|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
It's undeniable that open homosexuality is more prevalant in the US than it was in the 1950s (Right, Ya-ta ?). People of my generation are just a lot more comfortable about it.
|
Kuros is on the money, as usual. But I would go farther, it wasn't just homosexuality that was in the closet, sex in general was in the closet as far as speaking about it in public was concerned. Many of you might not realize that Lucy was semi-scandalous for being pregnant in the early 50's. For the whole decade, married people slept in separate beds, as far as TV and the movies were concerned. It was The Pill in '62 that started opening things up for public discussions. It was about the same time that abortion became an issue. The first time I heard of that was when a TV personality, maybe in Arizona, admitted she'd had an abortion. By the time I graduated in '67 girls were no longer automatically kicked out of school for getting pregnant.
As far as homosexuality specifically, there was nothing beyond a few gay jokes. Certainly no discussion of it anywhere I was. But there was something a little surprising. In my little hometown of 1,200 people, there were two lesbians who lived together. One of them was the Post Mistress. All the adults knew they were lesbians, but as far as I know, they had no problems. As far as we kids knew, they were the terrific 'old' ladies who served every kid in town a cup of hot chocolate and two cookies on Halloween. Parents did not warn us about being careful around them, or anything like that. I think my little town invented "Don't ask, don't tell". In fact, I suspect that lots of little towns and cities had that unofficial policy.
The first gays I ever met who announced they were gay were in college. Theater majors, of course.  But there weren't any gay studies as long as I was in college. It was in the late 60's that Stonewall happened and the open gay liberation movement began (as far as I know).
"Gay" as a topic of open conversation didn't really happen until AIDS in the mid 80's. That is what broke the subject open for public discourse. I always started my history classes with time for students to discuss current events. I remember the first time 'gayness' came up. Billy K. rather timidly raised his hand and asked if we could talk about AIDS. I remember they didn't talk about AIDS itself (no one knew why it was happening then), but there was enormous curiosity about gay people. I was pretty nervous about letting them talk about it, but allowed it as long as they were mature. And they were. Never got a call from an irrate parent.
When I arrived in Korea in '94 I was told Korea is conservative. I think Korea then was like the US 40 years before. Everyone was having sex, gay or straight, but people didn't talk about it. They just did it. AND during my first job, I distinctly remember two sex comments:
a) One Mr. Kim said there was no kissing before marriage and not much after.
b) Karen came running breathlessly into the teachers room to announce that there were no gays in Korea.
Personally, I think it would be healthier to not swing between the two extremes so much (yes, I think 13 year old girls dressing like hookers is extreme). When Oscar Wilde got in trouble a hundred years ago, someone asked a famous actress what she thought about it. She said something about gay being alright as long as they didn't do it in the street and scare the horses. That pretty well sums up my attitude to open displays of sex of whatever stripe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I guess what I'm saying is that it's going to take time. America in terms of civil rights has often chosen to settle things on a state to state issue. Again, Ya-Ta Boy could tell you how Western States' initiatives pushed universal manhood sufferage |
The essence of what Kuros said is correct. As a federal republic, the US has two layers of government, with the states holding certain powers and responsibilities and the national government others. Marriage and education were always state matters. It's only recently that the federal government has become involved in education. Somewhat surprisingly, highways were state concerns. When Eisenhower proposed the interstate highway system, conservatives tried to block it. Those in favor adopted a broad construction of the Constitution and urged the program under 'national defense' (We need good highways in order to rush troops from coast to coast if the Ruskies come.) Until the early '60s, several states had laws that banned inter-racial marriages. It is probably in that body of law that the gays have their best hope of marriage (and not some other designation that gives them the same rights) bans being found unconstitutional.
I hope I'm not being pedantic, but universal manhood suffrage came about because of westward expansion. Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio allowed UMS and the result was that the eastern states started losing population. At the time, the eastern states severely restricted suffrage. I think it was Massachusetts who only allowed 1 in 4 adult males to vote. In order to avoid becoming depopulated, the eastern states had to adopt 'equal rights'. Interestingly, Britain also was affected. The lower classes there were also abandoning ship. Voting reform came to Britain to avoid losing her population to the US (there were also other very significant factors as well). So Andy Jackson deserves a statue on Picadilly [Geometrical Shape].
The 'initiatives' that Kuros referred to are very controversial. The power of the initiative violates the spirit of the federal Constitution. Madison and the other Founding Fathers designed the government to be a republic, not a democracy. The voters (however each separate state defined that word) were to elect representatives who would meet in a body and debate and compromise and finally pass a law (or an amendment). However, late in the last century, when the Robber Barons were in bed with the politicians, the country was going through enormous economic and social changes and many people in the West (think Mississippi Valley and west to the Pacific) felt the government was not being responsive to their needs. A fairly radical movement (the Progressive Era) rose up and changed state constitutions by adding the initiative power. The voters in that state could get a petition together and get it on the ballot and by-pass their state legislature. In effect, on any particular issue, the voters could act as a democracy, not a republic.
Why is that controversial? Two reasons that I know of off-hand.
Because it by-passes the normal legislative process where all views get considered and compromised. An initiative doesn't allow for that. One view, in a moment of passion, gets enshrined in a constitution. It will require another moment of passion to get it removed, and that is more difficult. It normally takes 2/3's to get it added. Once in, it only takes 1/3 + 1 to keep it there. 'The people' can be stirred up by demogogues fairly easily. It isn't all that hard to play on people's fears. Remember one of the most powerful arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment was that 'your teenage daughter is going to have to share public bathrooms with men'.
The second reason is that our Constitution was not designed to be a Christmas tree covered with special provisions for every special interest group. It's supposed to be a tool for limiting the powers of government and laying out the organizational structure. Laws banning certain classes of people from getting married doesn't really fit that conception.
My guess is that the Supreme Court will figure out a way to allow civil unions in all states while not forcing states to use the word 'marriage'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| in my experience younger people are much more comfortable with gays than older people. |
Not this young father:
| Quote: |
Father: What is your favorite color?
Son, sitting in cart: Um...Pink!
Father: No! It's black or maybe blue.
--Paint aisle, Home Depot, Staten Island |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
