After the work today, i picked up a new issue of City magazine that had an article about Akuliina Saarikoski. She's titled as "Finland's most famour activist". And attention whore (pun intended) as i am, i wanted to write a small piece about the things i started to think.
Well, for starters, it goes without saying that "majority" of people consider Rastafari as homophobic. Names like Peter Tatchell made that a "world wide news" when he started his compain against "murder music" and went after the likes of Buju Banton, Sizzla & Capleton. So, i must be a phobic too right? Outright false accusation if you ask me. My personal take on the matter is that i don't absolutely any interest of what is happening within your and your family, bedroom, officeplace or where ever. Its your business and mine's mine. So what's the deal then ? Back to Akuliina's interview with few chosen quotes (bolds are questions presented and 'scuse if i didnt succeed in translation)
Why having an hetero culture offends you ?
Hetero culture's idea is to assimilate all abnormalities into itself. At this time, only accepted way of living is to model the hetero family model: 2 adults, row house, dog, kid or two.
To what extend, government can affect people's sexuality?
.... (Love) Partnerships should be agreement between people, not between people and government. Problems start only when other partner is significantly in lower position than the other. For example, this happen other partner is very young and almost always between a man and a woman.
If i would draw a conclusion of what is being said here, she's opposing a partnership between man and woman because the hetero culture is trying to assimilating all that is different and make it acceptable in the eyes of other heteros. So, what is the alternative ? Have gays to be what they want to be. I fully support this sort of thing, its basicly a struggle for a freedom. But then, Akuliina goes on defining that partnership between man and woman is "allmost always a cause of problems" and that is her attack vector to demolish hetero culture. She talk's about converting people to gay culture.
And thats where i personally draw the line. Maybe its the vibe laid down by the interviewer but i get the feeling from the interview that Akuliina's (and possible other gay activists) view is that all hetero sexuals are stereotypicly a single minded entity that does not accept alternative way of living and love and thus she feels that she has a right to use same tactics as hetero culture. Assimilate and integrate. And this is the exact reason why "i have problem with gays". But bare with me, i openly admit that what i just wrote, is a stereotypic view of a hetero sexual man. My wife might think otherwise but atleast i do think that our communion is working one, problems we have are between a Partner and a Partner, not between a man and a woman. What we do, what we look like, who we decide to support and who we dispice are based on the actions and words of said person. His or her sexuality excluded. Maybe it's a privilege of being so well integrated into heterosexual culture?
Same time, different media. One blogger wrote about city of Helsinki's instructions on how to prevent racism. He quotes part of these instructions about how to identify a racism.
Racism in all its forms is prohibited in all city functions. Racism is a ideology that divides people on basis of their race and/or culture unto different groups.
Its questinable if this definition of racism valid if culture is taken into consideration on this subject. Think about, if you define a culture, its already a "division of people". Maybe you have opion about that, do share *wink* *wink*. But the reason why i wanted to drag that matter into "Gay Issue" is quite obvious, atleast to me ;) So, lets iterate it once more:
Racism divides people into groups on basic of their race or culture.
What it is then, when gay activist declares that hetero that Women and Men together are a problem to start with and such behaviour should be destroyed thru acts of terror (on Akuliina's behalf, she makes it clear that such stamement was just populist, not a real treat against hetero couples). Maybe she's right but the angle Saarikoski is using is as revolting to me as any downpressor racist, fundamentalist or terrorist. What she's quilty of in my eyes: grouping of people with non-heterosexual values into something that is a better human being compared to those of us that are heteros. In my eyes, she's as guilty as any homophobic of the same segregation of people into different groups.
This Is Way I Hate Gays.
Posts
