The latest British Social Attitudes survey is out with a clear result being the normalisation of homosexuality. We are, so I am told, more 'tolerant' as a society. I think I have seen the word 'tolerant' more today than in any other day of my life, due to the articles off the back of this survey.But is that really our ultimate aim? Mere 'toleration'?
I would have thought that if we were aiming high (which we should surely always do) that nothing short of acceptance is the aim. If I were in charge the aim would be indifference which may sound uncaring but in many ways that would involve true equality. (When was the last time you gave two hoots about a guy and girl snogging at a street corner?)
However, if it is to be 'toleration', then surely it must work both ways?
If one is small c conservative and big G religious then don't such views also need to be 'tolerated'? Why do we need to demean ourselves by 'putting up' with one side of the argument rather than the other, or neither even? There is a further argument here that if the 'religious right' (to indulge in crude grouping) are only allowed the option of complete and utter submission by the 'liberal left' (more crudeness) then that does not equate to the tolerance that the 'gay community' (yep, another one) seeks.
While we're on the subject, it would be interesting to know what any British-wide survey concluded with regard teaching same sex relationships in schools. Yes, it would improve understanding and hopefully reduce unwarranted discrimination but I still think the majority of Brits would prefer primary school is an LGBT-free zone. Some things are for parents to teach and we should free up teachers to crack on with Science, English, Maths and Languages.
Not that this dangerous and probably erroneous word 'toleration' is just restricted to gay issues of course.
Are we tolerating bankers' excesses or are they tolerating our need for a bigger public service than they themselves require? Does the media tolerate intractable politicians or do politicians tolerate excitable journalists? If we're not careful, tolerance could prove a singularly intolerable word.
I prefer just getting along, with its omission of a better or a lesser side.
15 comments:
"Most of the time, men love women and women love men. But, children, some men love men and some women love women"
Surely nobody could object to something like that in primary schools?
Sure, teaching primary students about the wonders of anal sex would be wrong, but I'd say the same about vaginal sex.
That's fine but what's wrong with a parent giving the lesson rather than a teacher?
When it comes to sex education in school then how do you remove gays and lesbians from the equation? They have sex too. Sex education is precisely that - education, and it's about teaching children to be healthy. It's a health issue, not a moral one.
Regards the rest of your post, I don't really get it. We have a Queen who is the defender of the faith, we have clerics who get a seat in the Lords by virtue of their membership of the established faith.
Here in Scotland we reguarly see interventions in political matters from the Churches - some welcome, some less so.
But there seems to be an understanding on the right that people from the liberal left (like me) are attacking their way of life. How so? Are their pickets outside Churches? Are there protests outside weddings? Is there an anti-Sunday school league? No.
The only time the ''liberal left'' come into conflict with the religious right is over issues such as same sex marriage, adoption rights, IVF rights for lesbians etc. That is when people are trying to withold rights from gays and lesbians that heterosexuals take for granted.
It is right to oppose that.
And let's remember that queer bashing and general abuse is still a factor in the lives of many gays (check the Police figures) I can't remember the last time I read about a straight bashing.
You might want to fix the title...
I'm happy to tolerate, and accept gays and lesbians. However, I will never be convinced that it's OK to put THAT in THERE.
It's just too dangerous, like sticking a coathanger in your ear.
Observer, I'm not sure if you do get it cos I don't think you appreciate we're mostly saying the same thing. Basically, why does Britain pride itself on it's tolerance when that word alone keeps gay people as a minority in every sense of the word. Yes, there are still attacks on the LGBT group but why are we surprised when they're still treated with respectful disdain from those who should choose their words more carefully.
Thanks Malc, quite possibly the lowest moment in my entire blogging career.
Anonymous - Straight people put THAT in THERE as well.
There is a further argument here that if the 'religious right' (to indulge in crude grouping) are only allowed the option of complete and utter submission by the 'liberal left'
-------------------
It must have been that bit there that confused me Jeff.
Yes, it would improve understanding and hopefully reduce unwarranted discrimination but I still think the majority of Brits would prefer primary school is an LGBT-free zone.
I think it should either be all or nothing. Halfhearted approaches won't work.
You might be interested to read Will's response however; as always it is far more thought out than I could ever manage...
What tolerance means - that's about how you use language really. I would say I am a tolerant person which means in reality that I don't care. I couldn't care less who has sex with who and how they do it. Furthermore I feel that there is something a bit pervy about folk who take a view on other peoples sex lives. I should clarify that I am not saying that it is perverted - I'm just saying from my point of view, as someone who is indifferent to the sexual preferences of others, people who take a "moral view about something which to my mind is none of their business are strange and a little bit creepy to be honest.
Re sex education. Sex education is primarily about promoting good health and giving children and young people the knowledge they need to stay healthy. My view is that children have a right to that knowledge irrespective of their parents wishes. It would be artificial and wrong to teach children only about "straight" sex. Firstly because straight people do many of the same things that gay people do. Secondly because you can't really put those labels on people anyway. Lots of straight people have had gay sex and lots of gay people have had straight sex. So just teach them the facts about sex and leave out the labelling.
You know,
I wonder if things might be better if we all just shut up about sex and found something else to talk about? Were STDs any more prevalent when we didn't talk about sex to children, than when we did? I think I'm at the Dorothy L Sayers stage
'As I grow older and older,
And totter towards the tomb,
I find that I care less and less,
Who goes to bed with whom.'
We are sexualising children.
Julie STDs were rampant in the past. In the 1850s, about half the outpatients in the main London hospitals had STDs.
Hundreds of thousands of women died from syphillis and other diseases passed to them by their husbands. Many more died from having children when they were too old, too young or too sick to have them. They did not know how to protect themselves, either from STDs or unwanted pregnancy.
The word 'tolerance' always annoys the hell out of me, just as you say. If something is bad, then we should work out how to stop it. If something isn't bad, then we don't 'tolerate' it. We are either in favour or indifferent.
Thanks for this - you are summing up a rant I have occasionally.
Adam
Post a Comment