Phonetics Discussion - Gay Marriage

The Wednesday after break, the subject of choice in Phonetics was gay marriage and adoption. Though we were all aware that it had become quite the issue in the States, none of us really knew what was going on back home. The presenters first explained that in France they have PACS which essentially allows gay couples to have a civil union, but not marriage. The class then opened up to a discussion of our personal views on the topic.

There's a girl in the class who seems to have been quite sheltered growing up and even still. She grew up in a rural area and attends a commuter school in IL. It's a big deal for her to take the suburban train to Northwestern to visit her best friend from high school and she said she only made it to France because her uncle bought the plane ticket and got her on the plane. It came as no surprise to me that she was against gay marriage. However, when she said she thought it was selfish for couples to adopt, nearly every one seemed ready with a response.

I turned to the girl and asked her to clarify - did she think it was selfish for anyone to adopt, or just gay couples? Just gay couples, she said. I asked her how it was any different. "Because that child should have a mother and a father and it didn't get to choose that it doesn't have both. And gay couples can't have kids naturally so they shouldn't get to adopt them."

Oh boy... I find all sorts of faults with that logic, but I bit my tongue and hoped someone else was going to respond because I didn't think she could handle much contradiction the way I was ready to give it. A guy chimed in, pointing out that the child will likely have other role models from both sexes besides the parents and that he believed that it was more important for the child to be in a stable, loving environment. And since it's probably much harder for gay couples to adopt, if they had already gone through the difficulty of the adoption process, they clearly wanted to raise a child for the right reasons and provide a loving home. And what about single mothers? Should they not be able to adopt? Would she rather all those kids be shuttled between orphanages and foster homes?

Our professor agreed and said that to say a child needs a mother and a father also says to some degree that you have a preconceived idea of the role each should fill. He believed that was almost saying that a mother should fill the traditional role of being at home raising the child while the father works and plays ball with the kids. He then asked the girl if she realized that almost everyone in the room disagreed with what she had said. She didn't understand the question, unfortunately - her French isn't great.

The discussion continued on with much more agreement among the rest of the class and when I turned around a few minutes later, the girl was working on homework - clearly tuning the rest of us out. I got the impression that she was really bothered by everything being said which I've noticed with her about a lot of things.

Though I agreed with most of what was said during the rest of the class, I was saddened by the start of the discussion as I am any time I encounter homophobia. I've got a lot to say in response to articles and journal entries I've been reading lately about homosexuality in general, but in the interest of keeping this short(er), I'll just stick with the topic at hand - gay marriage.

Regardless of your views on homosexuality or gay marriage, I have yet to encounter anyone who can give me a reason as to why it should be banned that is not based in religion. In my mind, any sort of ban would therefore be a serious violation of separation of church and state and unconstitutional.

Why shouldn't gays have the same marital rights that heterosexuals do? What purpose would it serve to ban gay marriages? I don't believe it would harm anyone or threaten the safety or civility of the American community. Why would you want to say that two people who are in love and committed to one another shouldn't enter into a consensual, contractual relationship with one another - that's what civil marriage is as defined by Webster - and for the record the dictionary includes both opposite and same sex unions.

Now, for all of you who would like to explain the opposition to me, don't worry - my questions above are rhetorical. I know what those who are against gay marriage are saying. I know the Bible has passages that say homosexuality is a sin according to some peoples' interpretation. I know some people say it's just not natural and therefore shouldn't be allowed. I know there are many other reasons people give, but I have yet to hear one that I think is constitutional. Furthermore, I disagree and I particularly enjoy this poster from the U of FL Gay Students Association and this article from the San Francisco Gate in response. (Thanks to Terri for sending me the article!) That said, I'm always up for a good intellectual discussion so if you have thoughts about it (whether you agree with me or not), I'd love to hear them.

On a final, general note... when it all comes down to it, I see homosexuality as another expression of love - and wouldn't we all be better off with more love in this world?

Site Update...

I was waiting to finish the journal entry (have many others in line first) about the weekend with my Mom and Mimi, but since the Monaco pictures have been requested I've added them to the Travels page.

petites choses (little things)...

-Why do they say "fruits secs" (dried fruits) if they really mean nuts (noix)?

-Never talk about someone in passe compose if they're still alive!

-The French get Easter Monday (yes, Monday) off. At first, I thought this would be a violation of the separation of church and state until I was reminded of the French love of holidays. After all, who cares where the holiday comes from if you don't have to work?

-France changes to daylight savings this weekend (a week ahead of the U.S.). So starting Sunday and for the rest of the week, add an hour to the normal time difference between us. (For the week, I'll be 8 hours off from Central time, 7 hours from Eastern - it's usually an hour less.)

I'm back...

Wow... there's a lot that I've been taking notes on that I keep meaning to write about here. I'm sorry it's been so long since I've really posted - between not having internet access for the week in Paris, catching up on missed class, a crazy week of midterms and papers and then a long weekend in Nice with Mom and Mimi (my aunt), I'm just now getting back to some quality time with the computer. So here goes - thoughts on topics that have come up in the past month. I'll write about them in the order they came up but without trying to backdate them... don't know how long it will take me to catch up, but I'm sure more will have come up by the time I'm done. Starting with the post below on Veils in Schools with more to come in the next few days... ready, set, go.

"The Ban" (on religious symbols in schools)

Every Wednesday in Phonetics class, we have a student-led discussion on a current topic in the news. Two students present a summary of an article they've read and the class discusses our own views on the subject. The week before break the article was written by a Nobel-prize winning French lawyer, a Muslim woman, on the ethics behind the French ban on the wearing of religious symbols in school - including veils.

I no longer remember the points presented in the article, but the discussion proved extremely interesting. Though the ban is on all religious symbols, the focus of the national and classroom debates has been the veils worn by Muslim girls. I assume this focus is for two reasons: the veils are one of the few symbols that are interpreted by some as being required as a religious observance - unlike a cross, for example, which is worn by choice. The second reason is because many in the Muslim community in France and elsewhere are up in arms saying it is discrimination.

For me, an important question is whether or not the girls believe that they must wear the veils in order to properly follow their religion. According to my professor and another student in my class (who is not Muslim), the Koran does not actually dictate that women must wear veils - it is an interpretation that has been widely adopted.

If the girls do, however, believe that by not wearing veils, they are going against their religion then, as another girl in my class said, the government is essentially asking them to deny their religion and part of their identity for eight hours a day. As this girl pointed out, religion for most is a way of life - not something that you pick and choose throughout the day.

One of the guys objected to the idea that this was so horrible. He is well-known around school as a rapper (skinny, white guy - you'd never guess it) and said that he considers rapping part of his identity. However, he could never go to school and respond to teachers' questions or communicate with other students by rapping - it simply wouldn't be tolerated. For many of us, these seem like different issues, perhaps because it's widely accepted that everyone will communicate in a similar manner and it would be considered extreme for anyone to communicate all the time in rap. Religious expression is widely accepted (by Americans) as an everyday way of life. However, as he pointed out, if he considers rapping to be part of his identity then he is always a rapper and in not rapping at school, that is a compromise he makes.

Our professor was clearly holding himself back from responding to many points, but one of his comments was that there is a considerable amount of prejudice toward Muslims in France and that not wearing veils would help avoid conflicts among students at school and protect the Muslim students. He said that students should be able to learn in an environment where they aren't judged by religion and where another's religion is not forced upon them - that all students should be equal at school. If Muslims felt the need to wear their veils at school, they could go to private, Muslim schools. (Our professor went to private Catholic school through high school.)

In my mind, saying that students shouldn't wear veils because they might be discriminated against is avoiding the problem in failing to teach the other children about religious tolerance. And if the other option is to go to a private, religious school - is that not the same as saying that the country should be segregated by religion because the schools would prefer not to deal with the issues of integration?

Our professor also pointed out that (from the point of view that the requirement of veils is an interpretation of the Koran and not actually stated there), the banning of veils could be seen as a good thing in that it is not supporting an interpretation of the Koran which oppresses women. Personally, I think it would be interesting to follow up with the girls in a few years and see what kind of psychological effect this has had on them. As I mentioned in a previous journal entry, I can see how it would create a personal conflict for many who truly believe that they have to wear the veil - do they follow their God or their government? Does the fact that they can't express their religion mean something is wrong with their beliefs or that religion is not a way of life? On the other hand, will girls who see that they can live their life and be fine without their veils for a portion of the day start to question their beliefs?

Personally, I take a neutral stance on the subject. As an American, I have been raised to believe that everyone has the freedom of religious expression. And I disagree with those who say it is discrimination since all religious symbols were banned - not only veils. Though it wouldn't work in the US, the French seem to have found a solution appropriate for themselves. They take the separation of church and state VERY seriously because over the course of their history the two have been tied together with only violent and oppressive results. I would say the fight to separate the two was one of the driving forces behind the Revolution and one of the defining characteristics of France as it exists today.

Our professor had one final point of interest to close out the discussion - they say when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Therefore, he would normally expect us to listen, understand and accept the French view of the matter since we're here. However, in the context of the discussion, it was led by American students so we were Americans responding to Americans and suddenly he found himself a Frenchman in America having never left his soil. As such, he respected our opinions and let us have our very American discussion on this very French issue.