I was talking to one of my professors a couple of weeks ago about how the newspapers are treating the Supreme Court hearing about the question of gay marriage. She asserted that the dominant discourse about gay marriage in Canada is that it's fine, so long as it looks like straight marriage. If gay people want to be the nuclear family too, that's great. Want to be in a 2-person monogamous relationship and even adopt kids? Well, if you can look straight, then we'll think about accepting you. But, she continued, if they're whipping each other every night, that's not acceptable/normal. Or if they say "we don't love each other, we don't even particularly like each other, but we really like fucking," that doesn't go over well either. Not to mention poly-amorous relationships, open relationships, short-term (and planned to be that way) relationships, etc. So Canada is pro-gay so long as it's not radical.
Then there's that whole straight/gay distinction... Why is this a binary system? Why is it even a ternary system defined in binary terms, like this:
gay = +gay -straight
bisexual = +gay +straight
straight = -gay +straight
Why do we think like that? There's a growing competing discourse on sexuality that it's more of a continuum and you can fall anywhere along the line.
Here's a good discussion about that. Why are the options just 100/0, 50/50, and 0/100? What about 60/40? What about 17.5/82.5 for that matter? Discourse analysis would assert that since we only have three words for sexual identity (gay, straight, bi), and 'bi' is not as respected as 'gay' -- not seen as "real" by a lot of people, then we have to pick one and stick with that. Straight is "normal", so people try really hard to fit into that lifestyle. Maybe there are a lot of 90/10 adn 80/20 people around who just never explore the 10 or 20 side of them because it's easier to keep that quiet and do what is socially acceptable. Maybe they just give that up because it makes their life simpler. Is anyone really 100% straight or gay? (related movie:
Kissing Jessica Stein)
Why is this a question of identity anyways? Food is another basic instinct and yet we don't judge people based on
how they eat or what kinds of food they like or if they have a monogamous relationship with one flavour of pizza (though
some people do with Hawaiian). We don't say that we can't associate with spicy-food-liking people, that they're immoral. This is the example given most often in discussions about
the language of sex positivity.
Want a short proof that our society is obsessed with sex? Here it is:
- sex, doing it, banging [someone], going all the way, intercourse, fucking, messing around, sleeping together, screwing, getting laid, going at it, making love, having a roll in the hay, knowing someone "in the Biblical sense", being intimate, fornicating, copulating, mating...
I'm sure you can come up with more. This is called
over-lexicalization. A society has the most words for the thing that they think about most, which is why groups like tech people have acronyms and terms that I don't know. Another aspect of this list is that many of these terms obscure the real meaning of sex, they dodge the issue a bit, which is called
euphemism, a term that makes something "nicer" (compare "she died" with "she passed away"). We don't say it straight out because it's dirty, naughty, "nice girls don't do that", etc., so we dance around it a bit. I mean, think about the term 'making out'. What the hell does that mean? I can ask 10 people and get 12 definitions!
I'll tell you when I started supporting gay rights (putting aside the discussion of whether we should support the binary system by having "gay" rights). Back when I was in late high school, I found an online journal (way before blogging, back in the days of
Merediments) called WorldWideJeb, by a gay guy in Australia who lived with his boyfriend and did NOT fit the gay stereotypes. He was a computer tech guy. His favourite music was industrial German bands. His boyfriend was a martial arts instructor who would get drunk and "show people" fight moves (eek!). He would tease his boyfriend every year by trying to convince him that he had registered a float for them in Sydney's gay pride parade, because they DESPISED that scene. This was important for me, and probably one of the biggest reasons that I've never been able to oppose gay rights (which led to conflicts with my faith). Why? Because Jeb was a real person. I liked him. I was sad for him when he broke up with Adam and glad when they got back together. I was surprised to learn that he had nightmares of sex with women, that he would dream about vaginas full of knives and was actually repulsed by straight sex. And yet, he was entertaining and normal and serious at times and a good writer and someone that I read every day and emailed sometimes. He was gay and he was human. He was terrified to tell his family, told them that Adam was his roommate and they would have to make up "Adam's room" quickly before his parents came over lest they suspect. He had a fundamentalist Christian aunt (much more fundie than I ever was) who would spray anti-gay rhetoric everywhere and would have hated him if she ever knew. He was afraid of people finding out. And why? Because it wasn't acceptable for him to be with the person he loved, to love his best friend in the world. It seemed obviously wrong to me, I don't know about the rest of you guys.