On Friday, I published a quick post about the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa. This morning, I deleted it, feeling it was inappropriate for this site. As it had no discussion of pop, mass, or media culture, I felt the post, written in a moment of impulsive emotion, went beyond The Critical Condition’s scope.
Before I removed the post, however, several of you commented on it. Some of you shared my enthusiasm, but some of you didn’t. One reader specifically challenged my assertion that eventually, all states will legalize gay marriage and will realize that all bans against it are rooted in fear. I communicated with that reader privately about her comment, but now I feel that by taking down her reaction (along with everyone else’s), I inadvertently created the impression that I was censoring ideas.
Censorship is not with this site is about. So long as we’re all speaking repsectfully, all opinions are welcome here.
In the interest of upholding my standards for The Critical Condition, I am re-posting my reaction to the Iowa decision. I don’t plan to publish posts like this in the future, but since a conversation has already begun, I don’t want to end it prematurely. If you commented before, I invite you to comment again. If you didn’t, please feel free to join in.
And let me reiterate: I’m thrilled with this ruling. I believe it signals this country’s march toward justice. Someday, we will feel a near-unanimous national pride when we remember this period in American history. We will remember it as the time we finally started rectifying enormous injustices against people seeking the rights to love freely and live equally.
32 responses so far ↓
1 dimestore lipstick // Apr 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm
A decision by the courts doesn’t mean as much as it should. As fervently as I would like to rejoice over this, I have no doubt that this will mean that Iowans will simply move on to the next step: legislation to write discrimination INTO the state constitution.
That happened here in my resident state of Wisconsin, and my native state will most probably follow suit.
2 Amanda // Apr 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I totally understand your reasoning behind taking the post down, but I think you can make the argument that the legislation is relevant to the site because gay culture has an important place within pop culture (and vice versa). If you wanted to, that is. Either way, I’m thrilled with what the legislation COULD mean. What’s most exciting to me is that the legislation passed in a middle-America state. The implications of that are overwhelming to me as a Tennessean. Hey, a girl can dream, right?
3 Jon // Apr 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Iowa may be a red state but it does tend to be a bit of a rebel in the heartland. I think this will stick. If this happened here in Texas, on the other hand…..
The only thing creeping me out in this situation is the reaction from the Northeast.
4 Russ Jackson // Apr 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm
That was my concern at first, but after reading a little bit I found out Iowa’s constitution is a lot tougher to amend than, let’s say California’s, which all it takes there is a petition to get a proposal on the ballot and then a simple majority vote to pass.
In Iowa, it takes the approval of two consecutive General Assemblies of the Legislature before a proposed amendment would go to ballot. And a general assembly term is two years, so it would be at least 2012 before the ruling could be challenged. *
I too believe one day all states will make similar decisions. We live in a country of ever expanding freedoms, and to me this is the next logical step.
* According to an article I found from the Des Moines Register: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010
5 Maggie // Apr 5, 2009 at 4:24 pm
That’s really interesting! I live in a county where gay marriage was legal for about a week. My county is incredibly progressive, and I felt like if gay marriage couldn’t stay legal here and in places like San Francisco, then the rest of the country didn’t stand much of a chance. It does look like that’s the way we’re creeping, though…slowly but surely.
6 Heather // Apr 5, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Just a quick clarification. I think someone else said that Iowa was a red state on the previous post as well. Actually, Iowa was a blue state in 2008 — Obama won by 9% . Iowa went for Bush in 2000, but if you add up the Dems + Greens + Naderites, only by about 3000 votes. Iowa was blue in 2000, 1996, 1992, and 1988. That’s right — Iowa voted for Dukakis. Before that, Iowa was pretty much on track with most of the rest of the country in voting for Reagan. In 1976, Ford won Iowa, but only because about 20,000 Iowans voted for Eugene McCarthy. So Iowa, not really so much red.
7 Reese // Apr 5, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Joining in to say that I am rejoicing for Iowa with my whole devout Mormon heart. There is a big section within the Mormon church that has desperately struggled with this issue, and I, for one, am praying that my leaders decide to stop fighting this.
8 Lynne // Apr 5, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Mark,
This is (one reason) why it might have been better not to have deleted the earlier post. When you try to reconstruct what was said….things can muddy up a bit. Not that your meaning is unclear, but changing the way you said something can give a slightly different (as in this case), or sometimes a whole new connotation.
I have tried desperately to recall exactly what you said originally which inspired me to respond. I think you said something to this effect:
“It’s clear that the opposition is about fear, and life is better without fear.”
That’s the part of your post I wanted to respond to because I think it is unreasonable to over-generalize that way. There certainly is a fringe element whose voices of fear and hatred seem to get the most coverage in the news. But ignorant radicals are the minority and they certainly don’t represent people like myself and my friends, who come to our reasoned opinions and beliefs based on personal conviction, thoughtful reflection, research and study, and often on deeply held spiritual beliefs in biblical doctrine. And even then, it’s an intensely problematic subject open to many questions and complexities. I tend to shut down when I hear anyone say, “Here is the one and only definitive answer, etc. etc.”.
I just wanted to remind you that there are people in the opposite camp who thoughtfully struggle to understand your point of view and who are just as committed to treating homosexuals with compassion and respect as they are committed to continuing to affirm what they believe to be true. I know that’s not as acceptable as open-armed, congratulatory celebration, but…it is what it is. At the least, it is honest and it is most definitely not born of fear.
In that vein, it grieves me to tell you that there are large numbers of so-called, liberal-minded heterosexuals who give a lot of lip service to supporting homosexuals – but only to their faces or when they pontificate their social and political platforms – and then these same people will abuse, mock and make the most deriding comments behind their backs. It disgusts me.
Thank you for an opportunity to share my comments again. I think I’m saying way more than I said the first go around….but then, so did you
Lynne
9 ferretrick // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:58 am
” But ignorant radicals are the minority and they certainly don’t represent people like myself and my friends, who come to our reasoned opinions and beliefs based on personal conviction, thoughtful reflection, research and study, and often on deeply held spiritual beliefs in biblical doctrine. And even then, it’s an intensely problematic subject open to many questions and complexities. ”
Lynne,
Sorry, but no, its actually a very simple question-do you believe all people are created equal and should have the same rights and priviliges under the law or don’t you?
It really is just that simple. It has zero to do with “deeply held spiritual beliefs”-it is not a religious question. When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance do you really mean “one nation, under God, liberty and justice for all” or do you mean “liberty and justice under my version of God for people who conform to my views and do things exactly my way?”
10 Lynne // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:43 am
For some reason my computer is not picking up the first letter of your name and all I can see is ‘erretrick’. Sorry about that. But I would like to respond to your post.
I would agree with the first part of your statement that “all men (people) are created equalâ€, but the granting of rights and privileges is most certainly not given to everyone and without regard to their behavior which is why we have a legal system.
Although it may have zero to do with deeply held spiritual beliefs for you does not mean that other people don’t anguish and struggle with this aspect (and again, this is only one aspect – personal experience and conviction, as well as reason and science are other considerations in this debate).
When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance do you really mean “one nation, under God, liberty and justice for all†or do you mean “liberty and justice under my version of God for people who conform to my views and do things exactly my way?â€
I would turn that around and ask you the very same question. Must I conform to your view and do things exactly your way or am I free to believe (and to further that belief in my speech and actions) that marriage between two people of the same gender is not an inherent right or privilege?
And so, there is a battle to gain legal status for marriage between people of the same gender. I can appreciate that this step is the climactic move for the homosexual community toward normalizing that which has been previously considered an aberration by the majority of individuals and cultures since the beginning of civilization. I will continue to support marriage between a man and a woman only, while continuing to support your right to advance what you believe to be proper and true. I wouldn’t take that freedom away from you so please (not you personally) don’t take it away from me, which unfortunately is being foreshadowed with various pending legislature on what can and can’t be said and done in the public and private arena. Shocking.
So for me erretrick, and countless others, it’s anything but simple. In fact, just the opposite is true. It’s a constantly changing endeavor to educate myself and dig out the facts and fallacies of what I believe to be one of the most significant and heart wrenching burdens ever positioned on an individual and on society. Frankly, sometimes I just want to throw up my hands and say, “none of this makes any senseâ€. I hope that is not insulting to anyone who identifies himself or herself as a homosexual, because I certainly do not mean to hurt anyone! Just the opposite, it grieves me to no end that so much pain has been hurled in that direction.
Oh barf, now I am sounding patronizing. I will stop while I still have a shred of credibility left.
11 Russ Jackson // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Run that one by me again, Lynne: How does legalizing gay marriage take away rights from anyone?
12 Lynne // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I want to respond to you Russ but you are assigning something to me that I didn’t say. This happens to me too, I read something and make a jump somewhere. That’s kinda how I got in this Iowa post to begin with.
I just want to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, Russ. What part of my post prompted your question and we can take it from there?
13 joe // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:35 am
Not to interrupt the wide-eyed and incredulous among us from wondering why ever our anti-gay words might be interpreted as being anti-gay, I’d like to address this:
“In that vein, it grieves me to tell you that there are large numbers of so-called, liberal-minded heterosexuals who give a lot of lip service to supporting homosexuals – but only to their faces or when they pontificate their social and political platforms – and then these same people will abuse, mock and make the most deriding comments behind their backs. It disgusts me.”
While I’m sorry to see someone be so disgusted and grieving, I think if given the choice between someone who supports me with his/her vote and grants me full equality under the law (yet privately mocks my kind when I’m not around) versus someone who speaks about tolerance and kindness while using their agency to deny me the same rights that my straight brother has, I will take public rights and private mocking every day of the week.
14 Mark Blankenship // Apr 7, 2009 at 1:58 am
Hey everyone,
As always, thanks for the ongoing and thoughtful conversation.
–
Hi Lynne,
I was looking at your comments, and to me, this is the section where it seems like you’re suggesting that the legalization of gay marriage will take away your rights:
“I will continue to support marriage between a man and a woman only, while continuing to support your right to advance what you believe to be proper and true. I wouldn’t take that freedom away from you so please (not you personally) don’t take it away from me, which unfortunately is being foreshadowed with various pending legislature on what can and can’t be said and done in the public and private arena. Shocking.”
It seems here that you are saying that the legalization of gay marriage (i.e. “pending legislation”) will take away your ability to say what can and can’t be done in public and private. Is that what you mean?
Also, how do you feel about extending legal rights to gay couples… rights that are granted by the government, regardless of a person’s religion? It seems to me that this is a stumbling block for a lot of people on both sides of the issue.
Personally, I don’t need religious sanction for my relationship, nor do I particularly want it. But I do want—and am entitled to—government sanction. If my government will not give me the opportunity to gain the hundreds of rights that are granted to heterosexual couples, then my government is being unjust. It is building a society in which freedom isn’t doled out equally, but is instead doled out on grounds as faulty as the grounds that supported Jim Crow laws and unequal voting rights for women.
If a church doesn’t want to recognize my marriage, then I can start my own church. But I cannot start my own government, or at least, I shouldn’t have to.
I can also see that forcing people to accept gay “marriage” can feel like forcing them to make a moral stance that runs counter to their religious beliefs. Again, that’s why I don’t need to get married in the eyes of anyone’s faith. I just need to get met married in the eyes of the law.
I feel like there’s got to be a compromise in which people with religious hesitations about homosexuality can agree that gay people still deserve full rights under our non-religious government, and that gay people can agree that our relationships need not be sanctioned by all religious institutions. That kind of compromise seems necessary.
On another point, I appreciate your intention in reminding me that some straight people talk trash behind gay people’s backs, but your phrasing sounded more condescending than I think you intended it to. Few minorities are ignorant of the prejudices that exist all around them.
Finally, I appreciate your continued presence in this conversation, because frankly, I don’t personally know anyone who disagrees with me on this issue. It’s nice to hear from a real person who doesn’t share my point of view, instead of just a media barrage of hateful extremity.
15 Michael // Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Without referring to any comments or contributors to this conversation specifically, let me say that I feel the painful contradictions of those who have, in Mark’s good phrase, “religious hesitations” about homosexuality yet do not wish to participate in vilification or abuse of the gay and lesbian minority. I understand the feeling that one is not being listened to, the feeling that one’s ideas are being proscribed from the public sphere by a consensus that counts one’s feelings out. And we should, as civil sharers in the public debate, tread carefully and considerately when so many emotions are in play.
That said, I don’t understand–yet–how someone sympathetic to nondiscrimination against gays and lesbians (generally speaking) can say that the institution of marriage as legally defined should continue that discrimination. There are feelings involved, but, when those feelings are contradictory, they can be resolved by dialogue with thought (I know–this sounds condescending–but I’m trying to get to the basics here).
Here’s one thought that I think is important, certainly not original with me: Marriage has not been an unchanging institution in the world–it has altered over many generations and civilizations to the modern Western construction of a companionate, voluntary, monogamous pairing of equals (and we co-exist now with other cultures that define marriage differently from that model). Do those who defend modern Western marriage as eternally valuable (which is a position I could defend) have any sense of how malleable an institution it has nevertheless been, how it has changed as societies have changed?
It can be counter-intuitive to think in these larger terms about something that affects you so personally. I know how truly profound one’s dedication to one’s marriage and immediate family can be, and how one would want to protect these commitments and honor them above perhaps anything else. But to say that the ideals of modern Western marriage–a companionate, voluntary pairing of equals–can’t be realized by a male couple or a female couple is to discriminate negatively, and, ultimately, I don’t see how it can be taken to communicate anything other than “I can’t accept completely that your relationship is as legitimate as mine.” The institution has in fact evolved (beyond polyandry, polygamy, legalized patriarchy, and laws against interracial or interfaith pairings) to the point that it is now (as never before) defined as a relation a same-sex couple can share (voluntary, companionate pairing of equals), and the logic of expanding its parameters is hard to counter if we recognize gay and lesbian equality. So, yes, marriage HAS been defined (recently and in our part of the world) as between one man and one woman; but it has been defined other ways as well, and those ways gave way. It has changed, and a government not invested in a religious formulation of marriage, a government that has seen the end of previous limitations on the definition of marriage (specifically miscegenation laws) is hard-pressed to resist the logical further extension of these rights on the same terms to further minorities.
So–it is consistent with the tradition of marriage that marriage change according to the values of the society that recognizes it–that IS, in a larger sense, the tradition. To change marriage is to keep it.
To those made inchoately uncomfortable by the thought of a different kind of couple having a similar bond, all I can say is–there are other feelings involved here than yours, and the heartbreak of those who love deeply and feel their love delegitimized by the community is at least as important.
The good news is–this isn’t a zero-sum game game. Nobody else’s marriage impacts yours or makes it something less; couples who are brutal to each other don’t stain your kindness with your spouse; other couples who divorce don’t threaten your union; other couples with sexless marriages don’t threaten your marital intimacy; marriages without children are as legitimate as those with. It’s the same principle.
That’s how I see it. Now, to be fair–can anyone explain to me why the law should stop changing the evolution of marriage at this point–or, in fact, a few years back?
16 Russ Jackson // Apr 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Same-sex marriage is legal in Vermont now too, by way of a bill that passed in the state legislature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?ref=politics
17 katy // Apr 7, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I think something that those of us who favor same-sex marriage sometimes miss is this: many people who oppose it do so out of fear that once legal, it will be imposed upon their own religious communities. I hear this here in Georgia more than you would ever dream.
I find it’s helpful to clarify this point in any discussion with someone who opposes gay marriage: I personally would not support the federal government interfering in the doings of any religious group, even something like this that I do not agree with. That’s what the Bill of Rights means when it says the government shouldn’t interfere with the “free exercise” of religion, and I take that seriously.
I am really *not* interested in legally requiring the Southern Baptist denomination or the LDS Church or the RC Church to marry same-sex couples. No way. That would be crossing a line. Now I might support groups within those churches that want to rally for same-sex rights … but that’s different. That’s internal nongovernmental pressure, and by the way? That’s happening anyway.
The question is not whether religious groups are permitted to decide who is able to be married under their auspices. They are permitted to do that under the constitution. Already religious groups discriminate as to who can get married — whether one is Catholic or not, whether one has had the proper premarital preparation, whether one is temple worthy. Various religious groups already have differing ideas about what “marriage” is.
What seems crystal, crystal clear to me is that the legal definition of marriage ought to be independent of all of these religious definitions of marriage. If the state is going to give a special status to marriage at all (which it does ostensibly on the basis that married persons provide more social stability and a way to raise children), then it should do so for all taxpaying loyal U.S. citizens.
If religious groups don’t want same-sex partners to be married, their option is to send out those missionaries and try to persuade them otherwise. (Have fun with that!) They don’t get to use the government to do the work for them.
18 Michael // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm
AND Washington DC’s legislature just ruled to recognize gay marriages from other states.
19 Lynne // Apr 7, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Thank you Mark!
When I said I enjoy the way you write it was certainly not without reason. You seem to be able to regroup and refocus even my very own thoughts!
I figured that was the area Russ was referring to and no that is not what I meant. I totally confused the issue by grouping those two together (rights for homosexuals to marry and freedom to continue advancing and supporting what I believe to be proper and true). Sorry for that confusion – I do not believe granting marital rights to homosexuals would strip anyone of any particular right. It’s the totality of the movement which may be forcing a new and shocking layer to this debate and that is the possibility that the government could dictate what individuals, private groups and certain public groups are permitted (or not permitted) to say and do in regards to their non-acceptance of a ‘pro-homosexual’ bias into their world view.
Up to this point I have never even considered myself to be in the fight to preserve traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I can now appreciate the importance of at least investigating all the layers of this important issue. The main reason I wanted to comment in this post was to remind readers that the majority of the opposition is not based in fear and hatred – but that is not something anyone is likely to hear covered in the mainstream media. I am completely floored and utterly disappointed that the concept might be a novelty to anyone especially to those in the homosexual community
And yes, I do believe in certain rights for homosexual couples, but probably not in the scope you are talking about Mark. I apologize if my remark about what people may say behind your back sounded condescending. I should also tell you that I was in that camp at some point in my life as well and because of that I know that just because a person makes unkind remarks does not necessarily negate having true affection for their homosexual friends. It would have been better left unsaid. Point taken.
Michael – though I know I will want to reread your excellent post (I’m just finishing up at work now and have to leave shortly), I would say a couple of things quickly. First, just because the model of the ideal/perfect marriage union (man + woman) has not been achieved or maintained through the ages, does not mean it cannot still be aspired to. The second thing I want to tell you is the reason I am not able to support the advancement of homosexual rights, while still maintaining the utmost respect and compassion for their uniquely difficult position, is that I am not convinced (due to my own personal conviction, experience, observation, research/study) that the homosexual orientation is not an aberration in psyche and behavior. And because of that, I would choose to focus on solutions, (resolutions, services, helps) which would give the inquiring homosexual an avenue to explore, possibly leading to the transformation of their thinking rather than an acceptance and rejoicing of their homosexuality. Is there a place at the table for such a discussion? At the very least, doing as Katy stated in her post…“send out those missionaries and try to persuade them otherwiseâ€.
And also, (anyone ) please do not be hesitent to use my name directly in your post if I have said something you want to comment on or challenge. You’ve been extremely gracious with me and I am so appreciative to take part in this discussion. I can assure you I do not make any comments about this subject frivolously as it has a very real and significant place in my personal life, just as I know it has in yours.
20 Russ Jackson // Apr 7, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Wow, really?
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1974. Time to get over it.
21 Michael // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Well, Lynn, you have positioned yourself as a respondent to many people in this conversation, and expressed good will and hung in there through considerable disagreement.
In your response to me, above (which was actually not intended to respond specifically to you, but to positions that many hold that you have nevertheless exclusively represented here–subtle distinction, but this one’s, as they say, for you), you get down to some very basic points that I think might have been misunderstood before.
I, for one, didn’t realize that you were holding that homosexuality is an aberration that, you feel, in what you claim as a spirit of sympathy, should still, if possible, be overcome. (I actually sensed and articulated that as an implication in the anti-gay-marriage argument, but thought I was revealing a contradiction in such thinking, but–in your case, at least, guess not.)
I must say, I don’t know how for the argument to proceed from here, except to go further than this blog might hold (Mark’s call) in asking you to explain your reasons for holding that 1) monogamous heterosexual marital companionship is ideal, and that monogamous homosexual marital companionship is necessarily something lesser, and that, 2) homosexuality is an aberration that needs if possible to be overcome, as opposed to, for example, left-handedness or a tendency to being farsighted. Why is gayness worse in a way so objective and demonstrable and inarguable that a non-religiously-aligned government should make the distinction a matter of law? What’s the experience, observation, and research that has undergirded your personal conviction? Russ Jackson’s point–that the psychological professionals’ experience, observation, and research, says otherwise, is pertinent.
From there, two points: For Lynn: I felt the way you do now once; then I met a gay couple, worked with them, visited them, befriended them, and saw them struggle and sacrifice to adopt children–and found I couldn’t make a moral distinction between their home and family and mine; are you close to any gay couples whose lives resemble a good marriage? For others in this conversation: I’m guessing at some responses that may arise here–it will be tempting to conflate Lynn’s position with other implied arguments, but let’s be fair and take this a step at a time.
22 Lynne // Apr 8, 2009 at 1:50 am
Michael – I’m really not familiar with blog protocol. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I found the Critical Condition while googling Adam Lambert threads a few weeks ago and this is one that popped up. I haven’t been exposed and involved with pop culture in quite some time so it’s been fun and enlightening in many ways, and also provocative and challenging as it is here (especially) in this Iowa spot in Mark’s board.
I mention people’s names when I make comments as a way to respond in turn to their comments. It seems like an easy way to reference ‘who has said what’ by doing it that way. Is that not an appropriate way to communicate here?
Although I had many gay friends over 30 years ago, it was in the fast-paced F & B industry and as it often happens as people come and go, we did not really keep in touch after I married and moved to the suburbs. There are some acquaintances and family members, but I have only one friend now that I see on a daily basis who is a homosexual. He adopted his sister’s son (at infancy) and raised him as his own son. He’s a wonderful father, provider, a great friend who I adore and I wholeheartedly support the wonderful solution and sacrifice he provided for his infant nephew.
I don’t know if a discussion should progress, but for my part, I would say that I have not come to my position based solely on feelings that I personally have, or the recognition of the superb character of individuals in the homosexual community and hence their ability, desire and inclination to unite and raise families. In his post, Russ has suggested that I get over the decision of the mid-70′s psychological community to remove homosexual behavior from their list of aberrational or deviant indicators. Yet for me that is where the discussion would most likely begin.
23 Russ Jackson // Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 am
Lynne,
I won’t be continuing in the discussion anymore. I don’t believe we’re on equal footing if you do in fact believe homosexuality is a deviant behavior that needs to be corrected.
I’m straight, so I won’t tell you I understand what makes someone gay, but I’ve never thought more about why any more than I’ve wondered why I was born left-handed.
I’m married myself. My wife and I had a Catholic priest preside, because he was a friend of my wife’s and a pretty cool guy too. There was no religious context in our ceremony. Our marriage may not be “sanctioned by God” or whatever, but it is recognized by the state.
Furthermore, we don’t have children and don’t plan on having any. That also doesn’t make our marriage any less valid. We got married because we love each other.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will have no consequence for me or our marriage. But I recognize there are same-sex couples out there who, like my wife and I, want to get married because they love each other. And I simply think they should have that right.
24 Lynne // Apr 9, 2009 at 8:17 am
Russ,
My husband and I (after dating and living together 6 years) eloped in 1982 during a two minute, ‘knocked at the door, Justice of the Peace moment’. I too am unconcerned that our marriage was performed in a civil rather than a religious context and would agree with Mark’s comments that it is the civil sanction which is essential to gaining the rights and privileges of the status of ‘married couple’. Some of the last few comments on the thread here would indicate that the pending same-sex marriage (and opposing) legislature is somewhat incidental to my frame of reference.
I would leave you with this Russ, if you will hear me: because of the fact that I do truly believe the homosexual orientation is something which deviates from the norm or ideal, as antiquated and repugnant as that may sound to you (and I do understand your reaction and have personally experienced it to the degree that I sense you are feeling), I would hope that you could begin to understand (if you care to) that I am then unable to follow the rationale that would place the group identified with a homosexual orientation into a group of minorities who share certain inherent traits such as race and left-handedness. Which in turn would then dictate granting them certain (non-discriminatory) rights outside the basic rights of life, liberty, protection, freedom to express themselves both publicly and privately and to pursue happiness and fulfillment by entering into and maintaining companionate same-sex relationships.
From my frame of reference, granting of certain rights (as the right to legal sanction through marriage) to individuals within a group of people who are identified by an attraction to their same sex, however deeply rooted, sincerely felt, monogamously experienced or overwhelmingly approved of by the majority of society, is not warranted and would be based on that special class of distinction (attraction to their same sex) which is well outside the distinctions which flag those other minorities. I’m not entirely sure what all the other rights Mark alluded to in his post are, but I should think private insurance companies granting benefits to committed same-sex couples wuold be an appropriate consideration.
Knowing that you strongly disagree with me, I do hope you would at least follow the logic of my statements and understand my dilemma because of it. Not that I would compel you to understand, but it might make it easier for you to bear my opinion and beliefs, as it were, if you realize that because of what I believe, I am not able to accept the rationales that you embrace so easily. If nothing more than this were accomplished for the moment, it may be of some kind of value…somehow.
25 Michael // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Lynn: Briefly: Responding to your remarks about comparative rights, I think it would be a good thing for you, just as a concerned citizen and a participant in this debate, if you were to do some internet research on marriage equality and read the long lists of rights that are given to married couples that are denied same-sex couples–I first began to study the issue last year and was surprised, and moved as I imagined the impact on individual lives. My second, brief point, is that you’ve asked in your last pose that you “hope [Russ, and implicitly, other readers of the blog] would at least follow the logic of my statements”–yet, as far as I can see, you have yet to share that logic; you’ve reasserted your belief that homosexual orientation is different from other kinds of minority status, but the logic of how you see that difference, why sexual orientation is to be thought of as another kind of difference that should not be arrayed within civil equality, is not shared with us–you simply refer to your “frame of reference.” That’s assertion, but not reasoning. I’d really like to know your reasons.
There may be a hint of your reasoning in the phrase about heterosexual relations as “ideal.” In my mind i put this together with the fact that when I asked earlier whether you were close to any gay or lesbian couples, your reply was that you were close to a single gay adoptive father. Repeating my own story briefly–I thought heterosexual relations were at some core level different and better from anything same-sex couple could achieve–until I knew a gay couple. That you and I began in similar positions and now differ may have as much to do with different experiences as different frames of reference or belief. Maybe.
26 Lynne // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:04 am
Michael,
I’ll try to be as concise as you were and thank you for responding. I apologize in advance for probably not being able to be as brief, (and yep, that’s just what happened and yep, I know I really need to work on my own verbosity).
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in the last paragraph. But when I said I believe people who have an attraction to their same sex should not be grouped with people who have the genetic traits of race and left-handedness, I thought the logic (at least from my point of view) was clear; generally speaking and imho, same sex attraction occurs sometime after a child is born. (Admittedly, probably quite soon – as soon as an infant or young child begins to witness and become part of their own socialization.) Hence, their inclusion (again, generally speaking) with minorities who are grouped because of certain inherent traits programmed into their DNA would not be accurate.
And if they cannot be grouped with those other minorities, what other reason would you give me that they are due special rights to protect or sanction their homosexual status or their couplings? (Outside the basic rights I described in my last post of life, liberty, protection, freedom to express themselves both publicly and privately and to pursue happiness and fulfillment by entering into and maintaining companionate same-sex relationships).
Would it be based on their sincere love for each other and the ability to provide stable, healthy environments to raise children? I don’t know Michael, I might (and probably would – which I think would just drive the discussion back to my first paragraph) argue that point, but only very reluctantly. It’s obvious that heterosexual couples are not succeeding in achieving long-lasting healthy marriages and I would hate to see any other group try to put their eggs into that basket.
My ‘frame of reference’ (which is shorthand for personal conviction, observation, experience, reason, research, and blah blah all that other stuff I mentioned in earlier posts) does evolve and refine itself the more deeply I am entrenched in these considerations.
For example: because of something I read very recently, the age at which I believe same sex attractions may begin to occur (and I am not holding myself out as any kind of expert on this or anything else here) has recently been lowered from pre-pubescence to what I stated above – infancy and/or shortly after. I read a statement by an (ex-gay, or formerly self-defined as a gay man) author that said “most people with strong, same-sex attraction struggle with shame and a fear of being fully knownâ€. That statement just sent shockwaves through me. Perhaps the homosexual community commonly knows that to be true (if it is indeed true) but it seemed almost a universal statement to me. I knew rather instantly (and very personally) that an intense, even somewhat life-altering feeling of shame can enter a person as young as age four, and a fear of being fully known is certainly not unique to the homosexuals among us.
Loosely presented here, an intense shaming experience at an early age could even happen from a single, seemingly harmless event in the eyes of an adult*, but more likely, (I assume) it could be rooted in something more base and demonstrative than that. Which can then lead to a disturbance in the healthy development of relationships, which could lead to deviations in healthy, normal attractions/attachments/connections. Which could in turn, at puberty (and just prior) lead to the fear of being fully known by others based on the extent that one’s deviation veers from the norm. This new, ‘tweaked’ understanding has caused me to place “being homosexual or having a same-sex attraction is not something to be ashamed of, (while still being something not to be celebrated)” at the top of my growing list of “Things I Believe to Be True about Homosexuality” (caps. for emphasis).
Again, this is just one very minor indication of how my own F.O.R. does evolve with the introduction of new information, experience, observations, etc. and I don’t see how that could be a bad thing. After all, isn’t that how thinking and practices do indeed evolve, by the introduction of new information, experience and observations, (as understood in your own mini essay on how the practices of couplings and marriage have evolved over history)?
So from your point of view, there may be hope for me yet. I am at the point where a child enters the world and opens his or her eyes.
And from my point of view, if you would concede the possibility that we are indeed at that point where a child enters the world, then I would say there is hope for you. And I don’t mean that frivolously. I mean that I don’t quite understand what you Michael, (and I will use your name specifically here), personally possess in regards to opinion, knowledge, personal experience, research etc. which would elevate your views to a ‘reasoned’ status while mine remain as mere ‘assertions’. Maybe it’s a good place to continue or begin a discussion, maybe not. Thank you for hearing me.
And like you, I can see how these discussions can quickly outgrow the confines of a board like this one, Michael.
* that assertion is based on my own personal experience.
27 Michael // Apr 15, 2009 at 11:43 am
Lynn:
It does seem to be just you and me now, doesn’t it? (smile) Well, as long as Mark indulges this as a space for our conversation, I’ll go just a little further.
I am chagrinned at the note (or melody) of condescension you discerned in my recent post, and you are right–we are both reasoning from our premises. I apologize for an inappropriate tone. And I commend you for continuing to be open in this conversation.
I had not realized that the idea that one could be gay from birth would be a surprise to you. As it happens, the medical science suggesting that there are strong genetic factors has been around for a while now; it is generally accepted. Google homosexuality causes and look at the scientific studies and see what you think. (The most recent study I read, a Swedish study of twins, argues that the genetic factors are not determining but influential, and gives a large space for environmental influence–but, if you read the study, they seem to mean the womb as a determining environment–maternal hormonal levels and changes during fetal development and the like–rather than parenting styles or TV images or anything like that. I think that most of us who have engaged in this conversation with you have probably been working with the premise that sexuality is to a strong degree inborn.
At the same time, I’m not sure I understand why it wold be amorally different issue if sexuality emerged after birth or early childhood–I think the assumption is that it emerges due to factors other than personal choice, beyond the child’s control. I don’t know that that really makes it less essentially a part of a person’s being. Whenever it emerges, it’s a reality to be dealt with–no?
And I think anyone in this discussion who has a gay, lesbian, bi, or other non-straight orientation could tell you that they spend a good part of their lives throwing off fundamentally shaming messages about their sexual orientation from childhood. It’s not an absolutely universal experience, i suppose–but very nearly so. Joe Kort, a gay couples therapist (whose writings I agree with only in part, by the way) argues that most queer kids are in some measure shamed or punished for spontaneous expression of sexual interest in a way that amounts to some degree of sexual abuse (imagine, he says, if most heterosexual children were made to feel abnormal for budding attractions in sixth grade and retreated into secrecy and self-doubt).
I think these are some of the assumptions many of us have brought into this conversation.
Does that help to clarify some of our differences?
Sincerely,
Michael
28 Lynne // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:20 am
Michael,
In a spirit of humor and with a thankful heart, would it be too soon for me to hope that the days of clutching my throat and inwardly groaning with apprehension before entering this thread are indeed behind me?
You bowed…so now I curtsey.
All jest aside, thank you Michael, for your generous demeanor. It’s a pleasure meeting you and taking part in this discussion, however brief our time here remains. And yes, I would say your message has helped to clarify some of our differences.
************
The premise that one could be gay from birth is not a surprise to me, on the contrary, I would have to be living on another planet for the last two decades to not have heard of or entertained such a possibility. Generally speaking, I just don’t believe it and I’m not alone.
Has that premise really been proven to your satisfaction and so overwhelmingly and unequivocally that you have abandoned any doubt or questions you may have had? (Is a careful review of all the various researches on both sides of the debate warranted here and would there be space for all of it? Or may I take my cue from you and speak in more general terms? That there exists strong evidence to indicate that the environmental factors previously discussed represent a valid approach to the study of homosexual origins and has also “been around awhile and is still generally accepted†both among lay people and professionals.
Did you know that 45% of all statistics are made up on the spot? No, wait, it’s 48% I think…hmmm…
Some heterosexuals move toward a celebratory approach to their homosexual friends’ lifestyle more out of a sense of their devotion, respect and concern for their friends rather than an unquestioned, unwavering conviction that same-sex attractions are as ideal a form of sexual expression as their heterosexual counterpart. (I believe yours and some of the other posters own words have born this out quite convincingly in this discussion.) And that is not so much that you (you in general) might not sincerely embrace the normalcy aspect, but it just seems that often a point is reached where you (in general) are more moved by the raw emotion of seeing two people in love. And then I would have to ask you this question: Who among us are being led by their feelings over their reason?
***************
But you have brought to light perhaps this more critical point:
At the same time, I’m not sure I understand why it would be a morally different issue if sexuality emerged after birth or early childhood–I think the assumption is that it emerges due to factors other than personal choice, beyond the child’s control. I don’t know that that really makes it less essentially a part of a person’s being. Whenever it emerges, it’s a reality to be dealt with–no?
Yes, most definitely it is a reality to be dealt with, and this is a major reason I struggle with this issue. But I would ask you to consider this: there is the indication in your statement above that even though homosexuality emerges somewhere outside the realm of personal choice (more like ‘no-choice’), that does not preclude the possibility that there exists a pathology of some sort. That’s not the best word to use, and I don’t know what word would be more descriptive (yet), but the point remains, same-sex attraction could be rooted in something that has been perpetrated upon and through the individual rather than a normal, alternate inbred sexual expression.
If such pathology exists, why can’t alternative methods of coping with and withdrawing from a homosexual orientation be offered to those (especially young people) who are desirous of altering their sexual assignment and willing to investigate them? Although only a very small minority of the homosexual population seems interested at this time, there have been some impressive successes. Let’s have some freedom of expression and support for those individuals and programs.
Sincerely,
Lynne
29 Michael // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Lynne:
I had a longer post (surprise!!) but it boils down to:
How is heterosexual union ideal?
How is same-sex union pathological?
Why is the homosexual variation of family formation the one the law singles out as insupportable when other variations (separated couple retaining legal marital status, widowed parent with kids, adoptive single parent, grandparents raising grandchildren, stepmother with stepkids–all equally or more distant from the proposed ideal) are legally protected?
Michael
P.S. The emotions of compassion that I feel for some same-sex couples are not blinding me to reason; they accompany my reasoning that same-sex relations are not morally different or different in their effect on the community from hetero ones, and that therefore the state should not differentiate. I think the state’s fallback position should be neutral, reflecting the freedom of individual choice and conscience. Those are my premises. That’s my reasoning.
30 Lynne // Apr 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Michael,
Oh dear gawd! I had a much shorter post in mind (major surprise!), but I’m wholly unable to carry it off. Sorry. Someday very soon I will achieve an appropriate level – like maybe the day when you don’t respond and my words will be cut to zero.
Now it’s my turn to detect a note of irritation in your response, perhaps (?). My comments on feeling vs. reason are (only in part) an answer to the first paragraph of your April 7 post. I contend with people (in theory via the larger public debate) who are quick to hint that my ‘frame of reference’ is founded on feelings and emotions which gently require redirection and correction, while theirs, grounded in reason and science, is supported without question. Neither is anywhere near the truth. As you can imagine, it can be a bit frustrating, especially when I see evidence that just the opposite is true. I know you’ve already addressed it – so my turn to apologize for a bitchy tone.
On to a more basic statement of premises and a response to the questions you posed to me.
But before I go there, I think you jumped ahead a bit before I have heard your response to a couple questions I posed. Perhaps your frustration with me caused a rapid exit toward your own questions and final premise. Or perhaps you are merely avoiding those questions. If you are willing, I ask you again, based on your statement below…
…â€I’m not sure I understand why it would be a morally different issue if sexuality emerged after birth or early childhood–I think the assumption is that it emerges due to factors other than personal choice, beyond the child’s controlâ€.
Is there then an opening which, if followed to it’s logical conclusion, COULD, though perhaps not exclusively, indicate that homosexuality, through little if any fault of their own, is something that ‘happens’ to a child. And not because of positive, wonderful experiences which lead to an alternate and lovely sexual expression, but rather it would be due to unpleasant experiences or misdirected, abusive treatments by parents and other adults? They are shamed, coerced or abused into their homosexuality, before they are shamed because of it. I have only quite recently realized that shame can be so intensely experienced by a very young child and as a result of even a single incident of seemingly harmless joviality perpetrated on them by an otherwise loving, excellent parent. How much more could a psyche become derailed and perverted by the time experience reaches the other end of the bell curve where extremely serious and abusive incidents are multiplied day in and day out, year after year during those formative years?
And my second question to you was this: if there is such a pathology (deviance, aberration), even in a portion of homosexual individuals, is there then room to approach it as such, giving rise to various alternative therapies – if only for a very small, inquisitive and willing minority?
I would be very interested to know how you would answer those two questions, Michael if care to. (1) Is there, in your opinion, a plausibility that there could be a deviation from norm due to underlying psychological reasons for at least some homosexual individuals and (2) would you say that in that instance, a restorative (or reformative) therapy might be a worthy avenue for interested, willing participants?
I can’t remember ever being in a discussion like this that allows a back and forth between two people who are not speaking directly (or heatedly) to each other. It does allow an orderly progression of thought and premise. All I know to do is to answer your questions and ask questions in return. I’m learning from this discourse and being challenged in many ways and for me, that is enough to continue a bit longer if you’re willing. I would only ask (if I am even allowed to ask this) that you give some response to my questions as well because when you don’t, it colors the discussion by forcing me into a kind of ‘defense only’ mode, if you understand my meaning.
I’m also willing to share my email address with you (via Mark) if you or he prefers we take the discussion elsewhere. Otherwise, I am content to remain here, or to be scooted away if Mark decides that is the better option.
Did you even make it this far? Agh!
Sincerely,
Lynne
31 Lynne // Apr 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Michael,
To answer your questions to me:
(1) I believe the elevation of heterosexual couplings to an ideal status is at the very least born out in the observance of nature and biology (including but not limited to procreation of species, masculine/feminine dichotomy of physiology, roles and characteristics, maturation and socialization, personal health, hygiene and longevity). In other words it is proved out by and large in science itself.
There is another, more personal and spiritual reason, but it is necessary and desirable to maintain a distance from this argument. Hence, other than in my initial statement on April 5th which included ‘deeply held spiritual beliefs and adherence to biblical doctrine’ into my total frame of reference alongside reason, research, personal conviction, experience, observation…blah blah, you will not have heard me refer to spiritual arguments again in these discussions. I’m just fueling my premise a bit here. And I would do that because I believe the spiritual aspects are some of the most essential fuel of all because they focus on the incredible worth of all individuals and the redemptive hope for our health and happiness rather than a severe examination of our psyches. But I know that is not a commonly held belief, and it isn’t necessary nor is it recommended to go there in this portion of the debate. If opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be sustained without spiritual referencing, though extremely difficult for many people, in our current democracy and when the time comes, it should probably be abandoned or relegated to a dignified, respectful civil protest by a ‘remaining still small voice’.
(2) How is same-sex (union) pathological? I’m not entirely comfortable with many of the words I am using to reference homosexuality and I am still searching for adequate, acceptable, non-threatening, non-insulting ways to (imho) define or describe it’s characteristics and origins. I am finding that most of the phrasing which sounds reasonable to me, touches me and rings true, is found among those who have struggled with and are moving toward overcoming or have overcome their homosexual identities.
Webster’s defines pathology as “something abnormal: the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular diseaseâ€. Webster’s defines aberrant as: “straying from the right or normal way: deviating from the usual or natural type: atypicalâ€.
Why then would it be necessary or even desirable (in your opinion, and IF you believed what I am saying and I realize you do not), to sanction marriages based on such pathological or aberrant fixations or expressions? I hope you can see where I am coming from. If I believe it to be pathological, deviant, or aberrant (which I do and I know you do not), how then and why would I be in favor of seeing it further promoted in any form, most especially by the legal sanction of marriage? Maybe it just boils down to the fact that you think and embrace a certain set of facts and valuations and I think and embrace another. And for me, I have been in both camps and now believe truth rests, by and large, in this other foundation.
(3) “Why is the homosexual variation of family formation the one the law singles out as
unsupportable when other variations (separated couple retaining legal marital status, widowed parent with kids, adoptive single parent, grandparents raising grandchildren, stepmother with stepkids–all equally or more distant from the proposed ideal) are legally protected?â€
I could be wrong here, but I’m seeing apples and oranges. Those other formations are not seeking sanction through marriage. The law is beginning to give support through various committed couples laws is it not? I don’t believe there should be ‘no government support’ for homosexual family formations and the raising of their children, but I guess I would differ as to the extent of those rights.
******************
Does all my protest at the prospect of celebrating homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage mean that it cannot be expressed both in public and private and enjoyed and acted upon by two consenting adults? Not at all, though I would elsewhere and under different circumstances, argue that it should not be acted upon, but I have no authority over anyone, nor do I seek it, nor am I compelling anyone to adhere to heterosexual behaviors. However that also doesn’t mean that it requires a class of rights, which would promote and sanction it. It doesn’t make sense to me that because a certain segment of our society is unable to carry out the natural expression of sexuality by the enjoyment of heterosexual intercourse and love relationships they should be given the right to marry each other instead.
And then you have to factor in your premise that…â€I think the state’s fallback position should be neutral, reflecting the freedom of individual choice and conscienceâ€. Can you see where that might lead – back to your ever-evolving parade of marital formations? As preposterous as it may sound now, with the introduction of government sanctioned homosexual marriages, could that not invite an ever growing list of groups (some of whom are already gathering at the door) who are insistent that their love relationships are also valid, normal expressions requiring governmental protection? You wouldn’t want to close the door of the newfound freedoms of homosexuals to the groups coming up behind them would you – not when your basis for opening that door is “freedom and individual choice and conscienceâ€? But I would want to close that door, before even it is opened – another reason I am finding myself in the crosshairs of this debate.
Sincerely,
Lynne
p.s. I hate that it takes this long to formulate my thinking and respond. Maybe I talk too much, but the depth to which this discussion has progressed almost invites this kind of dissertation, do you think? Again, I apologize for the dreadful length of my comments and I will improve myself in this respect.
p.s.s. premise..eee gads..I almost forgot…
Rather than some alternate, additional normalcy, I believe homosexuality is anything but that. It is tragically too different from both the ideal and the norm (and not in a good way) and indicates a deviation with far reaching consequences for both individuals and society. A person’s true identity, I would argue, becomes masked or lost in their exhausting struggle for relief and their intense need to be known and loved for who they are – a base and universal need which I firmly believe is grounded and answered elsewhere. And I realize this is bass-ackwards from current popular thought and may sound offensive and patronizing to both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
32 Michael // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:24 am
Dear Lynne:
Well, you don’t shy away. But sometimes you don’t really answer the question.
1. The argument from nature depends on what you’re trying to prove:
–re: “procreation of species” : if you believe that the possibility of producing children is the lynchpin, the trump card that makes heterosexual marriages a special category that should get special legal rights, then– logically–special marriage privileges should not be extended to couples who choose not to have children, or can’t, or are beyond childbearing age and have no such potential. These would be pairings that fall from the ideal you’ve offered. (And, after all, a fertile woman married to a woman may be able to become pregnant; an infertile woman married to a man can’t–which should the law prefer?) In short, if your argument is that we should prioritize marriages that can produce children ( a defensible position, I suppose), that is not the same thing as categorically prioritizing all heterosexual marriages. Marriage is, strictly speaking, not defined by producing children.
–to be clear: it is entirely appropriate for the government to extend relevant rights to parents raising children, but that can be done without consideration of the gender of those parents–it’s the childrearing that’s the issue. The extension of such rights to all parents will affirm the heterosexual majority but still protect other families as well, a point you acknowledge, at least in part, later
–”masculine/feminine dichotomy of physiology” is inarguable–but what does that prove? It is possible to pair emotionally with opposite sex partners–but some prefer same-sex partners. Physiology doesn’t dictate heterosexuality–and that’s the whole issue here.
–”masculine/feminine . . . roles and characteristics” vary from person to person and culture to culture; they are not essential, and we are better and more capable of individual happiness as we sort those out for ourselves and overcome the tendency to generalize
–I don’t know what you mean by “masculine/feminine dichotomy of . . . maturation and socialization, personal health, hygiene, and longevity”.
A second point about the argument from nature: a minority of animals, especially mammals, display homosexual pairings. It’s a part of nature, and in that sense, natural: it is only human thinking that derogates such a natural variation. Nature is inclusive.
I think that beneath your reasoning on this point is not an argument from nature, but from the assumption that the Creator intended us and our bodies for heterosexual pairing, and that the law should agree with God. But you understand that it’s not the business of the law to make that religious assumption–don’t you? And what if God intended to make gay people?
2. You state that you are uncomfortable with your use of the term pathology, and of course I understand searching for the right word, but as you search for new terms, you remain pejorative: aberrant, deviant. What about different? What about variant? As I hope is clear, I was asking why the homosexual variation is, in your mind, morally inferior, which the term pathological (or aberrant, or deviant) implies. That’s the question you haven’t answered. Lynne, difference does not in itself imply inferiority. Let me repeat that: logically, variation from the majority doesn’t in itself imply moral inferiority. Why do you assume it? Where do you see the actual inferiority? (To say that “difference from the majority means aberration which means moral inferiority” is a tautology–it’s circular reasoning and doesn’t stand up logically. Why is homosexuality bad–except for the fact that it isn’t heterosexuality?) For the record, my former church taught me that marriage was sacred because it was God’s school for us in unselfishness: if so, then I know many gay relationships that are no less morally beautiful than those of women with men.
Your phrase “a deviation with far-reaching consequences for both individuals and society” makes me think that you are again asking that religious assumptions become law, the far-reaching consequences being damnation for the individual and God’s disapproval for the nation. I respect your right to believe, but–again!–it’s not the job of the law to cohere to one religious faith or another. A different rationale is required, and I don’t see it.
3. In the case of my third question, to clarify, I was only putting forward the fact that some variants on the heteronormative family pattern don’t rouse the your moral sensitivities the way gay variants do–again, I was just asking why.
I suppose I should ask which marriage rights you don’t want gay couples to have. Is it really just the term marriage we’re talking about here?
To pick up on a few of your later points:
Do equal rights “promote and sanction” alternative relationships, or simply recognize them as a human reality? I think that beneath your statement here is the assumption that gay people will be less likely to undertake gay relationships if there is no public acceptance–and you have admitted that you do wish gays would refrain from the sex and relationships they find natural and meaningful but you find unnatural, despite the fact that they’re naturally occurring. I think these relationships will exist whether or not legally sanctioned: but legal sanction may make these relationships happier and healthier.
As a kind of conclusion you offer that “It doesn’t make sense to me that because a certain segment of our society is unable to carry out the natural expression of sexuality by the enjoyment of heterosexual intercourse and love relationships they should be given the right to marry each other instead.” Well, it doesn’t make sense to me that our fellow-citizens for whom the natural expression of sexual desire and love is to their own sex should not be able to marry when everyone else can.
Heterosexuals will still be the majority. There will still be lots of babies. What will be lost?
As for other forms of relationships that may (speculatively) sue for legal sanction, I think adult freedom and consent matter a lot, but to enfranchise one variant is not to enfranchise all: marriage changed legally when it became illegal for husbands to rape their wives, and when interracial couples were enfranchised, and when different states set different minimum ages for consent. None of it got us to anything-goes chaos. We don’t give up the freedom to make moral distinctions simply by rethinking one position.
Do I sound impatient? I guess I am–I keep thinking you’re repeating yourself and ultimately asking for respect for religious assumptions–which I can give up to a point, provided that that respect doesn’t extend to supporting or creating laws founded only in those religious assumptions. And when the logic doesn’t hold up without those assumptions, where are you?
Michael
Leave a Comment