that gay marriage is "against nature's law" and state that "nobodys gona argue that one i hope)." However, I will argue against this point, because there is a wide body of scientific evidence that contradicts it. If homosexual behaviour is against "nature's law," then we should not find it practiced among other animals, except perhaps us human beings. However, this is not the case. Empirical research in biology and zoology has revealed that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour. Here is only a small sample of them (and if you are interested, I can give you a whole bibliography of scientific, peer-reviewed articles to back up each of these examples): African Buffalo, African Elephant, Agile Wallaby, Amazon River Dolphin(Boto), American Bison, Antelope, Asian Elephant, Asiatic Lion, Asiatic Mouflon, Atlantic Spotted Dolphin, Australian Sea Lion, Barasingha, Barbary Sheep, Beluga, Bharal, Bighorn Sheep, Black Bear, Blackbuck, Black-footed Rock Wallaby, Black-tailed Deer, Bonnet Macaque, Bonobo, Bottlenose Dolphin, Bowhead Whale and many more. Even Canadian Caribou have been found to exhibit homosexual behaviour on occasion (see Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press). Given how widespread homosexuality is among mammals of multiple species in nature, we must reasonably see as groundless the claim that homosexuality is "against nature's law," because the fact of the matter is that such behaviour has been observed and documented in many species of animals in nature. Further, you make the argument that if we allow gay marriage to satisfy a part of the population, before we know it, we may find people wanting to marry animals. This is called in logic, a slippery slope fallacy, because it suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events that will culminate in an undesirable event later, without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. It does not follow from the mere fact that we allow gay marriage that we will have to allow marriages between humans and non-human animals. If marriage is defined as a strictly human activity between consenting parties, then marriage can be kept within the human domain, even if it allows homosexuals to marry. Marriages with animals would not be accepted, on this view, because animals are not in a position to consent to the marriages. Therefore, we should not assume that allowing homosexuals to marry would lead to a total "anything goes"definition of marriage. You next say, "cant you picture people finding arguments to legalize that? "we love each other" and "we want to, its our right" kind of argument." Given the consent-based definition of marriage, there would be no way to prove that the animal wants to marry, since it cannot articulate consent, therefore, such an argument would not hold. In conclusion, for all of the reasons presented in this response, I do not think that the arguments you have raised so far are sufficient to justify forbidding gay marriage. To summarize my arguments: Gay marriage can meet all of the conditions of an ideal Christian relationship; Gay marriage can meet the definition of marriage that is currently used and by which even atheists marry; many non-human animals exhibit homosexual behaviour in nature, so homosexuality is not intrinsically unnatural; finally, it does not follow from the mere fact of allowing gay marriage that we would have to allow marriages between human beings and non-human animals. I appreciate your thoughts and your religious devoutness, but I must disagree for all of the reasons presented here.
Blog 9 It is truly a sad situation when, so soon after receiving the right to marry, homosexuals in California have been stripped of that right. My girlfriend and I both have quite a few homosexual friends who were really outraged by this decision, and understandably so. From what I have read, the vote was a close one with 52.5% voting in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% voting against. Though I already had some suspicions, I wondered what arguments people in California had put forward to justify voting �yes� on Proposition 8, and so I did a little research on the subject. The primary argument that I encountered was that only allowing heterosexual couples to marry �restores� the �traditional definition of marriage� and �protects children from the view that there is no difference between gay and traditional marriage.� These statements seem to be set against a background of fundamentalist religious value judgments, and notions that homosexuality is a �lifestyle choice� and an �unnatural� one at that. These claims stem from homophobic discomfort with the idea of people of the same sex coming together and having their long-term commitment certified and legitimated with the stamp of marriage. Underlying this is the antiquated belief that homosexuality is somehow impure and that to allow homosexuals to marry is to desecrate the sanctity of marriage, thus requiring that we �restore� marriage to its prior pure state in which only men and women could take part in it. The argument in favour of proposition 8 comes down to this basic emotional aversion and discomfort, not to a rational or intellectual defense. Another argument I came across was the claim that �Proposition 8 doesn�t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, �domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits� as married spouses.� The argument assumes that access to marriage if you are a committed, long-term and serious couple is not a �right,� at least not for gay people. However, from a social standpoint, marriage confers dignity and respect on couples, and to be barred from the right to marriage is to be barred from receiving this same dignity and respect that are accorded other couples in the same situation. Thus, to not grant the right to marry to gay or lesbian couples on the basis of their sexual orientation is to treat them unfairly and unequally under the law, an action which goes against the American constitution, and involves unjust discrimination by the dominant group. The belief that gay couples are unfit for adopted parenthood also seems to be undergirded by the acceptance of the stereotypical view that �all gay men are promiscuous,� (and thus, bad role models for children) and by the aforementioned emotional discomfort with a sexual orientation that the traditionalists view as �impure.� These do not constitute grounds for barring gay people from being adopted parents at all; the first claim is refuted by the fact that there are committed, non-promiscuous, loyal gay couples, and the second by the fact that it has no foundation in reason whatsoever, but is based only on an irrational feeling. As a counterexample to the stereotype that all gay people are promiscuous, my family is friends with a wonderful gay couple who are really delightful people and extremely committed to one another. They both have strong morals and are very responsible, and though they do not wish to be adopted parents, I think that they would be excellent ones. The homophobic claim and fear that gay parents would �force their child into becoming homosexuals� by influence is ridiculous. If many people discover they are gay even when raised by heterosexual parents, why should heterosexual children lose their sexual orientation simply because they were raised by homosexual parents? Such children are not na�ve; they would see that some couples are composed of people of the same sex and others of people of different sexes, and they would follow their own natural feelings in determining which sort of coupling they would prefer. In Zen, we sometimes talk about attachment to words. Many people are attached to the word �marriage� because of its religious valences and associations and view it as referring exclusively to the �traditional� heterosexual family arrangement. If there were another title for a relationship that confers on a couple the same dignity and social respect as the word �marriage,� there would be no problem. Gay people could simply accept the title �civilly united,� or an equivalent. However, the fact of the matter is that people in civil unions are not regarded with the same respect and treated with the same dignity as people in marriages are, so changing the name would not solve the problem. Gay people deserve a right to the same level of dignity and respect as that accorded their heterosexual equals when they enter into the same sort of long-term, serious and committed relationships. Marriage has the same symbolic power for many gay people as it does for straight people; it symbolizes a sincere, sacred commitment which is significant and meaningful to them. Proposition 8 is a ridiculous affront to equality and fair and just treatment under the law. I sincerely hope that the three lawsuits that were recently filed, �challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry is a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore requires the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature� (Wikipedia) are successful and that this unjust legal policy is overturned once and for all.
While reading Shirley’s blog, I couldn’t help but latch on to the title: “teaching teachers and kids to think… not regurgitate.” Since I think that this is a very important point, I’ll say a few words about it in this week’s blog.Learning to regurgitate is essentially rote memorization. In Educational Psychology, we learned that very little actual learning happens in the process of rote memorization. Material that is learned through rote memorization is often forgotten quite quickly; it may be clear in our minds the day after we study it, but a few days later, we may be surprised to find that the overwhelming majority of what we studied has simply vanished from our memory. The other main problem with rote memorization, aside from the really temporary, ephemeral nature of the material we put to memory using it as a method, is the fact that material can be memorized by rote without being understood. Our textbook provides a great illustrating example, which I think is a case in point. Here is the gist of it: A geography teacher asked her students, “If we started digging through the floor of the classroom and continue until we reached the earth’s core, what would its temperature be like?” The class was silent. So the teacher rephrased the question in the words from the textbook: “What is the thermal quality of the central core of our geosphere?” Instantly, the hands shot up in the classroom. The teacher asked a student to answer and the teacher answered word-for-word from the textbook. The class had memorized the answer, but they did not understand what they had memorized.We may also recall that Paulo Freire considered learning only to regurgitate information to be an example of the “banking model of education.” He thought that if we only teach our students to memorize information, we are like bankers who bring in their money (information), deposit it (teach the students to memorize it), leave, and a while later, withdraw it from our account (by having the students take a test). This isn’t real learning at all, in his view. There is memorization, there is the repetition of facts, but there is little understanding and little retention involved. In addition, material learned in this way is not really relevant; it becomes situated information, which is context-dependent and which students can’t really transfer to other situations. They view it as “material to learn for the test” and leave it at that. Such information cannot have a transformative effect, either for students or for their societies. If teaching to regurgitate is associated with all of these drawbacks and disadvantages, then how can we teach our students effectively? The title to this blog gives us the start of an answer: by teaching “to think.” Educational psychology tells us that information only gets stored in long-term memory if it is rehearsed and elaborated, that is, if connections are made between the new information and material that we already know. Appealing to what our students already know also gives them a frame of reference from which to understand what we are teaching them. Beyond this, relating material to student experiences and knowledge makes it relevant. When students feel they are learning relevant things, they become more intrinsically motivated to learn. We teach them how to think first, by making the material real for them, that is, by bringing the words on the page to life. This is not mere procedural rote learning… this is dynamic learning. Teaching in this way is not a monochromatic and meaningless process; this sort of teaching is colourfully alive in the sort of way that animates classrooms and makes learning almost transparent. To reach this end, we can do all sorts of things. We can relate material to popular culture, we can bring in movie clips, cartoon clips, music, get our students out of their seats and involved in activities, make assignments creative and relevant, analyze and discuss problems together as a class, teach dialectically rather than through mere lecturing, encourage hands-on learning, etc. etc. etc. Each of these techniques can help make material relevant and engaging, and urge students to apply the material in multiple learning contexts not only to improve their recall of it, but also to encourage knowledge-transfer and really appropriating it and making it their own. I am happy that the title of this blog led me to reflect on these things, because these considerations suggest concrete applications both for my future career as a teacher and for my media unit plan on gender issues in social justice. Teaching to understand and teaching to regurgitate are two fundamentally different things, and I hope that I will always keep this key point in mind throughout my life as an educator.
