David Blankenhorn and I have had a useful exchange. In his last posting he questioned my argument that judging homosexual acts wrong isn’t akin to the racist view that skin color makes someone inferior:
I’m sure that Rusty Reno knows as well as anyone that almost no gay people (certainly no openly gay people, or at least none that I can think of) would accept the premise that being black-skinned is fixed whereas being gay is not — i.e., that being gay can be properly understood, as Reno suggests, as simply the choice to commit certain acts. Reno can defend this position, of course, if that’s his position (and of course it’s a position that many have argued), but in my view in 2012 he can’t simply (with legitimacy) assume it, as if it were an uncontested fact, rather than what the whole fuss is all about.
Blankenhorn is right. That’s what the fuss is all about. We tend to assume that sexual expression is a normal and perhaps necessary part of being a healthy person. Thus, if you have homosexual desires, then it’s altogether unreasonable, and indeed unjust, for me to say that you should not have homosexual sex. (Here I want to be very clear that I’m talking about moral judgments—me saying “that’s wrong”—not legal ones.)
I want to explain why this view of sexual identity cannot serve as a reason to think people like me are “anti-gay.”
There are many heterosexuals engaged in loveless marriages, or who are wed to people so injured that they can’t have sex. Why, then, shouldn’t they have a “right” to adultery? And what about someone who has difficulty convincing someone to marry him, perhaps because he is ugly, or because he’s reprobate? Doesn’t he have a “right” to fornication? Or for that matter a “right” to masturbation? What about a Catholic who is divorced, and thus can’t remarry? Doesn’t she have a “right” to sexual relations? Isn’t the Church oppressing her as well? (There are in fact quite a few Catholics who a very bitter about the Church’s equal opportunity judgmentalism when it comes to marriage, divorce, and cohabitation.)
And what about the guy who, well, likes making it with more than one girl? Or the girl who only too soon finds her partners sexually boring and unsatisfying. Aren’t they entitled to the sort of sexual expression that suits them?
In these and many other cases, the Catholic Church (and every other religion) stands in the way of progressive claims about sexual identity. In fact, regulating sexual expression–often with a great deal more ferocity that anything proposed or even imagined by people like me—has been one of the main functions of religion and morality, often with painful consequences for those whose life circumstances (circumstances often tied to their own genetic make-up or the social upbringing over which they had no control) make it hard for them to have a “healthy sex life,” to use our modern turn of phrase.
Thus, there’s nothing invidious or discriminatory about the way I treat homosexuality, and it won’t do for advocates of gay rights advocates to say so. They need to be more forthright about their commitment to sexual freedom, as many gay activists are. By their way of thinking, people should be free to express their sexual identities (short of coercion and abuse), full-stop. That’s why it’s the blurry LGBT spectrum that’s at issue, of which marriage is only a dimension.
The debate about gay marriage is about sex and human identity, not homosexuality. Or, more accurately, it’s about homosexuality because it’s about sex and human identity. The progressive claim that we have a right to sexual expression is why they regard contraceptives and abortion as essential rights. It’s also one reason why our society is deeply committed to no-fault divorce.
Social conservatives like me don’t have a single view about how to respond to these contemporary realities. We don’t have a single view about how to grapple with the social reality of open and affirmed homosexuality in our society. But I think it’s fair to say that we all reject the progressive presumption that to have sexual desires creates a prima facie moral right to express them.
That said, claims about discrimination do have currency if one limits oneself to the law and civil society rather than moral philosophy or the teachings of the Catholic Church (and other religious traditions). It is invidious and discriminatory to accord heterosexuals plenary rights of sexual expression, and then to turn around and deny them to homosexuals. To a great degree that’s what our society did in the first wave of the sexual revolution. And so now we’re well into the second wave (if that doesn’t mangle the metaphor). But my point stands: a moral conservative like me regrets both waves.
November 27th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
It is misguided to try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that homosexuals could just as well have chosen not to be attracted to people of the same sex.
However, just because a person didn’t choose an attraction doesn’t make it morally permissible. It’s possible that pedophiles and rapists don’t choose their attractions either, and most heterosexuals have attractions they have to suppress as well.
So “I was born that way,” even if true, is irrelevant.
The question that begs answering is how to construct an over-arching theory of human sexuality that makes sense to modern people. The “primary purpose” stuff failed, and JPII’s “theology of the body” is failing.
IMO they both fail for the same reason. Modern people want practical reasons, not a bunch of abstract theorizing.
November 27th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
Thus, there’s nothing invidious or discriminatory about the way I treat homosexuality, and it won’t do for advocates of gay rights advocates to say so.
Maybe there’s nothing invidious or discriminatory as long as you confine yourself to Catholic thought, and Catholic thought is true.
David Blankenhorn noted:
From your point of view, you do not seek to deprive gay people of any rights, because any form of homosexual sexual behavior at all is behavior “to which no one has any conceivable right” (to quote the CDF). And that includes two gay people who share an apartment and are in the most discrete, caring, selfless, mutually supportive relationship possible. That is still behavior “to which no one has any conceivable right,” and also behavior that disqualifies those people, in the judgment of the Catholic Church, from having any laws on the books that would protect them from losing their apartment should their relationship be discovered, or losing some jobs (teacher, coach) or serving in the military.
You feel you do not discriminate against gay people, because you are merely judging them the same way you would judge perpetrators of incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. How could any gay person possibly complain that was unfair?
It is easy to claim not to engage in “unjust discrimination” when you are the one who gets to define what “unjust” is.
I think there is a good parallel between being anti-gay now and being anti-Semitic a hundred or more years ago. For Catholics, believing what they believed, who could accuse them of treating Jews unjustly when (according to Thomas Aquinas) “the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude”?
The people in the South David Blankenorn described would not have considered themselves prejudiced, and neither would Thomas Aquinas.
The two questions are, first, how can you be absolutely sure you are right when it comes to the immorality of homosexuality, and second, even if you are right, how can you be sure your views should be imposed on civil society? To a certain extent, after all, Christians were right about Jews. They did reject Jesus historically, and they deny he is the Messiah today, and they are still the same “threat” to Christian belief as they were five hundred years ago when, for the good of Christianity, they were confined to ghettos.
One thing that worries me, by the way, and I think should worry anyone who cares about young people, is no matter how grave a moral evil you believe homosexual acts are, how do you discuss the issue of homosexuality in such a way that your own children, or other children who hear the discussion, won’t hate themselves when they reach the age of 12 or 13 and realize they are gay (or, if you wish, have deep seated homosexual tendencies)? I read what some people write here, and I think to myself, “If that person had a young teenager who realized he or she was gay, and they saw what their mother or father wrote about gay people, who would the kid go to for guidance?”
November 27th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
Crowhill: It is misguided to try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that homosexuals could just as well have chosen not to be attracted to people of the same sex.
However, just because a person didn’t choose an attraction doesn’t make it morally permissible. It’s possible that pedophiles and rapists don’t choose their attractions either, and most heterosexuals have attractions they have to suppress as well.
=========
It is misguided to argue that because people may have unchosen dynamics in their minds – whatever the type of dysfunctionality – that they have no choice about what to do in respect to these dynamics in an effort to resolve them.
The majority of people with a homosexual problem today does not want to take responsibility for investigating what has caused them to have homosexual dynamics and much less do they want to resolve their underlying psychological dysfunctions.
Their ideology is one that promotes total lack of responsibility or accountability regarding their homosexual problem.
“It is invidious and discriminatory to accord heterosexuals plenary rights of sexual expression, and then to turn around and deny them to homosexuals.”
Given that no one is born a homosexual, and homosexuals who resolve their homosexuality problem, live their lives the way they were meant to be – as heterosexuals – it is certainly not invidious.
The same is true for a pedophile. They aren’t born that way. They may not choose some of the dynamics in their minds, but they certainly make profound choices not only about their behavior, but what actions they take regarding their pedophilia problem.
They can go either in the direction of enhancing and further legitimizing their mental perversions or to seek to treat them. If they consciously choose to legitimize and rationalize their pedophile dynamics, thoughts, and ideology, these are all choices which will impact the more base kind of pedophilic desires they have – which they may claim they “have no choice over.” Thus, for the majority of individuals, and with the exception of the most disturbed and mentally ill ones – which homosexuals claim they aren’t – there is a whole arena of choices to be made about how to deal with their sexual and psychological issues.
These choices can and do impact in myriads of ways the kinds of desires people have.
Lastly, hopefully “modern” society will one day address the euphemism that exists with the term “attraction” – which sounds particularly benign – and does not really encompass a multitude of perverse and perverted desires that are found in the minds of millions of people, including homosexuals.
November 27th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
“Modern people want practical reasons, not a bunch of abstract theorizing.”
The current practice is thoroughly impractical – rampant divorce, broken homes, and deadbeat dads – and yet this seems to be what “makes sense” to most moderns.
OK – no one wants “a bunch of abstract theorizing” but you said yourself that we do need an “over-arching theory.” I don’t see any viable candidates besides the ones you already mentioned.
November 27th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
David: One thing that worries me, by the way, and I think should worry anyone who cares about young people, is no matter how grave a moral evil you believe homosexual acts are, how do you discuss the issue of homosexuality in such a way that your own children, or other children who hear the discussion, won’t hate themselves when they reach the age of 12 or 13 and realize they are gay (or, if you wish, have deep seated homosexual tendencies)?
The same way you would discuss any issue with them – by explaining they have developed a problem and they need to investigate and to resolve it. No one will hate themselves because of such a discussion.
And such a discussion will hopefully prevent the teenager from going to talk to homosexuals like “Elmo” – who espouse the ideology that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality – and will gladly exploit/sexually abuse the kid.
November 27th, 2012 | 3:34 pm
Heather:
“Given that no one is born a homosexual”
_Can_ we take that as given? If anything, evidence suggests that differences associated with sexual orientation are present at a very early age and presumably are in-born.
November 27th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Whenever someone makes an argument that they are not anti-gay (or anti-Semite or anti-Catholic), I wonder what is meant by the term. What would an honest-to-goodness anti-gay attitude be? Does anyone aside from self-caricatures like Fred Phelps actually qualify as anti-gay, or are we just distancing ourselves from straw figures?
Dr. Reno insists that there is nothing discriminatory in the way he treats homosexuality. I can perhaps see how, from the perspective of his particular moral system, he is not especially or exclusively disapproving of homosexual expression any more or less than he is of heterosexual expression outside of a narrow bandwidth of celibacy or monogamy.
But what’s on the table in the SSM debate is not sexual expression per se but whether or not a democratic state should recognize the unions of same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. Given the energy and volume poured into opposing SSM initiatives and not into, say, reforming divorce laws or forbidding remarriages, it is difficult for outsiders to see Dr. Reno’s fine distinction between moral opposition to sexual openness in general versus legal opposition to particular people and families specifically. It does not help that much of this energy (not all, but a lot) comes from groups and people utterly open about their special and specific hatred of homosexuality.
In other words, if people like Dr. Reno were actually anti-gay and not merely morally commited to a particular normative sexual model, how would their political rhetoric and strategies be any different than they are now?
I’m not suggesting there is no difference. I’m suggesting that the difference does not communicate well to those who do not share Dr. Reno’s moral-philosophical preconceptions. Ditto for those who do not espouse Heather’s understanding of homosexual orientation as a psychological disorder.
November 27th, 2012 | 4:26 pm
“how do you discuss the issue of homosexuality in such a way that your own children. . .”
By starting with their humanity. By emphasizing their goodness as humans. Talk to choice, reason, the ability to make decisions. Teach them about emotions and how it is not good to let their emotions drive their choices. Teach them how to recognize the difference between emotions and rationality. Teach them about the limits all humans have. And teach them to live within good limits that they have chosen. In sum, teach them to be human.
Teach them also about their country, about religious liberty and why it is the first freedom in the Constitution. (Modify if you are not an American.) Teach them about their rights within the laws and their duties as well. Teach them that wanting something doesn’t make it a right that is owed them.
In sum, do nothing new. Follow ageless advice and they’ll be alright. They will struggle whether or not they have homosexual urges. They will fall and, if you are successful or they are just obstinate, they’ll get up again and try again.
Culture changes constantly. The good news is that more emphasis is placed on our shared humanity. The bad news is that license is confused with freedom. But, in the end, the effort is the same as it has always been.
November 27th, 2012 | 5:08 pm
@ David Nickol
“The two questions are, first, how can you be absolutely sure you are right when it comes to the immorality of homosexuality, and second, even if you are right, how can you be sure your views should be imposed on civil society?”
And here is yet another David Nickol argument growing from the twin thickets of relativism and neophilia, unwittingly reducing people to having a singular attribute of being “gay”, rather considering that some people experience a homosexual attraction, which may or may not be innate, durable, even immutable in a particular individual.
Let’s be blunt, you don’t discover at the age of 12 or 13 that you are “gay”. You may experience same sex attraction (and there are those than claim such attractions are inborn and experienced as early as they can rembember). One homosexual (he disliked the term “gay” as it implied a lack of moral restraint and effiminity) once told me that he always thought “lady parts” were completely disinteresting and “icky”.
I will therefore assert “Gay” is a social construction and accept not the same thing as homosexual, as David posited in another thread.
Sexual attractions at puberty are often disordered. We are confronted by a wave of chemicals that upset everything in our life.
I very distinctly remember being attracted to my buxom ninth grade English teacher, despite the fact that she was in my mother’s high school graduating class and a quarter of a century older than me. Although this remained my private secret for decades until semi-disclosed here, I know exactly how easily my morals could have been corrupted, ala “Mary Kay Lataerno”.
The reason I kept my attraction secret was that while unsought and uncontrollable (until the next year when a pretty blond classmate became my obsession), I knew it was unacceptable and unattainable, but I guarantee you I would have attempted to act on this attraction, if there was a sense it was permissable and I can imagine defending it as not something I could control.
I wonder how many children, in a society that is saturated with sexual imagery and messages, are being told that some transient pubescent attraction is innate and immutable and that therefore, they are “gay” and need to pursue same sex relationships, perhaps habituating the attraction and its physical expression.
On the other hand, David’s open-mindedness for “sexual freedom” (anarchy) has limits. He implicitly rejects incest, despite its acceptance in some (principally ancient, or for purposes of statecraft in hereditary monarchies) cultures, and pedophilia (despite the fact that pedophilia has been and is accepted in many cultures, even honored). I suppose if the “right” people (say an editor of Commonweal) embraced polygamy though, Mr.Nickol would be giving us an impassioned exhortation to rewrite civil codes, with the same reasoning.
I feel compelled to comment that it seems bizarre to suggest that you don’t attempt to convey moral clarity and disapproval to a child because they might have an inclination to a particular sin. I suppose that nobody should ever discuss stealing with a child, because they might shoplift, be afflicted with kleptomania or even decide to pursue grander theft as a career. Never of course should we should be wondering how the corpulent people feel when Michelle Obama starts projecting her Orthorexia nervosa in a rant against obesity.
How do we know homosexual behavior is wrong? Simple. We know that sexual behavior is principally designed for procreation-and same sex activity cannot produce children. Yes, as a society, our hedonism has produced a prevalant attitude that sex is designed for our pleasure, but it’s not-our pleasure is designed for the next generation-but that’s an objective analysis, one that Mr. Nickol rejects as arbitrary.
“It is easy to claim not to engage in “unjust discrimination” when you are the one who gets to define what “unjust” is.”
It’s also easy to claim anything as “unjust discrimination”, when you want to be free from any criticism or consequence of your behavioral choices.
November 27th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
Mike Melendez,
Thank you for your response, which is a good one. But it is not a response to the question I had in mind. I am not talking about how adults deal with their own children. I am talking about what they say about issues like homosexuality and same-sex marriage when their children aren’t listening. In another thread, someone provided a list of examples of wrongdoers and alleged wrongdoers that ended with, “The gay couple who stay sexually faithful to each other until death while raising children they adopted.” Another commenter characterized the gay couple and others as follows:
Imagine a 12- or 13-year-old son or daughter reading that characterization of a faithful gay couple. Imagine the kid believes he or she is gay. Do you really think a young adolescent is going to read something like that written by one of his or her parents and feel comfortable going to that parent and saying, “I think I’m gay”? Do you think young kids are going to believe that celebrities like Ellen DeGeneris “let their most dysfunctional instincts and desires control and dictate their lives”? It’s a description so extreme that I’m not sure I’d apply it to Hannibal Lecter!
November 27th, 2012 | 6:02 pm
Heather:“Given that no one is born a homosexual”
Randy McDonald_Can_ we take that as given? If anything, evidence suggests that differences associated with sexual orientation are present at a very early age and presumably are in-born.
============
I think people who believe that simply because a dynamics is present in a person’s head at an early age that it means that individual was born with that dynamics fail to understand that the human mind is something that is developed, shaped, and conditioned day by day by multiple experiences and impacts.
If a child displays racist attitudes from an early age, does it mean they were born racist?
If they display tendencies to torture animals from an early age, does it mean they were born sadistic?
What if they try to molest other children while young, does it mean they were born a molester?
In each of these cases, as well as for homosexuality, the answer is no, they weren’t born that way. But their minds and their psychological functioning gets deformed along their lives – and multiple signs are visible “from an early age.”
Ignoring all the experiences that are causing a child to develop dysfunctional dynamics in its mind is probably the worst and most irresponsible attitude society can have – I guess the only worse one is to proclaim that the child was born that way and completely abandon the child, leaving it no choice and offering no help in dealing with all the issues they are having – not to mention in many cases the harm they will do possibly as children or later as adults.
November 27th, 2012 | 6:18 pm
And here is yet another David Nickol argument growing from the twin thickets of relativism and neophilia . . .
Adam Baum,
I thought it was nihilism and neophilia.
. . .unwittingly reducing people to having a singular attribute of being “gay”
Actually, you have a point there, since I do prefer to see gay used to describe people with a homosexual orientation who embrace it. You are a “homosexual person” if all you have is a homosexual orientation. But you’re basically gay only if you say so. I do find it difficult to believe young people nowadays, however, would say to their parents, “Mom, Dad, I think I am a homosexual person.” I think they’d say gay.
I wonder how many children, in a society that is saturated with sexual imagery and messages, are being told that some transient pubescent attraction is innate and immutable and that therefore, they are “gay” and need to pursue same sex relationships, perhaps habituating the attraction and its physical expression.
Few to none, I would suppose. Young teens may experiment, but I really find it difficult to believe many are mistaken about the path they choose, especially heterosexuals choosing homosexuality. And I can say with a great deal of certainty that the number of adults who realize they have been mistaken about their sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual people who thought they were heterosexual. Parents have become a lot more tolerant than the were fifty years ago, but I think it is rare indeed for parents whose children think they may be attracted to others of the same gender to railroad the kids into being gay.
I suppose if the “right” people (say an editor of Commonweal) embraced polygamy though, Mr.Nickol would be giving us an impassioned exhortation to rewrite civil codes, with the same reasoning.
I am not quite sure how these insults make their way through moderation, but since they do, I’ll have to appeal to you to try to be more civil.
I feel compelled to comment that it seems bizarre to suggest that you don’t attempt to convey moral clarity and disapproval to a child because they might have an inclination to a particular sin.
I would never suggest that a parent who believes homosexuality is wrong should not convey that to his or her children. I am just asking that they think about how they do so in case one of their children turns out to be gay. Much the same would hold for parents who teach their young teenage daughters not to have premarital sex. I don’t mind at all that they give the message. I would just advise against saying, “No daughter of mine better ever come home pregnant or I’ll treat her like the slut she is and throw her out of the house.”
November 27th, 2012 | 10:04 pm
50 year old realizes he is “gay.” He is attracted to men more than his wife. So he gets a divorce. In 2004 Senator Kerry in a presidential debate spoke positively of such people abandoning the wife and kids they promised to be faithful to. (Look it up.)
50 year old realizes he has a sexual orientation toward 25-year-old women, and divorces his wife and takes up with the secretary.
Everyone knows the guy in the second paragraph is a creep. Are we now supposed to think the guy in the first is better? Sheesh, what this ridiculous 21st century thinking is leading to!
November 28th, 2012 | 12:46 am
Heather:
“If a child displays racist attitudes from an early age, does it mean they were born racist?”
Actually …
http://news.yahoo.com/9-month-olds-show-racial-bias-looking-faces-135132410.html
” Adults have more difficulty recognizing faces that belong to people of another race, and this deficit appears to start early.
New research indicates that by the time they are 9 months old, babies are better able to recognize faces and emotional expressions of people who belong to the group they interact with most, than they are those of people who belong to another race.
Babies don’t start out this way; younger infants appear equally able to tell people apart, regardless of race.
“These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed. It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate [the biases],” said study researcher Lisa Scott, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in a statement.”
Perhaps more to the point, why do you group non-harmful behaviours such as homosexuality alongside racism and various other forms of psychopathic misbehaviour? Insisting, implicitly, that homosexuality belongs to the latter category does not in itself constitute an argument.
November 28th, 2012 | 12:48 am
“I thought it was nihilism and neophilia.”
No,you erred. I said neophilia and relativism result in nihilism.
“may be attracted to others of the same gender”
Gender is a construction of language, sex is a biological fact. People are attracted to members of a sex, not pronouns.
“I am not quite sure how these insults make their way through moderation, but since they do, I’ll have to appeal to you to try to be more civil.”
You think that an observation that you have approving quoted Commonweal is an insult? Surely this is a contrived.
“No daughter of mine better ever come home pregnant or I’ll treat her like the slut she is and throw her out of the house.”
Injunctions consisting of the first nine words, perhaps along with the last seven, were for generations effective counterbalances to “I love you”, “you are so special” and the other usurious seductions of teenage romance. No, they didn’t stop every encounter, but they certainly dissuaded many. Since we stopped such fire and brimstone, the amount of young people squandering their innocence has skyrocketed. The youth don’t even use the pretense of “special” anymore. A relationship, even a transient one with the pretense of permanence isn’t even considered a precursor and a necessity-instead we have kids mating like animals. The empirical results are astounding. For the last year available, fully 2 in 5 births were to unmarried females (I think it’s laughable to call a 15 year old a woman). Sexually transmitted disease rates are skyrocketing. The evidence is that the new approach doesn’t work.
November 28th, 2012 | 2:05 am
I had a friend whose father raped him repeatedly as a child. When he reached puberty, to his horror he discovered that his attraction was for the same sex. It is generally acknowledged that homosexuals on average have a substantially higher likelihood of having been sexually abused as children. What are we to conclude from this? That something innate in those allegedly born “homosexual babies” triggers abuse at a higher rate? Isn’t that blaming the victim?
Proponents of gay marriage are so sure that they have the monopoly on love. To do this they have to utterly banish and outlaw cases of people who have struggled with and mastered homosexual impulses, in some cases developing attraction for the opposite sex. Part of this necessitates a rigid, absolute concept of homosexuality which for instance tends to make awareness that there are more ‘bisexuals’ than gay and lesbians combined vanish from consciousness for an average, led person. Therapies for teenagers struggling with same sex attraction become prime for outlawing, such as.being attempted in California. Presumably people like David Nickol would agree with the banning of these therapies and their advice would be if you think you might be homosexual in this way that we have defined for you, embrace it? This seems partly to involve assuming not only that homosexuality is innate and sexual being is rigid but that the substantially higher rates of suicide and substance abuse can be explained away by ‘minority stress’ and blamed on those who do not adopt the latest liberal Trojan horse of the sexual revolution. but are they compassionate who nurse a prejudice against such therapies for teenagers and who jump to a conclusion about the roots of homosexual sorrow being external, or are they tastelessly brazen with self encomium while pushing youth down a path of sorrow which Plato, maybe a some time practioner homosexuality, judging from the Seventh Letter, looked back on with perhaps sorrow and warning and for which he urged that youth be dissuaded from wherever possible. I for one think there is something primal and wise in part of this warning in The Laws.
November 28th, 2012 | 2:44 am
Perhaps our narcissistic age could adopt less self flattering perspectives on their somewhat one-sided, perhaps reactionary views of sexuality, or at least entertain a doubt. Perhaps instead of going from strength to strength, Progressing in equality so that, having defeated the evil of racism they are now bestride the evil of discrimination against sexual orientation, oh I mean, gays and lesbians to be specific (how could think of the others in that category, you beasts!)- perhaps instead of this moral superman flight, it is something more akin to how Martin Luther describes mankind: Like a drunkard on a donkey leaning too far in one directionand then leaning too far in the other.
November 28th, 2012 | 6:45 am
Heather: Current scientific research regarding human sexuality points to sexual orientation being innate. Brain scan research shows that straight men and gay men have different brain structures (they aren’t “wired” the same way). In other words, sexual orientation isn’t a choice. Birth order studies, identical twin studies, in utero hormone research, and virtually every reputable psychological and medical organization comes to the same conclusion. Your position that homosexuality is a mental illness hasn’t been a mainstream idea for 50 years. Why you’re still clinging to it is quite baffling.
You’re also comparing human sexuality to (harmful) behaviors. They aren’t the same thing. Tiger Woods’ sexual orientation wasn’t at issue when he had a dozen adulterous affairs. It would be silly for me to claim that all heterosexuals are inherently dysfunctional because of the behavior of one straight man. Homosexuality harms no one. (Bad behaviors do: not using a condom or sleeping around) Torturing animals or molesting children obviously does. As a gay man in his forties, whose been in a consensual relationship for 17 years (married for 4 years), comparing my life to someone who tortures animals is beyond offensive.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:17 am
Everyone knows the guy in the second paragraph is a creep. Are we now supposed to think the guy in the first is better? Sheesh, what this ridiculous 21st century thinking is leading to!
Sasha Sanchez,
It sounds like you have an eight-year-old complaint about the loosing candidate of the 2004 election. How is that relevant to this discussion?
From Wikipedia:
A man who divorced his wife to marry a much younger (and very rich) woman was deemed worthy enough to run for president in 2008. I think this tells us something about how Americans feel about divorce and remarriage.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:21 am
Adam Baum,
Thank you for that comment, it was a pleasure to read.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:43 am
David Nickol:
“Maybe there’s nothing invidious or discriminatory as long as you confine yourself to Catholic thought, and Catholic thought is true.”
OK, so people who accuse me of being invidious or discriminatory are correct only as long as they confine themselves to Reichian thought (as in Wilhelm Reich: the idea the sexual instincts are morally normative). Clerly the definition of anti-gay discrimination reflects a metaphysical view of what it means to be a human being. Why should I accepts that Reich’s metaphysical view is better than mine? And why should it be socially normative?
November 28th, 2012 | 7:45 am
In a recent sermon I spoke about how we might address “the other side” of the LBGT debate. As Robert Greenleaf observed, it’s important to be clear about what you oppose, but you cannot lead from a standpoint of what you are against. What the Church is for, in this debate, is having our identities given by and determined by Christ Jesus–we are all sons of God through faith in him. It is not, therefore, an option to form an identity around our desires (epithymia), particularly when our lustful desires are proscribed by the commandment and cautioned against by every New Testament writer. On the other hand, we are for an obedience that is more than natural, empowered through the Spririt of the living God. The Church has too long relied on conventional norms to be the actual driver and enforcer of Christian morality. In a post-Christian society, we need to be rooted again in Spiritual Reality. The Spirit will always be against the desires of the flesh (instincts, congenital factors, conditioned responses–and by the way, why isn’t imprinting a more studied possible cause of disordered sexual desires; I believe that exposure to pornography early in life “imprinted” me and set me up to experience certain fetish-like desires). So the Church is for people who struggle against sin, and in this instance, unwanted same sex desires. We all share the same struggle, like addicts whose only difference is drug of choice, knowing that entrusting ourselves to Christ and in obedience to his forgiveness, recovery from sin is possible (though it will not be complete in this life.) And thus the Church is for good boundaries, which sacramental churches keep at the altar, prohibiting the unrepentant and welcoming all who repent and believe the good news. Churches need to focus more on discipleship and demonstrate that transformation is possible through God’s Spirit. Finally, the distinction between two Kingdoms could allow us to compromise in the political sphere. But if we were to compromise and tolerate gay marriage in the civil sphere, all Christians would need protections so as not to be forced to participate against conscience, and we ought to at least win the concession of eliminating no-fault divorce and define marriage as a sexually exclusive, life-long union–even in the civil realm.
November 28th, 2012 | 8:23 am
[...] First Things, R. R. Reno continues the conversation with me and others on “Sex, Marriage, and Politics.” Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing [...]
November 28th, 2012 | 8:30 am
Blankenhorn is right. That’s what the fuss is all about. We tend to assume that sexual expression is a normal and perhaps necessary part of being a healthy person. Thus, if you have homosexual desires, then it’s altogether unreasonable, and indeed unjust, for me to say that you should not have homosexual sex.
I think there’s a more fundamental problem here. Everyone understands that limits must be places on acting out sexual desires. Even the most free loving, libertine type of person recognizes that they won’t get everything they want. There will be people they desire but who do not desire them, for example, Circumstances make some sex acts unworkable (i.e. you might be ‘in the mood’ when you’re walking into work but even if you have a willing partner you can’t ‘get it on’ in the lobby!). So while people will disagree with you on what the limits should be, it’s not really a debate that there’s limits between our sexual desires and sexual activities.
But there is this very real idea that seems to be pushed by some on the right that homosexuals simply do not really exist. These are just creations of the media or people who somehow ‘misunderstand’ their sexual desires or who just have some type of mental problem that could be treated if only the media would get out of the way.
This is very strange because people do seem to get that heterosexuality is part of our identity. If your daughter said to you that she wanted to go on an overnight sleepover with a group of friends of both genders unsupervised by any adults you knew or trusted, you’d worry. Likewise if a husband told his wife that he has to go on a business trip next week and to save money the company asked him to share a hotel room with his female coworker, I suspect the wife would not be very keen on the idea.
Why? If we are to buy the line you guys are trying to sell us we don’t have sexual identity. We simply make choices about sex. Why should the father worry? Why should the wife worry? Why not simply tell them to choose not to do anything sexual the way she tells him not to eat anything on the way home because she cooked a big dinner?
This would almost be insulting to both the daughter and husband. The husband is a man, his wife should worry about him spending a night in a hotel room with a woman. Sexual desire for women is part of his identity. To pretend it’s not is to also pretend he isn’t quite a full man. While that doesn’t absolve him of moral considerations in his actions, to pretend that these are nothing more than mere choices is insulting to human dignity.
It’s totally possible to argue that a person may have NO outlet for their sexual desires. In some of the examples you cited, we might agree this is the case. For example, a man in a committed marriage to a woman who cannot have sex because she is injured. To honor his committment he may simply have to deal with the fact that there will not be an sexual activity he can undertake to align with his sexual desires. But those who take that view do not disparage him for the desire. They offer sympathy but assert that while they understand the road they are saying he must travel is very hard, it would be immoral for him to deviate from it.
This, though, is not the typical Christian right response to gays. What seeps through most of the responses is something along the lines of “Your existence irks what our worldview says reality should be. We find it rather rude that you insist on continuing to exist in ‘our faces’. Is it really too much to ask that you either stop existing or at least pretend like you don’t exist so we can go back to being comfortable?” Of course that’s not usually said directly in so many words, but I think you can’t honestly disagree with me that it lurks between the lines much more often than it should.
November 28th, 2012 | 9:26 am
That’s an awfully confident statement – “the answer is no”.
I grant that ‘born racist’ is strong, though people do show different tendencies toward xenophobia. As to molesting other children, that seems to be more a consequence of early sexual abuse than any inborn tendency. As to sadism and violence, there’s certainly evidence supporting the idea that this is genetically influenced.
Of course, we wish to limit all three of these phenomena – racism, sadism, and molestation. Why? Because of the harm they do, of course. Inevitable harm, in fact. Someone born with musical genius doesn’t call for much in the way of regulation, by contrast. Even someone fascinated by fire can become a firefighter or arson investigator rather than an arsonist.
So, is homosexuality inevitably harmful? That’s a trifle harder to establish than for sadism, racism, and molestation.
November 28th, 2012 | 10:32 am
Indeed, sadism, racism or molestation pose a direct threat to me. (Well molestation did when I was a child and would pose a threat to family members who are children) .
In those cases the statement about “I’d rather you not exist” could fairly apply. Homosexuals, though, do not pose any direct threat to me. In theory I suppose I could be subject to an unwanted advance from a gay man, but then I could also be subject to an unwanted advance from a straight woman. Not that I consider either to be a big danger but in itself that’s about it. That’s not sufficient for me to fairly deem an entire class of people a threat or problem.
November 28th, 2012 | 11:17 am
Boonton, while it is true that homosexuality does not pose a direct threat to you (or me) — except for that disturbing scene in the new Bond film! Why the heck did they have to do that? …. Anyway, the question we have to ask is what kind of a theory of sexual morality justifies homosexuality, and where will that theory lead us?
November 28th, 2012 | 11:36 am
The interesting question—and much more relevant than whether people are born racists or sadists or molesters—is whether people are “born heterosexual.”
November 28th, 2012 | 12:04 pm
Anyway, the question we have to ask is what kind of a theory of sexual morality justifies homosexuality, and where will that theory lead us?
Crowhill,
I am not sure any theory can justify heterosexuality or homosexuality. They are givens. And I think we have to ask ourselves how successful the theories of sexuality have been that prohibit all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage (and, for Catholics at least, a great deal of sexual activity within heterosexual marriage). I am not going out on a limb to say that most heterosexuals do not adhere to sexual morality. Some are very concerned that homosexual acts are sex outside of marriage. And yet we know even 80%+ of young Evangelicals engage in premarital sex. We know that 90%+ of sexually active Catholics (including married couples) use artificial contraception.
Maybe there is something wrong with conventional sexual morality if so many heterosexuals don’t abide by it. Or perhaps it is just not being taught effectively.
I do think, though, that “perverted faculty” arguments (sex was not “designed” to be used in most of the ways it can be used) and “it-says-in-the-Bible” arguments don’t seem to be very persuasive. To repeat something I wrote on Catholic Moral Theology some time ago, it seems to me that Catholic sexual morality begins with a “technical” approach to sexuality. If something is wrong, it is because it violates “natural law.” I think ethical arguments for most people are convincing when the focus on what good or harm is done by behaviors. But in Catholic morality (as frequently presented), the good or harm to other human beings as the result of various behaviors is quite secondary. I remember reading something Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia that the Church needs to frame sexual morality more in terms of offenses against fellow human beings rather than offenses against God. That makes sense to me.
November 28th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
I think ethical arguments for most people are convincing when the focus on what good or harm is done by behaviors.
Yes, I think there is something to taking a consequentialist approach in some cases.
November 28th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
A cursory examination of typical newborn anatomy answers that no doubt interesting question very quickly. The cases of people born equipped for intercourse with the same sex are at best rare.
November 28th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
Some of the comments point to church teachings as part of the problem. It goes deeper than that. The Bible. both testaments define homosexual acts as sinful. Jesus reminds his people of what happened to Sodom.
As a faithful Catholic I believe homosexual acts can endanger the salvation of those who partake in them. When it is someone I care about it becomes a serious concern and a challenge as to how to respond. I cannot judge a persons culpability for an act but I can judge the act as sinful. Does compassion for the person call for me to ignore what I deem to be the ultimate tragedy, the loss of a soul.
November 28th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
Crowhill
Anyway, the question we have to ask is what kind of a theory of sexual morality justifies homosexuality, and where will that theory lead us?
Agreed but is that where we are starting this debate from? It seems to me the stance by some is that homosexuals should despise their very existence. This is not asked of heterosexuals. A man or woman is asked to refrain, say, from premarital sex but not to despise the fact that they are inclined towards sex with attractive people of the opposite sex. To ask someone to reject the value of their own existence is a non-starter here.
Keep in mind some early Christian thinkers were consistent on this. They despised all sexuality, even heterosexuality was horrible and keeping it inside of marriage was not good in the sense that was preferrable….it was good in the sense its good to put toxic waste in a well lined and engineered dump rather than pouring it into a stream is good! While a few still do hold to an ideal of all sexuality being a problem, most have accomodated it in their religion.
pentamom
A cursory examination of typical newborn anatomy answers that no doubt interesting question very quickly. The cases of people born equipped for intercourse with the same sex are at best rare.
This is a very shallow view of human sexuality, reducing it all to mere ‘plumbing’.
November 28th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
A remarkable change in the public perception occurred in the 19th century.
Traditionally, sodomy had been regarded as a sin and, specifically, as a sin against religion. It is no coincidence that the three crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished by the same resolution, passed, without a debate, by the National Constituent Assembly on 25 September 1791 – Deorum iniuria diis cura [Injuries to the gods are the gods’ business]
Michel Foucault has, rather drolly described the change that took place in the public perception:
“Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality… It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [My translation]
From being a sinful action to be repented, or a vice to be overcome, “homosexuality” became a condition to be treated. Now, of course, it is an identity to be validated.
It is worth noting that some modern philosophers (of which Foucauld is one) believe that, even in the physical sciences, The objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted
November 28th, 2012 | 1:04 pm
“I think people who believe that simply because a dynamics is present in a person’s head at an early age that it means that individual was born with that dynamics fail to understand that the human mind is something that is developed, shaped, and conditioned day by day by multiple experiences and impacts.”
Randy McDonald: “Perhaps more to the point, why do you group non-harmful behaviours such as homosexuality alongside racism and various other forms of psychopathic misbehaviour? ”
Whatever harm is related to any of these behaviors is irrelevant.
I was pointing out that your contention is baseless. Merely because a child can exhibit many particular dynamics at an early age, it does not mean that child was born with any of those dynamics in its brain.
All of the examples I gave, including homosexuality, are not inborn.
I believe you are particularly mistaken as to what constitutes homosexuality, how it is developed, and what myriad cultural and personal experience factors will produce it – all of which happens after a person is born, not before.
“Insisting, implicitly, that homosexuality belongs to the latter category does not in itself constitute an argument.”
Insisting, implicitly, that homosexuality is not dysfunctional does not in itself constitute an argument.
============
David in Houston wrote:
Current scientific research regarding human sexuality points to sexual orientation being innate. Brain scan research shows that straight men and gay men have different brain structures (they aren’t “wired” the same way). In other words, sexual orientation isn’t a choice.
=========
There isn’t a single one of these studies that hasn’t been debunked. None have been reproduced with success. Not a single one. They do not constitute scientific research, if one considers science a method of investigation that must include rigor as well as logical and provable explanations to phenomena.
I believe that a large part of everyone’s sexuality is based on choices.
Furthermore, what I have observed in every human being I have interacted so far is that how you think influences what desires you have – and not only regarding sexuality. You did not have the thoughts you have in your mind today as an infant. They are not inborn – and yet they impact a person’s desires, attractions, perversions…
I have also observed that culture conditions people in ways that they are not aware of consciously – but this impacts many of their most profound desires as well. I have also seen how formative relational experiences, including parent-child ones in childhood, also impact attraction/desire later in life. Lastly, it’s underlying dysfunctional psychological dynamics that produce perverse and perverted sexual desires in people. No baby is born with such dynamics in their minds. They are developed afterwards.
I would venture that most people who believe that homosexuality is inborn couldn’t tell anyone what dynamics they have in their own unconscious and how they impact and determine their desires, much less could they ever figure out what happens in the depth of the unconscious of someone else’s mind.
Given this lack of knowledge, your explanation then must resort to the most primitive concept of some kind of biological or genetic determination to explain sexuality, simply because you display no understanding of the complexity of the human mind regarding its psychological development throughout an individual’s life (and that includes any type of degeneration concerning sexuality and personal relationships).
November 28th, 2012 | 1:07 pm
Y’know, pentamom, I’ve brought up the issue of the bonobo chimps a few times here, but no one’s ever addressed it. In their tribes, bisexuality is apparently universal, and sexual activity forms an important role in social regulation.
We sweat to regulate our temperature, right? Except it’s also a way to get rid of wastes (sometimes a very important way in the case of kidney failure) and a way to distribute pheromones.
What if, like with bonobos, sexuality in humans might have purposes beyond reproduction? Is that at least conceivable?
November 28th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
David in Houston: Your position that homosexuality is a mental illness hasn’t been a mainstream idea for 50 years. Why you’re still clinging to it is quite baffling.
Do you actually know what the term “mental illness” refers to? Could you please tell me what the definition is?
November 28th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
There is so much obfuscation in this debate. Consider the following statement #1, which neither David Blankenhorn nor Rusty Reno would disagree:
Now consider statement #2, with which I assume both David Blankenhorn and Rusty Reno WOULD disagree in part because they agree with statement #1 above:
Is it right or wrong? The one thing you can’t do is disagree with the statement above and then at the same time advocate the redefinition of marriage.
All the rest about what’s “anti-gay,” and what behaviors should be honored or discouraged, etc. seems to me like so much more obfuscation.
November 28th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
pentamom: A cursory examination of typical newborn anatomy answers that no doubt interesting question very quickly. The cases of people born equipped for intercourse with the same sex are at best rare.
Boonton: This is a very shallow view of human sexuality, reducing it all to mere ‘plumbing’.
Just like the very shallow concept of “sexual orientation” – which reduces sexuality a sort of “benign attraction” that is supposed to dictate everything else in a person’s mind regarding the sphere of sexuality. 99.99% of what constitutes human sexuality is thrown in the trash can just with this framing alone.
November 28th, 2012 | 1:41 pm
Douglas,
I would disagree that marriage ‘came into being’ because men and women reproduce sexually.
Many animals, even higher mammels, reproduce sexually with male and female mating without anything that looks remotely like an animal version of marriage.
A more sensible statement, IMO, would be to say that marriage came into being because humans are highly social animals and marriage is a highly efficient social arrangement.
Why is it highly efficient? Because it balances the human need for social interaction against the fact that relationships become geometrically more complicated as you add more people.
November 28th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
A cursory examination of typical newborn anatomy answers that no doubt interesting question very quickly. The cases of people born equipped for intercourse with the same sex are at best rare.
pentamom,
By your implied criteria, everyone—not just an infant—with male or female sex organs is heterosexual.
The reason why I used quotes around “born heterosexual” is because it makes little sense to say people are born either heterosexual or homosexual (or, say, born tall). The question is rather whether the sexual orientation that develops at puberty was predetermined biologically from before birth or learned (or a combination of the two).
It would seem to me that if heterosexuality can be predetermined, so can homosexuality, unless we buy the theory that everyone is heterosexual, and some people have “a homosexual problem”—something that appears to be inconsistent with the current thinking of medical science. Of course, there is a conspiracy theory that posits that psychiatrists and psychologists don’t actually believe what they say but are just trying to be “politically correct.”
November 28th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
I just want to highlight the following passage by Boonton without further comment. I hope I’m not violating First Things civility guidelines by doing so:
November 28th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
Okay, if I’m going to highlight Boonton’s passage it’s only fair that I highlight Ray Ingles’ passage as well:
November 28th, 2012 | 2:11 pm
David: The reason why I used quotes around “born heterosexual” is because it makes little sense to say people are born either heterosexual or homosexual (or, say, born tall).
It makes perfect sense to say people are born heterosexual because it is true. Therefore, given that people are born heterosexual, what doesn’t make sense is to say they are born homosexual. A baby isn’t born an adult, so they cannot display an adult mind, an adult sexuality, but every single baby is born heterosexual.
“The question is rather whether the sexual orientation that develops at puberty was predetermined biologically from before birth or learned (or a combination of the two).”
Given that learning is only one of a significant number of activities and experiences that a human being can have, and by definition, it excludes some of the most important ones that shape or deform a person’s psychology regarding sexuality, your binary framing (“either it’s genetically determined or it’s learned”) doesn’t correspond to the complex reality that human beings experience.
There a many more types of experiences and impacts to a person’s mind that cannot be called “learning,” yet they profoundly impact the psychological development of one’s sexual dynamics – and which produce results that were never genetically determined or were inborn.
November 28th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
Marriage came into existence because men and women reproduce sexually.
Douglas Johnson,
I don’t want to offer a definitive theory as to why marriage came into being, but it seems to me that one theory is not merely that men and women reproduce sexually, but unlike other mammals, human beings don’t have an estrus cycle. This results in pair bonding and sexual jealousy which are common to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. That, I think, is one reason that it is reasonable to consider same-sex marriage. Even though homosexuals don’t reproduce the way heterosexuals do, they feel sexual attraction, fall in love, and bond in much the same way heterosexuals do. Homosexuals, then, might be thought of in much the same way as infertile heterosexuals. Heterosexuals and homosexuals both relate very similarly to people of the gender to which they are oriented. This aspect of sexuality is more fundamental and human even than sexual orientation. This is, of course, why gay people want to get married. Because the idea of getting married and living “happily ever after,” taught to us all by our culture, has the same or similar appeal to both gay and straight people. There are, of course, differences between male-male, male-female, and female-female couples, but in terms of emotional attachment, they are basically the same.
November 28th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
Heather,
Love your comments, but…
Instead of writing “David in Houston:” and then pasting in what he says, could you instead write “David in Houston writes:”?
That way we know that you are quoting his words rather than responding to him with your own words. I was a bit confused!
November 28th, 2012 | 2:47 pm
Do you actually know what the term “mental illness” refers to? Could you please tell me what the definition is?
This is the definition of a mental disorder (not mental illness) from the DSM IV. It is undoubtedly undergoing change in DSM V (due May 2013), but this will serve for the moment.
Any definition of mental disorder (like the definition of other abstractions such as marriage and art and justice) can never be complete and “objective.” However, that doesn’t mean there is no useful and generally accepted definition. Grief, for example, is not a mental disorder. Unusually prolonged grief is a mental disorder, but no one can specify an exact period of time after which normal grief becomes pathological grief.
November 28th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
Heather wrote: Do you actually know what the term “mental illness” refers to? Could you please tell me what the definition is?
David Nickol wrote: This is the definition of a mental disorder (not mental illness)
=========
And what exactly is mental illness? The term does exist, you know – David in Houston made use of it in this very forum.
November 28th, 2012 | 3:23 pm
David Nickol writes:
David Nickol, Ray Ingles, and Boonton have each grounded their arguments for redefining marriage by equating, contrasting or comparing human beings to animals. I encourage them to continue on this line of argument, although I find it thoroughly irrational and maybe a little nuts.
He goes on:
A homosexual couple can’t reproduce. This is why homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with a relationship that only exists because it takes a man and a woman to create new life.
He continues:
Fine. Again, read my statement #1 above. Then answer the question in statement #2. This is so much unnecessary confusion.
November 28th, 2012 | 3:30 pm
There a many more types of experiences and impacts to a person’s mind that cannot be called “learning,” yet they profoundly impact the psychological development of one’s sexual dynamics – and which produce results that were never genetically determined or were inborn.
Heather,
Please do some research on innate versus learned behavior. It is a very basic concept which you don’t seem to grasp or even recognize. You seem to have your own personal definition of learned. Some believe that a human person begins as a “blank slate” and that all behavior is learned. This does not mean (necessarily) that it is taught to the learner, but it is learned through interaction with the outside world.
November 28th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
It is not “mere” plumbing (though I’m not sure what motivated one to describe the wonderfully created sexual aspects of the human body with such implied derogation) but neither is it separable from “plumbing” — unless you wasn’t to claim that sexuality is not inherently physical in nature.
November 28th, 2012 | 5:12 pm
Everyone is phyiscally heterosexual, since the word “sexual” refers to a means of reproduction that, in the human species, can only occur when different (hetero) sexes are involved. Those aspects of sexuality that involve will and desire are not present in newborns, hence all humans are in fact “born heterosexual” since only the physical aspect is present at birth.
November 28th, 2012 | 5:18 pm
Sorry, that’s “unless you want to claim…. “
November 28th, 2012 | 6:01 pm
I encourage them to continue on this line of argument, although I find it thoroughly irrational and maybe a little nuts.
Douglas Johnson,
Then perhaps you aren’t taking the time to think about what is being said before you send a dismissive response.
My point is that it is not merely that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. The nature of sexual attraction and receptivity in human beings, as opposed to other mammals that reproduce sexually, is that it is continuous rather than occurring once or twice a year. The relationship between husband and wife would be very different if the husband approached the wife for sex, and she said, “Don’t be ridiculous. It’s not autumn yet,” or “We just had sex six months ago!” A sexual relationship between a man and a woman is a continuous, ongoing kind of attraction. It doesn’t have to wait for a woman to be receptive. It seems a reasonable conjecture that if women were sexually receptive only once or twice a year, marriage might not have developed.
So I am speculating that is not that humans reproduce sexually that accounts for marriage. It is the nature of sexual attraction between humans that is at least one of the factors why marriage came into being, and and also one of the reasons gay people want to marry, despite the fact that they cannot reproduce.
Even though homosexuals don’t reproduce the way heterosexuals do
The intended meaning was, “Even though homosexuals don’t reproduce, as homosexuals do.” If I had said, “Even though humans don’t grow leaves the way trees do,” would you have taken my meaning to be that humans do grow leaves, just not the way trees do?
November 28th, 2012 | 6:26 pm
Everyone is phyiscally heterosexual, since the word “sexual” refers to a means of reproduction that, in the human species, can only occur when different (hetero) sexes are involved. Those aspects of sexuality that involve will and desire are not present in newborns, hence all humans are in fact “born heterosexual” since only the physical aspect is present at birth.
pentamom,
The words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t even come into use with their current meanings until the 1880s. Heterosexual with its present meaning didn’t even make it into Webster’s Unabridged dictionary until the 1930s. The word (adjectival form) is defined as “the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of the opposite sex.” It makes no sense in the English language to say that “everyone is phyiscally heterosexual.” Heterosexual and homosexual are about desire. You can’t be physically heterosexual or physically homosexual. Desire isn’t physical.
Those aspects of sexuality that involve will and desire are not present in newborns, hence all humans are in fact “born heterosexual” since only the physical aspect is present at birth.
But factors that determine or predispose toward one sexual orientation or another might well be present at birth or even conception. I rather doubt that there are “gay genes,” but nobody knows if there are or there aren’t. It really makes no sense to say humans are born heterosexual or homosexual, any more than it makes sense to say they are born tall. But they can be born with the genetic make-up to be tall when they mature.
November 28th, 2012 | 7:19 pm
unless you want to claim that sexuality is not inherently physical in nature
The question would be whether sexual orientation is physical in nature. If it is, how could “conversion therapy” change it?
From the New York Times:
November 28th, 2012 | 11:14 pm
David in Houston wrote: “Current scientific research regarding human sexuality points to sexual orientation being innate. Brain scan research shows that straight men and gay men have different brain structures (they aren’t “wired” the same way). In other words, sexual orientation isn’t a choice. Birth order studies, identical twin studies, in utero hormone research, and virtually every reputable psychological and medical organization comes to the same conclusion. Your position that homosexuality is a mental illness hasn’t been a mainstream idea for 50 years. Why you’re still clinging to it is quite baffling.”
I have been wondering about this claim of and on today after reading this. The claim regarding brain scans showing the innateness of homosexuality seems to me to be contrived. That gay and straight men have different brain patterns is not surprising at all. We already know they are different from external observation. Their brains are being asked to form markedly different tasks. To take this as stand alone proof of the innateness of homosexuality seems to me rather over extended, shouldn’t you say? It also seems to me to possibly rely on an older view of the brain that does not acknowledge the marvelous plasticity of the brain and its adaptability, which has been a signal change in modern brain research. Take a snapshot of brain activity and are you taking a snapshot of one’s fate, one’s inevitable history since childhood and inevitable course in the future. Probably the answer lies in between- like an iceberg with water, freezing and melting but some things remaining the same. Anyway, I am skeptical of the scientific merits of such a claim and urging bandwagon consensus rather than cogent reasons ought not to do any tricks.
November 28th, 2012 | 11:43 pm
Limiting the understanding of sexuality to “sexual orientation” is doing just what Mr. Blankenhorn objects to — assuming that something is an uncontested fact rather than what the whole fuss is about.
I tend to think that sexuality is the word that describes all aspects of a person’s sexual nature, behavior, and desires, of which orientation is only a subset. At any rate, you’re still positing that newborns have a sexual orientation, which if true, could only be heterosexual since the physical is the only aspect of sexuality present in a newborn. No newborn sexually desires anyone of either sex, therefore to speak of a sexual orientation beyond the simple fact that physically, humans can only mate heterosexually, is quite the dubious proposition.
To say a person is “born homosexual,” even if it is true that sexual orientation is fixed and irrevocable, is rather like saying that someone with a strong predisposition to diabetes is “born diabetic.” It isn’t accurate if the person isn’t actually experiencing any aspects (including psychological ones) of the condition at the time of birth. This is equally true of heterosexuality, unless we broaden the concept from “orientation,” to the sum of all sexual aspects of the person.
Either every person is born heterosexual, or with no sexual orientation at all. I tend to prefer the latter, as I just don’t think “sexual orientation” is a category properly applied to newborns.
November 29th, 2012 | 12:24 am
David Nickol writes:
He also writes to Heather:
And to Sasha:
I don’t want to discourage you because I’ve really come to kind of love these salutations of yours!
As it is though, yes, I got your point the first time through. The reason I encourage you to keep up the argument is because watching you try to deny the self-evident is a little like watching a Chinese contortionist act: painful, absurd, and yet terribly entertaining all at the same time.
The assertion is that marriage only exists because men and women reproduce sexually. I could have imagined a few responses you might have for that, but I would certainly not have guessed you’d actually attempt to deny it and come up with an alternative rationale for the origin of marriage that makes room for the sexual identities of the 21st century! I mean…good stuff! It reminds me of this passage from Douglas Farrow’s Nation of Bastards:
To anyone else following along, this is what I mean by obfuscation in my “two statements” comment earlier. What does anti-gay have to do with marriage? Read the two statements again…what does gay have to do with marriage? The answer, of course, is nothing, which is why diversionary tactics become so essential to those who want to redefine marriage. In this thread alone we’ve waded into the weeds of so many extraneous topics ranging from whether or not Rusty Reno is anti-gay to the mating habits of the bonobo chimps! Don’t take the bait. Keep your eyes on the ball.
November 29th, 2012 | 1:01 am
-James V. Schall, S.J.
from the foreward to Leisure: The Basis of Culture by Josef Pieper
November 29th, 2012 | 1:20 am
My husband and I, being aware of the mischievous possible sexual variations with which some individuals are born, discussed how we would handle a child who was born hermaphrodite, amongst other variations.
Imagine our near-boredom when the only challenges we’ve faced are heart defects, autism, and depressive anxiety in our children.
We were so ready to handle a discussion about sexual orientation. But instead we have the opportunity to place flowers on gravestones; affirm for the millionth time that, yes, Kirby is really awesome, isn’t he; and rock children to peace when they experience irrational panic.
As for whether little babies are sexual beings, I have reason to know that little infants are perfectly capable of focusing on stimulating nerve-rich body parts to embarrassing lengths. It makes a mother have chances for ingenuity she never imagined would be required, to keep an infant barely old enough to sit upright from, er, stimulating nerve-rich body parts to embarrassing lengths.
November 29th, 2012 | 6:51 am
David wrote: “The question is rather whether the SEXUAL ORIENTATION that develops at puberty was predetermined biologically from before birth or LEARNED (or a combination of the two).”
Heather wrote: “There a many more types of experiences and impacts to a person’s mind that cannot be called “learning,” yet they profoundly impact the psychological development of one’s sexual dynamics – and which produce results that were never genetically determined or were inborn.”
David wrote: “Please do some research on innate versus learned BEHAVIOR. It is a very basic concept which you don’t seem to grasp or even recognize.”
So are you now claiming that “sexual orientation” is a behavior? I’ve never seen that definition before and I think you are quite wrong to define “sexual orientation” as a behavior.
“Homosexuality” includes any type of homosexual behavior (including every violent, perverted, depraved kind), but “sexual orientation” does not.
I was responding to your statement that “sexual orientation” – according to you, a behavior – is learned. Perhaps you failed to grasp my point. I hope you will be able to do so now.
Could I recommend that you do some research on the term “sexual orientation?” You might find that except for your personal definition above, it is not normally used to mean “behavior.”
“This does not mean (necessarily) that it (behavior) is taught to the learner, but it is LEARNED through interaction with the outside world.”
If it is not necessarily an interaction of the teaching kind, what other the types of interaction are you referring to?
And by your statement above, there is only one type of dynamics that is possible in a person’s mind: learning. Yet, you completely fail to define what “learning” exactly means or to prove that learning is the only dynamics that is possible in a person’s mind.
I also noticed that for all your “innate/learned research,” you took yourself out of your claim and said: “Some” believe… Is this because you yourself have very little knowledge on the subject to make a statement regarding what you believe?
Obviously if only “some” believe, another group of “some” do not believe the same thing.
November 29th, 2012 | 7:12 am
David Alexandar
The claim regarding brain scans showing the innateness of homosexuality seems to me to be contrived. That gay and straight men have different brain patterns is not surprising at all. We already know they are different from external observation. Their brains are being asked to form markedly different tasks. To take this as stand alone proof of the innateness of homosexuality seems to me rather over extended, shouldn’t you say?
I agree, that alone isn’t proof of innateness. I don’t think there’s proof of innateness yet, but some pieces of evidence strongly point towards it IMO:
1. Different brain structures does imply innateness. Brain structure doesn’t change easily….just ‘thinking happy thoughts’ say won’t alter your brain structure. Changes in personality that follow brain structure changes (such as an injury) seem unalterable.
2. As a heterosexual, I think most others will agree that heterosexuality seems innate. While I clearly recognize a man’s taste in women is driven by culture, experience etc. It just seems like it would be nearly impossible to ‘switch to gay’.
3. We have the testimony of homosexuals who tell us the experience of being homosexual is comparable.
4. Not for lack of trying, there’s yet to be any common ‘non innate’ factor common among homosexuals. Various theories like the overbearing mom, distant dad have not panned out. Could be wrong but I do think there’s been a high correlation between identical twins raised in different households, which is usually a sure sign of some type of innate genetic influence.
Granted none of this is proof but I think it’s strong evidence that points towards innateness (which is NOT the same as saying there’s a ‘gay gene’ or ‘gay DNA’).
Pentamom
I tend to think that sexuality is the word that describes all aspects of a person’s sexual nature, behavior, and desires, of which orientation is only a subset. At any rate, you’re still positing that newborns have a sexual orientation, which if true, could only be heterosexual since the physical is the only aspect of sexuality present in a newborn. No newborn sexually desires anyone of either sex, therefore to speak of a sexual orientation beyond the simple fact that physically, humans can only mate heterosexually, is quite the dubious proposition.
The brain is a sex organ just as much as the genitals. While babies have undeveloped genitals, they can neither mate nor reproduce so just ‘observing the plumbing’ cannot IMO lead us to say babies are ‘born heterosexual’. Since we cannot observe a babies brain structure, the most we can say is that we don’t know. Sexual orientation may be present in newborns or it may not.
To say a person is “born homosexual,” even if it is true that sexual orientation is fixed and irrevocable, is rather like saying that someone with a strong predisposition to diabetes is “born diabetic.”
Well we don’t really know. We know that some people are literally born diabetic. Other people may be born more or less ‘preset’ to become diabetic in the future. Others yet may be born with traits that may them at risk for diabetes but whether they get it or not will depend on their environment.
But contrast this to mental retardation. I don’t believe it’s possible to observe it in newborns but it becomes apparent after they have started developing. But retardation caused by genetic conditions, fetal alcohol syndrome and malnutrition during pregnancy does in fact mean a baby is born ‘with mental retardation’ even if it can’t be immediately observed. Other causes like exposure to lead or delayed medical care for things like whooping cough early on in life can mean you can have a baby that was not born with mental retardation but developed it afterwards. In both cases, though, we would say it’s innate in the sense that it can’t be changed with some special type of therapy or learning later on in life.
Question on comment moderation? How exactly does it work? Sometimes I feel like my comments don’t post….or they post long after the discussion has moved onto other points. If the moderators don’t like a comment do they email the author on what their objection is?
November 29th, 2012 | 7:22 am
David quoted: Gay “conversion therapy,” which claims to help men overcome unwanted same-sex attractions but has been widely attacked as unscientific and harmful, is facing its first tests in the courtroom.
In New Jersey on Tuesday, four gay men who tried the therapy…
==========
It’s ridiculous to refer to a thing called “gay conversion therapy” and “the” therapy. This is media sensationalism and yellow journalism.
There is no one type of therapy. You will find as many types of therapies (regarding homosexuality or any other problem) as there are therapists.
Nicolosi, for example, has seen hundreds of male clients with a homosexual problem, he has documented a significant part of his experience and work, and, as far as I know, never had anyone strip in front of him.
But the media never focuses on any of his work or on any other therapist that is advancing our knowledge of which factors produce a homosexual problem in a person’s psychological make-up, nor how to help them solve it.
The APA wants to enforce absolute ignorance about the subject of why people develop a homosexuality problem for all professionals, a horrendous and particularly unethical position.
November 29th, 2012 | 7:42 am
David wrote: But factors that determine or predispose toward one sexual orientation or another might well be present at birth or even conception. I rather doubt that there are “gay genes,” but nobody knows if there are or there aren’t.
=============
And nobody has yet found a gene that determines that blondes or blacks will have a lesser IQ when adults, but following the same logic, there could well be one.
After all, just because we haven’t found one yet, it doesn’t it’s not hiding there somewhere…
November 29th, 2012 | 7:43 am
correction:
After all, just because we haven’t found one yet, it doesn’t MEAN it’s not hiding there somewhere…
November 29th, 2012 | 7:51 am
Douglas wrote: Love your comments, but…
Instead of writing “David in Houston:” and then pasting in what he says, could you instead write “David in Houston writes:”?
That way we know that you are quoting his words rather than responding to him with your own words. I was a bit confused!
===========
Sorry! I didn’t realize it until you mentioned it. I looked again at my later comments and saw that it got confusing.
I am really enjoying your comments too.
November 29th, 2012 | 8:12 am
Over at the American Conservative, Dreher notes that “‘Homophobia’ No Longer Exists”
… in the Associated Press Stylebook, anyway. An AP official explains:
”Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark. It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.”
========
Then Dreher makes a note of what the particularly obnoxious and lame Andrew Sullivan has said about it:
” I don’t like the word (homophobia) myself. There’s a smugness to it that doesn’t sit well with me. And it also implies that a religious or moral position against homosexuality is inherently irrational. It may be highly rational in the context of wanting to maintain a social hierarchy, or a coherent theocracy. I also think that a lot of anti-gay feeling is fear-driven, but it is also contempt-driven. Why not replace homophobia with fear and hatred of gay people. Orwell would approve, I suspect.”
======
As we can observe, Sullivan proposes to move on from some implied mental illness (phobia) to ascribing social conservatives with a Hitler-like characterization of evil (fear, hatred, and contempt) – progress!
This is the way Sullivan lives his “Catholic” (cough) faith: By engaging in the ugliest kind of smears of social conservatives.
Yes, Orwell would approve – he would not have hesitated one second to put Sullivan as Napoleon the pig (of the Gays Farm).
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/homophobia-no-longer-exists/
Anyways, I am surprised that the AP, although not particularly politicized in terms of the promotion of a homosexual agenda, but filled with journalists who embrace liberal politics, has had the intelligence to acknowledge the term homophobia is “loaded” and therefore inappropriate for journalism.
A very unexpected but always nice surprise.
November 29th, 2012 | 8:12 am
I really should have included the first two paragraphs with the James V. Schall quote. Let me try one more time:
That seems to me a passage worth committing to memory and weighing against everything you read and hear in this debate.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:04 am
Ray Ingles writes: “I’ve brought up the issue of the bonobo chimps a few times here, but no one’s ever addressed it. In their tribes, bisexuality is apparently universal, and sexual activity forms an important role in social regulation.”
How do we know the behavior between bonobos is consensual?
November 29th, 2012 | 9:20 am
Douglas Johnson – I suppose I’m glad you noticed what I said, at least. Aristotle was OK with noting that humans had things in common with animals – indeed, he classified humans as “rational animals”. (I assume you’ve heard that phrase before? Possibly even on First Things?)
Now, can you explain in your own words why I thought that specific example was relevant?
November 29th, 2012 | 9:22 am
Boonton,
> It seems to me the stance by some is that
> homosexuals should despise their very
> existence.
I don’t mean to understate the prejudice that people with a homosexual orientation have experienced, or the difficulties they must endure.
However, I while I have always had a heterosexual orientation, I most definitely do not have, and have never had, a monogamous orientation. That is something that I choose for moral reasons.
I would consider it childish to describe that moral mandate as a call to “despise my very existence.”
I have great sympathy for people who try to combat a homosexual orientation, and I’m not trying to say that my efforts to be a faithful husband are equally difficult. I have no doubt that the homosexual who tries to live a chaste life has a much harder time of it.
But I think your language is a little overblown.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:26 am
It’s amazing to me that anyone would dispute the fact that the vast majority of humans are “born heterosexual,” and that if the person ends up with a homosexual orientation then *something has gone wrong.*
That doesn’t mean we should hate them or pick on them at school, but the idea that we should celebrate it and treat that “orientation” as equal is simply rubbish.
November 29th, 2012 | 10:07 am
Crowhill: Try applying your logic to people that are inherently left-handed. According to you, because they are a distinct minority that “had something go wrong”, they should be treated as inferior to everyone else.
By the way, no one is telling you to “celebrate” homosexuality. (I promise that I’m not going to force you to attend a gay pride parade.) In a secular society, you are required to tolerate people that are different than you, and treat them as equal members of society. I’m not sure why you feel that just because you happen to be heterosexual, that makes you superior to those that aren’t.
November 29th, 2012 | 10:57 am
I’d like to ask a question to proponents of redefining marriage here: Do you believe that the distinction throughout all of human history that marriage was between a man and a woman was arbitrary, inconsequential, and therefore ultimately it was synonymous with “two persons” all along?
I’d also like to offer some thoughts quoted from Douglas Farrow’s indispensable Nation of Bastards:
Consider also this footnote from p. 35:
November 29th, 2012 | 11:07 am
David in Houston writes:
I did not see where Crowhill said he was superior to anyone, but perhaps I missed one of his comments. Could you please paste where he said he was superior to people with same sex attraction?
As for the parade, you might not force Crowhill to attend a gay pride parade, but in various cities the government can and does not only force him to attend but he must actually march in gay pride parades if he’s a fireman. It’s march or be fired (at least in San Diego the firefighters won their lawsuit).
November 29th, 2012 | 11:24 am
Heather
There is no one type of therapy. You will find as many types of therapies (regarding homosexuality or any other problem) as there are therapists.
This statement is a strong indication that such therapy simply doesn’t work. Therapists are a bit like businesses. If something is discovered that seems to work, others will copy it and it will become quite common. If every therapist who is trying to ‘convert gays’ has ‘his own therapy’, that’s a good sign none of the therapies work.
November 29th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
Are homosexual acts wrongful? Yes; ALL sexual acts are wrongful. See I Corinthians 7:
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” (7.1)
“I wish that all were as I am [celibate].” (7.6)
“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” (7.8)
“[T]hose who marry will have affliction in regard to the flesh, and I would spare you that.” (7.28)
“[T]hose who have wives should be as though they had none.” (7.29)
“[H]e who marries his virgin does well, and he who does not marry her does better.” (7.38)
“[I]n my opinion [a widow] is happier if she remains as she is [and does not marry again].” (7.40)
I find no fault with people who pass judgment on practicing homosexuals; I just expect them to pass the same judgment on practicing heterosexuals.
November 29th, 2012 | 12:28 pm
>Crowhill: Try applying your logic to people that
>are inherently left-handed. According to you,
>because they are a distinct minority that “had
>something go wrong”, they should be treated
>as inferior to everyone else.
David, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Left-handedness has, AFAIK, no inherent link to fitness in a biological or evolutionary sense. Ability and desire to procreate are very clearly and directly related to fitness.
So, to be quite clear, sex and sexual desire is directed towards a goal — i.e., mating and the propagation of the species. “Something has gone wrong” if sex and sexual desire aren’t directed towards that goal.
November 29th, 2012 | 12:32 pm
Crowhill –
The vast majority of people are right handed. But some people end up left-handed. Has something gone wrong there? Or just taken a less-likely path? (Actually, it was long thought that women were ‘failed men’, that ‘naturally’ a fetus should be male, but about half the time the process ‘went wrong’ and a girl was born.)
I’m afraid the syllogism needs to be fleshed out just a bit more.
November 29th, 2012 | 1:22 pm
I have another question for the proponents of redefining marriage:
My side says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Your side says it’s the union of any two people. You know why I say marriage is the union of two people–a man and a woman–but why do you say marriage can only be two people (albeit two people of the same sex)?
Don’t worry, I’m not interested right now in the slippery slope argument about bigamy (although it’s a valid argument). I just want to know what traditional or cultural basis–exclusive of any basis in the conjugal nature of men and women–you use to establish that “gay marriage” SHOULD be confined to two persons.
November 29th, 2012 | 1:37 pm
Nobody.Really,
You are on the the First Things website, which is to say most of the people you directed your comment to likely know Corinthians like the back of their hand. It’d sort of be like Homer Simpson getting on the Fermi Lab blog and posting select quotes from Fineman about particle physics, and then believing he just got ‘em all with a real zinger.
November 29th, 2012 | 2:00 pm
Boonton: That’s why we know that ex-gay therapy is a sham. If it really worked, all those secretive ex-gay camps would be sharing their research with all the other ex-gay camps and churches; or at least you’d assume that they would do that if we are to take them at their word that they are trying to “cure” homosexuality (and not just bilk self-loathing gay people out of money).
Crowhill: What you are describing sounds like mechanical sex that the animal kingdom takes part in. Humans do not have sex for the sole purpose of repopulating the species; nor are married couples obligated to do so. Regardless if homosexuality is a biological oddity, that doesn’t justify discrimination aimed at that group of people. Just like it wouldn’t make sense to arbitrarily pass discriminatory laws against left-handed people, or those with natural red hair and freckles. A rational basis for discrimination would be proving that ALL gay people are a threat to society solely on the basis that they are attracted to people of the same gender. Good luck proving that.
Neither the state nor the government care if straight married couples EVER have children. There are no laws pertaining to matters of procreation and whether or not someone can marry. If the government (or any of the 50 states) were truly concerned about non-procreative couples “misusing” marriage, I’m pretty sure they’d be able to prevent those couples from getting married.
November 29th, 2012 | 2:11 pm
So, to be quite clear, sex and sexual desire is directed towards a goal — i.e., mating and the propagation of the species. “Something has gone wrong” if sex and sexual desire aren’t directed towards that goal.
Crowhill,
It is by no means essential to a species (or even “natural”) that every member of one gender sexually desire and mate with a member of the opposite sex. My favorite example is bees, in which only one female bee (the queen) reproduces, while all the other females are worker bees. And only a few of the thousands of male bees in a colony mate with the queen.
Look around the developed world and tell me you think it’s a problem for the human race that perhaps 4% are gay and don’t reproduce. There are any number of genetic and cultural scenarios in which the existence of a small percentage of gay people would not indicate that “something has gone wrong.”
Even if it is somehow discovered that a genetic mishap (such as occurs in Down syndrome) accounts for homosexuality, that still would not necessarily justify saying “something has gone wrong.” Evolution depends on something going randomly wrong (i.e., mutations). If there were some genetic mishap similar to Down syndrome that caused increased instead of decreased intelligence, it wouldn’t be a matter of something having gone wrong. It would be a stroke of good fortune.
November 29th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
Ray — you really can’t see the difference between same-sex vs. opposite sex attraction, on the one hand, and left- or right-handedness on the other?
If so, I don’t see much point in talking about sexual morality.
November 29th, 2012 | 2:50 pm
Crowhill
Left-handedness has, AFAIK, no inherent link to fitness in a biological or evolutionary sense. Ability and desire to procreate are very clearly and directly related to fitness.
Evolutionary fitness is irrelevant to one’s ethical life…even one’s individual life. All evolutionary fitness means is that a particular trait is passed down more often than others. What traits are more or less fit are little more than a guessing game. For all you know 100 years form now space aliens may visit earth and use a death beam to kill all right handed people. In that case being left-handed would be a very fit evolutionary trait.
But what does that have to do with you as an individual? If I told you 100 years from now you’d have dozens of left handed great and great great grandkids who are going to survive the alien attack….well that won’t make you any less dead.
So, to be quite clear, sex and sexual desire is directed towards a goal — i.e., mating and the propagation of the species. “Something has gone wrong” if sex and sexual desire aren’t directed towards that goal.
Why directed towards A goal? Why not directed towards multiple goals?
Douglas
My side says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Your side says it’s the union of any two people. You know why I say marriage is the union of two people–a man and a woman–but why do you say marriage can only be two people (albeit two people of the same sex)?
I developed this on another thread but I’m not sure if anyone noticed it. I’ll give you a brief answer…
1. Humans are social animals.
2. In the study of socialness, one extreme is civilization, which I like Niall Ferguson’s definition: civilization is the largest possible system(s) of human social interaction.
3. This implies the other extreme, the smallest possible type of human social interaction. Hence….
4. Marriage would be the closest possible union of humans where they still retain their status as individual humans.
It’s a Platonic Ideal definition. Marriage would mean people who are so close they couldn’t possibly get closer while still being distinct individuals.
I think the traditional view of marriage is actually well aligned with that. Assumptions are made in it, though:
* To be as close as possible, humans have to share sexual intimacy.
* Sexual attraction is necessary as a ‘spark’ to activate that level of closeness.
* The nature of sexual jealousy is such that to achieve Marriage, one must be exclusive….having ‘people on the side’ will distract
* The two different genders compliment each other in such a way as to make Marriage possible.
This means, of course, that many marriages are not Marriages just as many pictures of triangles and circles are not true triangles and circles. In fact there may be no actual Marriages in the real world, but we can say some are closer than others.
Hence I don’t think anything needs to be ‘redefined’. You can argue that two men or two women can never achieve Marriage. I have no idea if you’re right or wrong but I don’t deny anyone the right to try.
Why not three people? Well from a definitional view two is the smallest possible unit of human social interaction. I don’t begrudge an attempt by 3 people to attempt Marriage, though. But at least in terms of civil marriage we simply have no system for 3 or more person marriage hence unlike SSM there’s literally no legal institution for aspiring polygamists to demand access too.
November 29th, 2012 | 3:49 pm
David in Houston wrote: By the way, no one is telling you to “celebrate” homosexuality.
======
On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality. Not only that, many people who have expressed publicly their objections to homosexuality – because it is dysfunctional – have been vilified.
Your other question regarding superiority is a canard. Are you inferior, the same, or superior to Hitler? This is a shifty question because it does not explicit what is being compared.
If you have a dysfunctional mind, are you inferior to someone who has a wholesome mind? If you are ignorant and unethical, are you inferior to someone who is knowledgeable and ethical? If you have a sexually perverted mind, are you inferior to someone who does not?
These are not questions about the type of superiority that is promoted in racial superiority types of ideology, but a question of interior quality. People are not clones and therefore they cannot have the same quality in regard to every single of their aspects.
November 29th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
Ray — you really can’t see the difference between same-sex vs. opposite sex attraction, on the one hand, and left- or right-handedness on the other?
If so, I don’t see much point in talking about sexual morality.
Crowhill,
It’s not about the differences; it’s about the similarities!
Just because a relatively small number of people have a variant characteristic doesn’t mean “something went wrong” to cause it.
My aunt, like many people of her generation (she’d be about 90 now) was naturally left handed and was forced to write with her right hand because it wasn’t “normal” to be left handed.
November 29th, 2012 | 4:47 pm
Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality.
Heather,
Can you give us some examples? And are you willing to say no one ever lost a job or was denied a job because he or she advocated “normalizing” homosexuality?
November 29th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
David in Houston writes:
How could you possibly come to that conclusion? (Well, I know how…it’s inevitable if you subscribe to your philosophy.) The government encourages us to have children with tax credits, the Chinese government discourages women from having children with forced abortion, the Japanese & Russian governments are doing everything in their power to encourage married couples to have children because at their current pace those societies will cease to exist in about another century or so. There’s not a report on Medicare or Social Security that doesn’t fret about an insufficient birth rate. Were it not for the family and future generations, no government would even exist.
I had to go back and read your comment a couple times to see if I misread something. No, you make yourself clear. You even put it in all caps so that your meaning would be unmistakable.
November 29th, 2012 | 6:49 pm
On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality.
How many jobs require you to comment on your views of homosexuality? Political pundit? Director of a Gay Rights group?
November 29th, 2012 | 9:01 pm
The other problem with ‘views about normaliing homosexuality’…..the default setting for humans is ‘normal’. If 4% of any given population is homosexual then that’s no different than saying 4% of the population is red haired with freckles. The burden is on those who advocate abnormality to make their case, not on anyone to prove they or others ar enormal.
November 30th, 2012 | 1:50 am
Heather: “On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality.”
Boonton: “How many jobs require you to comment on your views of homosexuality? Political pundit? Director of a Gay Rights group?”
Education, counseling, medical, human resources, public policy, government, military, non-profit, etc.
Furthermore, we can assume from your comment that if one should freely express views that question your homosexuality agenda, they should be persecuted from their jobs; they are not entitled to speaking their views without being persecuted.
November 30th, 2012 | 3:24 am
David in Houston wrote, “If the government (or any of the 50 states) were truly concerned about non-procreative couples “misusing” marriage, I’m pretty sure they’d be able to prevent those couples from getting married.”
How, exactly? It may be a question of choice (which may change over time) or it may be the result of some physical condition. Some of these conditions may appear to be irremediable, whereas others are plainly not. Besides, some conditions that, in the past, were irremediable are now treatable and it would be a bold legislator who attempted to anticipate such advances.
By contrast, we know in advance that all same-sex couples are necessarily infertile.
Laws are designed for the general case.
November 30th, 2012 | 10:38 am
Heather
Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by by the state. When people are safe from force applied from above, they require no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level.
November 30th, 2012 | 10:49 am
Douglas Johnson: My comment wasn’t based on my philosophy. It’s based on reality. 100% of the heterosexual population has the right to marry — including those serving life-sentences for murder. All straight people can marry, regardless of their ability or intent to bear children. Married couples have never been required nor obligated to have children, and neither the state nor the government enforces such a requirement. That is reality, not opinion. Asserting that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation is simply false.
My straight friend Elle has been married for 20+ years. Their bevy of pets are their family, and they have no intention of ever having children. Are you going to inform them that they don’t have the right to be married? How about Rush Limbaugh? Married FOUR times, ZERO children. When you convince Rush to divorce (he doesn’t seem to support your definition of marriage), send me an email and I’ll inform the gay community that straight people are finally applying the same criteria to themselves that they’ve been using against gay citizens. Until that day, the fight for liberty and freedom for gay Americans continues…
Michael PS: How, exactly? Well, for starters, anyone past the age of childbearing should be banned from getting married. Pick an age: 55? 60? That’s as easy as discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. “We know in advance that all elderly couples are necessarily infertile.” It would also be in the best interest of children not to be raised by someone that ends up being 70 years old. “Won’t someone think of the children?”
If the state’s interest in marriage is solely procreation, then perhaps they should actually enforce that directive, don’t you think? If those getting married actually support that directive (which seems to be the opinion of those opposing same-sex marriage), they shouldn’t have an issue supplying the state with a birth certificate (within a reasonable time frame) that fulfills their procreative responsibility to the state and validates their ideology of what marriage means. Suffice to say, the government would never be that intrusive in the lives of straight citizens. Which makes one wonder why the same government should have the right to be that intrusive in the lives of gay citizens.
“Laws are designed for the general case.” Agreed. The general case should be 100% of the population. As I mentioned above, even (straight) mass-murderers have the right to marry. I’d be interested to hear how their marriages benefit society or fulfill the state’s procreative obligation to repopulate the species. This is simply a matter of liberty and freedom for all Americans.
November 30th, 2012 | 11:49 am
“Just because a relatively small number of people have a variant characteristic doesn’t mean “something went wrong” to cause it. ”
No, not just because, but plausibly in this case. Homosexuality renders a person sterile due to the perceived psychological inability (not merely choice, if it is true that homosexuality has no choice component) to have heterosexual sex. Sterility is something wrong, compared to the norm of the human body.
Left-handed and right-handed people can both write, pitch baseballs, and perform other tasks requiring a normal amount of manual dexterity. No function is defeated by using one hand rather than another — the prejudice in favor of right hands was based on an illusory view of the inferiority of the left hand, in a way that regarding homosexuality as a lack, is not.
One can argue that to be homosexuality is acceptable, but it’s very hard to call something that eliminates a natural function of the healthy human body (and is held to be an inherent condition rather than a behavioral choice), “normal.” Paralympians are on the whole fine people whose exploits are admirable, but it is an abuse of language to describe them as “normal.”
November 30th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
Michael PS writes:
I’m not sure if I understand you here, Michael PS. Does “force from above” include an employer or a potential employer? Or does an inability to make a living in your field fall under the category of “pressure from equals”?
Either way, as we can see just about everywhere marriage is debated, the stakes are much higher than allowing opinions to find their own level. R.R. Reno described the stakes in another FT post when he wrote:
I am also constantly reminded of this excerpt from Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. As you read this, simply replace “slavery” with “redefining marriage.” The parallel is apt as both are challenges to natural right. Is there any room to disagree with R. R. Reno’s words above? Or Lincoln’s words below?
November 30th, 2012 | 2:42 pm
Is David Blankenhorn getting around to defining his terms?
If so, then good. Perhaps now Blankenhorn will explain what he means by his phrase, “the equal dignity of homosexual love”.
The unexplained phrase has been presented as a moral assumption that, thusfar, lacks sound moral argumentation to back it up. In his present efforts, Blankenhorn appears to be rationalizing rather explaining his moral assumption. So he still owes an explaination that justifies his asserted moral assumption.
If it turns out to be an ad hoc explaination or a mere restatement (in effect) of the assumption, then, Blankenhorn is part of the problem he has just described regarding defining terms to suite a bias.
November 30th, 2012 | 3:17 pm
Michael PS
How, exactly? It may be a question of choice (which may change over time) or it may be the result of some physical condition. Some of these conditions may appear to be irremediable, whereas others are plainly not. Besides, some conditions that, in the past, were irremediable are now treatable and it would be a bold legislator who attempted to anticipate such advances.
Very easy:
1. No woman over 55 may get married.
2. No woman or man who has had a child taken from them on account of abuse or neglect may get married unless they are certified by social services that they can be fit parents and will be allowed to keep any new baby they might create.
3. No man with existing children may marry a woman other than the mother of his child(ren) if he is in arrears on child support. Nor may he get married if he has any pending charge of child abuse or molestation until the charge has been resolved.
If legal marriage is about procreation and the interests of children these would all be quite easy for gov’t to check before issuing a marriage license.
Douglas
I’m not sure if I understand you here, Michael PS. Does “force from above” include an employer or a potential employer? Or does an inability to make a living in your field fall under the category of “pressure from equals”?
Plenty of people make a living in their field without approving of homosexuality. Don’t confuse getting fired for acting like a jerk in the office because you can’t deal with people you disagree with or disapprove of with not being allowed to hold a view.
I am also constantly reminded of this excerpt from Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. As you read this, simply replace “slavery” with “redefining marriage.”….
It never fails, when conservatives can’t sustain their argument they pretend they are Lincoln fighting slavery.
December 1st, 2012 | 5:32 am
Douglas Johnson
By “force from above,” I mean physical duress of person or goods, applied by the public authorities.
I was distinguishing between the public sphere of the state and its administration and civil society and its organs.
December 1st, 2012 | 5:53 am
David in Houston
The Lex Pappia Poppaea fixed the limit of female fertility at 55, a limit that has been exceeded by 15 years in two 2008 cases from India through postmenopausal IVF treatment with oocytes donation . Are you suggesting we have reached the limit?
Moreover, as the state’s interest in marriage is not procreation but filiation – the establishment of the (juridical) paternal bond, marriage at any age can do so retrospectively, regardless of the ages of the parties. That is why the Civil Code facilitates death-bed marriages and, even, in exceptional circumstances, posthumous marriage. In the latter case, the Code expressly provides that the spouse cannot inherit, but their children may.
Besides which, opposite-sex couples can “make as if they have procreated,” to quote Mirkovic. That is In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact