Thank you, David, for your reply. Little these days surprises me, though some things in our culture do alarm me, as they do also you; and I am grateful for the way in which you have translated your alarm into positive action over these many years. Your response, however, surprises me a little, as it seems to miss the main point of my posting, and perhaps the secondary and tertiary points as well. Let me try again.
I have in fact made no argument about the phenomenon that seems most to matter to you, viz., that people of same-sex inclination often have a sense of discovering this in themselves rather than of choosing it. You think this fact laden with world-changing, or moral universe-changing, implications—analogous, apparently, to the collapse of the Ptolemaic cosmology or of the Roman Empire, or some other frightening and rage-inducing event. I do not. I think it both quite predictable, on the one hand, and highly ambiguous, on the other; like other facts, it requires thoughtful interpretation.
In any case, it has to be said that people of homosexual inclination are not united, and never have been, either on the question as to whether that inclination amounts to a solid “identity” or on the question as to whether it is fixed by nature without reference to nurture. That a goodly number of “gay” people presently affirm both these things may be granted; but, even were they all of one mind, that could hardly be regarded as decisive in any scientific or philosophic attempt to get at the truth of the matter. Indeed, it is not allowed much weight even by some who share their determination to change our laws and languages and cultural attitudes to accommodate “diverse forms of sexual expression.”
Why? Because the “hard-wired” claim only gets us so far. It still implies that there is such a thing as nature, and that nature matters. That may sit well with you, David, but there are very influential factions today who object to that implication. They wish us to go further, much further, in the direction of accommodation than any appeal to fixed natures could allow. They do not believe in hard-wiring; or, if they do, they think it something there simply as a challenge to overcome.
Your new position is more difficult, I fear, than you have yet realized (or perhaps you are realizing it, to judge from the temperature of your response).
Let’s look back on the territory you first inhabited. There marriage is understood as a disciplinary institution tied to basic human goods and hence to nature. Those goods are both unitive and procreative; and perhaps the chief natural good of marriage, as a disciplinary institution involving chastity and faithfulness, is the good it does to children, and so to society as a whole, by nurturing the fruit of procreation under the protective care of fathers as well as mothers. I can’t help but recall here that I first met you fourteen years ago at a McGill conference called (if memory serves) “The Forgotten Father.”
But now you reside in the territory where same-sex marriage is advanced. Let’s set aside for the moment the question as to whether in nature there really is or can be such a thing. Let’s just consider the fact that “marriage” here is not so much a disciplinary institution—certainly not one tied to procreation—as a celebratory institution, useful more for symbolic than for practical purposes. (I don’t say, by the way, that there would be no practical benefits were people in same-sex relationships to confine themselves for life to a single partner. There would indeed be benefits; but I leave it to you to carry that argument, if you can. You’ve more expertise and experience than I, and you’re no longer impeded by false and slanderous charges of something akin to racism, arising from alleged opposition to soi-disant “gay people.” That you yourself now feel free to level such charges is to your shame.) On this territory, the territory of same-sex marriage, the divorce of the unitive and the procreative has been finalized. And in consequence you will need to rethink your entire project.
I have no doubt that you still fancy that there is such a thing as dual citizenship. But there isn’t. For same-sex marriage seals the divorce between the unitive and the procreative, and the project you have been engaged in hitherto can’t survive that divorce. In a culture that is not characterized by fatherlessness and the whole array of negative phenomena with which fatherlessness is inextricably bound up, the unitive and the procreative cleave together. It is for the sake of that cleaving that the whole idea of chastity, or “virtue in sex” (Anscombe), exists. And where that cleaving is repudiated—the repudiation, of course, began more than a century ago—there can be neither virtue in sex nor committed fatherhood. Which is to say, there cannot be human flourishing.
In the dispute between these territories it is not enough to appeal to nature or to what we perceive to be natural. It is necessary to offer an account of human flourishing, and of nature in her strengths and weaknesses, that is coherent and compelling. That is a daunting task, to be sure, and one which can’t be undertaken without speaking to the relation between desires, reasons, choices and actions; even to body/soul relations and to what one thinks a human being is for.
Far be it from me, however, to speak for you! What I am trying to do, David, is to prompt you to speak for yourself. And if I may say so, “Huh?” was not a very auspicious beginning. I think you can do better.
December 2nd, 2012 | 5:49 pm
You think this fact laden with world-changing, or moral universe-changing, implications – analogous, apparently, to the collapse of the Ptolemaic cosmology or of the Roman Empire, or some other frightening and rage-inducing event. I do not.
As I understood the original question, it was whether one could be “anti-gay” in the sense that R. R. Reno apparently admits to being (along with the Catholic Church, condemning all homosexual activity as immoral, opposing anti-discrimination laws that would protect gay people, opposing adoption of children by gay people, opposing same-sex marriage) without being against people who consider themselves gay.
I don’t think proof of the “etiology” (to use a word Reno and Farrow might think appropriate, although I don’t) of homosexuality is terribly significant. If homosexuality is innate, the Catholic position is that it is disordered. If it is learned, or a combination of innate and learned, it is still disordered. If it is freely chosen, it is an unacceptable choice. If it is innate and a natural variant of sexual orientation (as left-handedness is to handedness), there is no way to get those who are anti-gay to accept that. Even if a certain level of homosexuality in the human population evolved because it was adaptive, religious opponents can always resort to “the Fall” and say that human nature itself is damaged.
The point is that gay people do indeed perceive their sexual orientation as innate and part of their identity and, I would say, in a way that goes beyond African Americans considering the color of their skin a part of their identity. I would point out that the Catholic Church itself considers sexual orientation part of “who you are.” It will not ordain men with “deep seated homosexual tendencies” to the priesthood. To vastly oversimplify, the Church considers men to be “fatherly types” and women to be “motherly types,” but gay men and lesbians do not fit in these categories, and consequently, according to the Church, they cannot relate properly to men, women, and children they come in contact with in their priestly ministry.
Let us remember that the Church in some cases advocates discrimination against “homosexual persons” based on sexual orientation alone. As just discussed, the priesthood is one. The Church also opposes homosexuals utterly committed to celibacy being teachers, coaches, and members of the armed services.
The fact is that whatever the origins of a homosexual orientation, gay people do indeed consider their orientation a part of their identity, and therefore it really isn’t possible for the Church, Reno, or Farrow to claim to be “merely” anti-gay but not anti-gay-people.
December 2nd, 2012 | 6:27 pm
I created this man/woman role-based argument in favor of the traditional Christian belief with regard to homosexuality because I felt that other arguments I had been exposed to were inadequate: http://cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com/category/homosexuality/
Two excerpts: When people with same-sex attractions . . . decide to engage in a homosexual relationship the dynamic that exists between them and their partners is different than the dynamic that exists between heterosexuals.
And: What can a man give to another man that he doesn’t already have? Unless one man takes up a feminine role, how can there be any kind of exchange at all? But if he does take up a feminine role, then this role contradicts and comes at the opportunity cost of his desire to reflect on himself as equal as a man with all other men (even if his masculinity might be greater or lesser than others)–a desire which doesn’t disintegrate into nothingness. His desire to be a man remains, but now he wants what he can’t have. He wants the other man’s masculinity.
December 2nd, 2012 | 8:24 pm
From the beginning of recorded history, there has been a certain percentage of the population who we would identify as being gay. This seems to indicate, from an evolutionary perspective, that it provides some survival advantage. Obviously not in the form of being procreative, but perhaps in a more complicated and nuanced way, that enhanced the survival of certain populations.
Whether or not this is true, there seems to be no doubt that gay people do not “choose” to be gay. Most neuroscientists, I think that it’s fair to say, believe that human traits are an amalgam of genetic propensities and environments that work on these propensities. This is certainly good news, in that it means that our traits are not, as has been believed in the scientific community for decades, immutable; they can be changed, if one is placed in an environment conducive with this change. of course, a person who is genetically inclined toward a certain trait, may have a more difficult time changing, but it can happen.
With respect to homosexuality, however, attempts to change homosexual orientation have not met with any statistically relevant forms of success. And, consequently, mainstream science has repudiated, rightly I believe, the current attempts to “change” the sexual orientation of homosexuals.
So the question remains, how do we properly treat homosexuals, who cannot be changed, at least based on what is currently known (assuming that they should be changed; I don’t believe that they should be changed, since I don’t consider them flawed)? Should they receive the same rights as everyone else? I say yes. They should be protected with antidiscrimination laws, and allowed to marry or adopt children.
Certainly no one is arguing that single mothers or single fathers cannot have children, even when the evidence clearly shows that children do better in two parent homes. Similarly, one could concede that, perhaps, (although the evidence is ambiguous here) gay homes are not as good as straight two parent homes, but we still will allow gay adoptions.
With respect to the specific religious concerns, certainly moral standards, that all gay people should conform to, are essential, just like all straight people should conform to moral standards. These standards, should be single, not double; gays should be required to be married in order to have sex, just as straight people are required to be.
December 2nd, 2012 | 9:44 pm
Hi, Doug:
Yes, it was at at McGill, all those years ago, on fatherhood. Thank you for remembering.
Contrary to what you suggest above, I don’t believe that my statement that most gay people understand their gayness as more a discovery than a choice is an insight that is “world-changing,” or any of the other big adjectives you selected for me. It just happens to be what I said, in a short blog post a few days ago, and it happens to be the one statement of mine that you’ve now chosen to argue, with at some length.
I’m not trying dismissively to say “Huh?” — it’s just that I’m a big believer, when having a discussion, in sticking with the topic. For better or worse, this was my topic (if a sentence or two can be called addressing a “topic”), and for that reason I must respectfully decline, at this point, to follow you down the long winding road of all the other, separate topics related to gay marriage and the state of the moral universe in general that you now seem to want me to address.
When and if I have things to say about any or all of these other topics, I’ll say them, on my terms and in my way, thank you.
If what you want to do is have an extended online debate with me on gay marriage, or on marriage generally, or on all the many reasons why you think that my recent decision is so so wrong, then just say so. Maybe we can arrange some kind of appropriate venue to do just that, either online or in person, and such an exercise might be worthwhile and interesting. But me being simply questioned by you, prosectutor-style, in this forum is not something that I’m interested in, and isn’t something that I think would be helpful to our readers and interlocutors.
December 3rd, 2012 | 5:56 am
It is clear to an ordinary reader of Prof. Farrow’s blog post that he does indeed want to engage in a discussion on all of the implications of redefining marriage.
The discussion now taking place began with R. R. Reno’s post and the response posted by David Blankenhorn at the firsthings web site. The forum was not unacceptable at that time. It seemed intended to establish a certain stance regarding homosexuality – that it is inborn, not chosen. Implicit in this claim is another: that exclusion of persons who want to marry a person of the same sex is unjust, prejudiced,
David Blankenhorn writes that he does not consider this exchange helpful to readers of firstthingsblog. I as one reader have found it quite helpful; first of all, in encouraging serious consideration of the issue; second, prompting attempts to understand exactly what is at risk if marriage is disconnected from questions of children’s human rights and responsibilities of adults toward the children born of their union.
The question of marriage and the human rights of children is critical. It should be discussed in every forum available to people of good will.
December 3rd, 2012 | 6:47 am
The Church holds that all person are valuable “beyond price” in God. It does not consider one aspect or another definitional of “who you are”.
It does discriminate among behaviors. Personal integration of all aspects of a human person, allowing the person to redirect his life-giving sexual powers away from biological expression and toward spiritual expression (in the case of a priest, spiritual fatherhood) is absolutely essential in a candidate for the priesthood.
December 3rd, 2012 | 8:33 am
David Blankenhorn writes:
I apologize for cross-posting a comment from the previous post, but I think it’s relevant to both.
A man wakes up one day and says, “I think I might like to be a woman.”
Many years later a movement is started to have the government declare universal womanhood for all, so that all of mankind can embrace and participate in all the wonderful things about womanhood, and not just those previously designated by the government as “women.” (“Why should the government get to decide who is and is not a woman?!” they declare.)
A debate ensues. The older generations especially say things like “but a man is not a woman.” It’s so poorly argued–not “argued” at all really–those who support the redefinition of woman chuckle at those who say it. Others in their group hear this and say it is sad that the legacy of racial hatred lives on.
Others aren’t quite sure what’s going on. Our man in the first paragraph volunteers for some testing and the research facility declares they have mapped the woman inclination in his brain that was responsible for his declaration, “I think I might like to be a woman.”
The group for the redefinition of womanhood declares this a major victory. “There you have it, there you have it! ‘Twas a gene in his brain made him say that! Yes sir-ee! No choice about it! Who could possibly be against universal womanhood now, except racists and anti-Semites! Racists and anti-Semites!”
Another decade passes. An old hermit that lives in the woods and hasn’t been to a doctor in 30 years, whacks his thumb with a hammer while working on the roof. He gets into his 1971 Dodge Powerwagon and drives to the doctor’s office. He fills out the necessary forms, and the nurse notices something wrong.
Sir, you’ve checked “male” on the form, but we have no record of whether or not you are in fact a woman. “I’m a man,” he says. “How do you know that? You’ve had no brain work done, no DNA testing…sir, we simply have no way of telling if you are a man or a woman. Legally, we can’t…”
She continues on saying something about the 2025 UN Declaration of Universal Womanhood, and the old hermit becomes very confused and wonders where he is. He concludes that he hasn’t walked into a doctor’s office at all. He looks around the waiting room and he notices a few people giving him dirty looks. As he walks out of the office a little boy (?) sitting beside his mother (but who looks to the old hermit like a very large man) shouts “he’s like a racist!”
As Thomas Sowell once said, “you can say anything you want if you have your own private language.”
December 3rd, 2012 | 9:10 am
Bret Lythgoe wrote: “From the beginning of recorded history, there has been a certain percentage of the population who we would identify as being gay.”
=========
The fact that there are some records that indicate some occurrences of homosexuality (not “gay” anything) in certain populations in the past is in no way proof that every society has had individuals who developed a homosexuality problem.
I believe that there have been societies where there has been no incidence of homosexuality, incest, or prostitution. We simply cannot know for sure however.
But we do know that the more dysfunctional people in a society, the more the likelihood that the next generation of children in that society will include a number of individuals who will develop dysfunctionally in a variety of ways, due to their damaging experiences within their particular environment.
What we call “civilization” is in fact a conglomerate that includes a large number of harmful and dysfunctional people, and that certainly includes the realm of sexuality and personal relationships.
December 3rd, 2012 | 9:40 am
Douglas Farrow: Very succinctly written: “For same-sex marriage seals the divorce between the unitive and the procreative . . .” And divorced, both perish.
“Same-sex marriage” resembles a joint business proprietorship far more than resembling marriage.
December 3rd, 2012 | 10:24 am
I was mistaken about the original posting by David Blankenhorn. Douglas Farrow, in his original post, writes that the reply to R. R. Reno appeared at FamilyScholars.org. I apologize for my error.
December 3rd, 2012 | 10:33 am
Bret Lythgoe writes:
Well of course this isn’t true for the simple reason that “gay” is a neologism. Mr. Lythgoe might wave that off and say, “fine, ‘homosexual’ then,” except homosexual is a sexual identity which is also of recent vintage. Its counterpart, heterosexuality, is an early 20th century medical term not used in any general way until the 1930′s. All these words and ideas considered in the time scale of all human history were just invented a few seconds ago.
Consider this: Your grandfather probably did not identify as a “heterosexual”–and certainly your great grandfather did not–because identifying who were are based on what triggers a male ejaculation is an idea that did not exist before our time (this history is discussed in Jenell Paris’ The End of Sexual Identity).
To take the example of my other comment posted this morning, every man writing here might be classified as a “woman” some day for whatever reason, but it makes no sense to say that this forum is one-sided because it only has women posting on it.
So just as we can’t look back in time and say “gay,” we can’t look back in time and say “homosexual” or “heterosexual.” The only fair way to restate Bret Lythgoe’s sentence is as follows: “From the beginning of recorded history, there has been a certain percentage of men who have committed acts of sodomy.” (Remember this a discussion of whether or not marriage should be redefined.)
My comments often go a little long so let me end this already too long comment by quoting from a letter written by Harry Jaffa when he defended students at the Claremont Colleges who opposed GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Awareness Days):
We created the political fight when we created sexual identities. Since the homosexual identity is applied to less than 4% of the population, it wouldn’t seem like it could be much of a political fight and yet it is. There are many reasons why that is so, but I would posit that government approval for the separation of sex from the responsibility of procreation (from contraception to abortion to the redefinition of marriage) is the real attraction.
December 3rd, 2012 | 11:10 am
David Nickol, regardless of argumentation, surely you understand that the label “anti-gay” is an epithet meant to undermine, discredit and exclude. However, the Catholic Church, in its teaching, cannot legitimately be so accused by someone who understands her views on the human person generally. Her treatment of, and views on, those who experience same-sex attraction doesn’t single them out and can no more be characterized as “anti-gay” than it can be labeled “anti-human” or “anti-sinner.”
The fact of the matter is that to call someone a sinner in a way that is meaningful and personal is genuinely offensive and feels condemnatory to any and all who do not hold to a Catholic/Christian understanding of the human person. But from a Christian standpoint, the identification of sinner is the most hopeful “label” of all, for God in Jesus Christ in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit loves and gives himself to and for sinners. To identify someone as a sinner means that he is the recipient of God’s eternal, gracious and merciful intentions, and that he lives his life within them. What is exclusionary is the denial of sin (in general and particular) for it excludes that person from Christ. You must know this and yet you continue to argue otherwise ad nauseum.
With respect to the particular examples you offer as to what the Catholic Church opposes for celibate homosexuals, you would know better than I and those are worthy of particular discussion [though something tells me your characterizations as in the case of the “anti-gay” label are misleading. I could be mistaken, but your credibility on this matter is at this point suspect]. However, such particular judgments or misjudgments do not undermine the overall perspective, which is the aim of your writing. Furthermore, in individual cases, depending on history, prudence may require that a person not be placed in the way of temptation. At that point, the question isn’t simply one of desire or inclination, but past behavior, not simply as it applies to homosexuals but anyone of us. I do not write that to defend the exclusions from particular services and professions you cite as blanket policies, but only to say that I think there’s more nuance to such positions [even if ultimately mistaken or subject to revision] than your black and white assertions of animus would suggest.
You write of what “gay people…perceive” about themselves, Yet, as is the case with all LGBT rights advocates, you exclude from consideration those whose self-perception and understanding is that same-sex desires ought not to be acted on. They, who are professing Christians, know that they are, like all of us, beautiful and broken, marvelous and misshapen, needing nothing less than the death and resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God. Now, you may say that such persons aren’t “gay” for purposes of this discussion. In which case, you’ve made their perspective irrelevant. The only ones whose views matter are those who wish to act on their same-sex attraction and believe the Church should endorse such desires and actions. Hypothetically speaking, if you have 10 people who experience same-sex attraction, 9 of whom wish to live faithfully sexually as the Church has always understood such faithfulness, and who seek and receive the mercy of Christ if and when they fail to do so, the only one whose view “counts” is the one who looks to the Church for affirmation of his same-sex activity. Of course, such affirmation necessarily affects the other 9, whose self-denial is no longer a glorious example of faithful discipleship for all of us to follow, but a quaint self-restriction akin to those whose overly sensitive and “fundamentalist” influenced consciences cause them to abstain from alcohol or to withdraw from culture [“don’t look, don’t taste, don’t touch”]. It’s worth noting that this isn’t a matter of leaving the 9 behind to pursue the one who is “lost,” for the one is offended at and rejects the notion that he’s “lost,” at least in so far as his sexuality is concerned. The fact of the matter is affirmation of same-sex activity is a repudiation of what the entire Church across time and space has recognized as faithfulness to Christ. The only exception being those who’ve arisen in very recent history to cultural and political power in the affluent, self-indulgent West.
December 3rd, 2012 | 11:52 am
David Blankenhorn,
Marriage law does not have a sexual attraction requirement. No individual is barred from eligibility because of some inborn gay identity.
Two men show up to marry. They are not sexually attracted to men. But they are ineligible nonetheless.
A man and a women show up next. They are not sexually attracted to each other nor is either individual sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. But they are eligible even if each announced a gay identity.
It does not matter if the sense of feeling sexually attracted to the same sex is inborn or otherwise originated. That is not the decisive factor in the law. of marriage.
You agree on this point, I say, based on past comments you have made on this very point. And not merely as a technical point of law.
You agree that at issue is a comparison of types of relationship. You have said, in your NYT op-ed, that you know the gay type of relationship is different.
Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your use of a racist analogy.
As David Farrow said in the above blogpost, it is to your shame that you feel entitled to level accusations of racist-like bigotry against “most” who agree with the pro-marriage content of your marriage book and your previous pro-marriage position.
You said in that NYT op-ed that racist-like animus is the the larger source of the pro-marriage view. Your talk of “anti-gay” this and that clearly invokes identity politics as the lever upon which you have chosen to accept, as you said, the imposition of “gay marriage” (the SS idea) as replacement of the marriage idea (the core of the institution as youhave attested) … not just in the law but in the culture. Perhaps most importatly, in the culture. Hence your raising the racist analogy.
Same-sex sexual attration may be inborn — or not. Regardless you conflate gay identity with that. You may rely on the supposed certitude of others on this point. It does appear that is you default position.
If gayness is rae-like, in your view, then that should be all the more reason to support the bride-groom requirement. Marriage integrates man and woman. Marriage integrates, by your own racist-like analogy, by sexual attraction as well: unlike SSM, marriage does not segregate male attraction and female attraction. If male attraction is inborn, then, it is SSM that would legislate on the basis of a racist-like exclusion of female attraction; and vice-versa. If you choose to conflate male-only and female-only sexual attractions with gay identity, then, it is SSM that would legislate segregation by group identity.
However, the racist analogy is your foil because there is no sexual attraction requirement — not for eligibility nor for ineligibility to marry. The defunct crminalization of “inter-racial” marriage did not entail a race-specific sexual attraction requirement, as you well know. Rather, that racist system was erected on the supremacy of identity politics.
Your gay identity emphasis presents much the same faoritism for an identity group over and above the core of marriage. Now, sure, some people may earnestly believe that the supremacy of gay identity politics is more benign than the supremacy of white identity politics (although many will disagree), but the flaw in your racist analogy exists nonetheless.
Look, being lood-related is far more obviously inborn than the socio-political gay identity. But relatedness is far more relevant to eligibility than gayness. That is directly expressdd in culture and in marriage law. Why? Because marriage and marriage law is for marriage, not for nonmarriage.Because the marital type relationship, unlike the gay type relationship, is comprised men born men and women born women; and we are all born of men and women; and this type of relationship is comprehensive, unlike the gay type of relationship, and as such is oriented to to procreation.
It is the comprehensivenss of the marital type relationship that makes husband and wife more closely related to each other than either is related to those they are too-closely related to marry. Being born too-closely related is not trumped by sexual attraction.
Men and women are not different races. There isone human race and its nature is two-sexed. I doubt you really believe that gay is a race; that male-only sexual attraction merits favoritism due to is racist-like purity; that female-only sexual attraction merits a racist-like accomodation flowing from group identity. But you might clarify your pro-SSM view.
Why does respect for the gay type of relationship (your now stated view) dictate that it be treated as the union of husband and wife — as something it is not? Do you not recognize that this racist-like favoritism of yours goes very very far beyond showing disrespect for the marital type relationship?
I think, based on your book and previous promotion of marriage, you are aware of this profound proble in youracceptance of the SSM project. It may have given you pause in the past. But now you imagine that doing a wrong might achieve something good. That is a real shame, if it is your way of “balancing goods”.
December 3rd, 2012 | 12:20 pm
“From the beginning of recorded history, there has been a certain percentage of the population who we would identify as being gay.”
This is not correct. “Gay” was a convention created in the 20th century, rhetorical subterfuge and a modern contrivance.
There was even a time when acts were considered “homosexual”, but not people.
The premise that the mere existence of an attraction or inclination (or it’s innateness, prevalance or durability) makes their expressions and satisfactions valid isn’t very interesting until you extend that beyond sex.
People are given to all sorts of inclinations,many that we have no problem rejecting as invalid. We don’t have people arguing that theft is valid because a certain portion of the population is afflicted with kleptomania. (please, spare me any indignation at that comparison, I am indignant that two men would insist that their relationship to my marriage)
When it comes to sex however, we are suppposed to just accept every sexual behavior as valid, with unstated implication that we should just be slaves to our urges, being their slave, rather than their master.
December 3rd, 2012 | 12:33 pm
. . . . but your credibility on this matter is at this point suspect.
John Hanna,
I am not quite sure, then, what purpose a response from someone of suspect credibility would serve. If I have said anything in terms of the Church’s position on discrimination against gay people that you do not find credible, I will be most happy to quote the pertinent Church documents.
December 3rd, 2012 | 1:07 pm
The premise that the mere existence of an attraction or inclination (or it’s innateness, prevalance or durability) makes their expressions and satisfactions valid . . .
Adam Baum,
I am not sure what the point is of criticizing this premise, since no one in this debate has endorsed it or would even dream of doing so. If you believe someone has, please point out where.
December 3rd, 2012 | 1:16 pm
I certainly don’t appreiciate being told — by Doug and my others on this string — what I should or should not be ashamed of. It’s a bad way to talk to people in a public forum, and I resent it.
What I said is, that is that opposition to gay marriage in the U.S. today is driven in part by anti-gay animus.
I believe that the truth of this statement as an empirical matter is fairly close to self-evident, and I am certainly not ashamed of having said it. In fact, I am so unashamed that I am going to say it again, right now: Opposition to gay marriage in the U.S. today is driven in part by anti-gay animus.
December 3rd, 2012 | 1:30 pm
“I am not sure, then, what purpose a response from someone of suspect credibility would serve.”
Fair enough David Nickol, though I did admit to possibly being mistaken on the particular point under discussion, stating this only as an impression. However, that aside does not alter the main point of contention.
December 3rd, 2012 | 2:39 pm
“From the beginning of recorded history, there has been a certain percentage of the population who we would identify as being gay. This seems to indicate, from an evolutionary perspective, that it provides some survival advantage.”
Given that most homosexuals, even nowadays, have had some heterosexual activity, and social pressure could no doubt coerce more, perhaps it just means that its disadvantages have not managed to eliminate yet. The movement may in fact manage to do what the rest of society had managed to keep under control prior to now.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:13 pm
“Certainly no one is arguing that single mothers or single fathers cannot have children…”
Well, I do argue that single people don’t have a right to have children or even sexual intercourse, which comes only with marriage. They can get away with it without a right or approval, but only married couples have the right and the state’s approval to have sex and children together. It wouldn’t be unconstitutional to prohibit labs from joining gametes of unmarried people, indeed it violates human rights to do it.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:23 pm
“But they [a man and a woman] are eligible even if each announced a gay identity.”
Chairm, not necessarily: A brother and sister are not eligible, right? Many relatives are not eligible. Nor are children, people married to someone else.
It’s not the individuals, but the general legal status and legal relationship that is not allowed to marry each other, no matter who the individuals are or what they are like.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:41 pm
David Blankenhorn,
In your NYT op-ed you alleged that “much of the opposition to gay marriage stems, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus”.
Now you repeat your claim and say it is self-evident.
Treating the “gay relationship” as something that it is not, is not respecting that type of relationship for what it is.
Indeed, to do so means “denigrating and stigimatizing” and effacing (your chosen words) what marriage is, at its core, and, as per your own sel-claimed self-evident claim would have it, this also means denigrating and stigmatizing the defenders of the marriage idea and effacing societal regard for sustaining marital status for marriage rather than corrupting it for something else.
That can not be “a victory for fairness”. Fairness commands that we not treat things differently — arbitrarily. The marriage idea, by your own words, does not treat the union of husband and wife differntly via arbitrariness. There is another half to the moral imperative of fairness. We are commanded not to treat things the same — arbitrarily. Yet that is what you have come to accept, as you say, and trumpet, as you also say, as a victory for fairness.
The marriage idea and the SSM idea are in conflict. The SSM campaign has sought to transform that conflict into The Gay Issue. You have succumbed to an idea that fails on the merits, as you have attested, because you have accepted the newly asserted primacy of gayness.
You may believe that your use of the mealy-mouthed “to some extent” qualifier has given you wiggle room to avoid moral accountability, however, you openly rely on a profoundly flawed accusation that is thrown in the face of defenders of the marriage idea no matter the merit of their arguments and fairminded approach to nonmarital types of relationships. Your remarksa do paint with a wide smearing brushstroke.
Here you have done so on the flimsy basis of gay identity being, you say, inborn, according to some who claim their gayness is race-like and so must over-ride the meaning of marriage.
For that endorsement of the supremacy of gay identity politics, David Blankenhorn, you should be ashamed especially in light of your own account of moral formation in corruptive influence of the supremacy of white identity politics.
I will not use mealy mouthed qualifiers on this point: the gay emphasis of the SSM campaign is clearly expressed as the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage, over rule of law, over justice (especially procreative justice), over the moral imperative of fairness. This SSM campaign does not merely “stem, at least in part,” from animus and progay bigotry — much of the advocacy of “gay marriage” is directly and openly voiced with deliberate endorsement of progay bigotry and animus toward the opponents.
Your guest blogger, Barry Deutsch, has said that we do not deserve any respect (he named Robert George specifically and, like you, smeared with a wide brush) and, he said emphatically, that SSM supporters were justified in cursing us up and down publicly. His excuse? He invoked gay identity politics.
The torrent of SSM advocacy is infused with that progay bigotry which is very closely analogous to white supremacy. Comity is not the goal of The advocates who present themselves as the mainstream face of the SSM campaign. They have staked their claim most vociferously and that is the quicksand upon which they beckon society to join them. For them it is not about justice but ‘just us’.
That is now your claimed territory.
December 3rd, 2012 | 7:03 pm
David Blankenhorn,
You have proven difficult to debate on this topic. In your last post you said Douglas Farrow’s challenges were not posed in an appropriate manner, and for that reason you declined to respond to most of his post. For similar reasons, you say you resent challenges posed by others on this thread. And then you wrote the following:
What I regard as shameful is the charge that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are comparable to racists and anti-Semites, as David Nickol asserted and with whom you associated your opinions (albeit on a different but related issue). Regardless, whatever you mean by “anti-gay animus” is most certainly not self-evident. It prompts a few questions:
1) Does “anti-gay animus” equate to the belief that “sodomy is wrong”?
2) If you feel these acts are reasonably open to question, then how would someone oppose these acts and not be guilty of what you call “anti-gay animus”?
3) Do you believe Scripture condemns these acts, and is that relevant to you?
4) Are those who turn to Scripture to declare that sodomy is wrong displaying an anti-gay animus?
5) And what of Christians who believe these acts are wrong and yet desire men and women with same sex attraction to join their churches?
6) In this exchange with Maggie Gallagher, does she display an anti-gay animus with the college student on the plane?
7) If someone does display this anti-gay animus, how does that lead you to conclude that the government should therefore redefine marriage?
I have not read your book and so I just have no idea how you might answer these questions. Regardless, I hope you can see why your charge of “anti-gay animus” is not self-evident at all.
December 3rd, 2012 | 9:02 pm
“Two men show up to marry. They are not sexually attracted to men. But they are ineligible nonetheless.”
Wrote Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
December 4th, 2012 | 1:28 am
Randy, the law should forbid everyone equally from creating a human being by any method other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man. It isn’t the law that requires both sexes to create a new person, it’s biology. Yes, a ban on genetic engineering artificial gametes would ban only same-sex couples from procreating, not any man-woman couples, but so what?
December 4th, 2012 | 7:04 am
What I regard as shameful is the charge that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are comparable to racists and anti-Semites, as David Nickol asserted and with whom you associated your opinions (albeit on a different but related issue).
Douglas Johnson,
I am going to have to ask you to please stop misrepresenting my position. I have never said that opponents of same-sex marriage “are comparable to racists and anti-Semites.” I have said that what David Blankenhorn calls “anti-gay animus” is more similar to anti-Semitism than anti-black racism.
David Blankenhorn said, “Opposition to gay marriage in the U.S. today is driven in part by anti-gay animus.” I agree with that. But if it is driven in part by anti-gay animus, that means in part it is not.
If I say, “Romney lost the 2012 election in part due to anti-Mormon prejudice,” that is not the same as saying that everyone who voted against Romney was anti-Mormon.
December 4th, 2012 | 7:22 am
Regardless, I hope you can see why your charge of “anti-gay animus” is not self-evident at all.
Douglas Johnson,
How would you characterize the attitude of Pastor Charles Worley or these members of his church? Would you say that gays and lesbians are “worthy of death”?
December 4th, 2012 | 9:49 am
If reason supports the opposition to eradicating marriage as we know it — and reason does support that opposition — the existence of “anti-gay animus” among some supporters of marriage is a very poor excuse for not fighting for marriage.
Douglas Johnson asks very good questions about the alleged “anti-gay animus.” What, precisely, are we talking about here and why would it be a reason to abandon a righteous cause?
December 4th, 2012 | 10:33 am
If reason supports the opposition to eradicating marriage as we know it — and reason does support that opposition —
Dan,
Did giving women the right to vote “eradicate voting as we know it”?
I just don’t understand people who think allowing a small percentage of same-sex couples to enter into civil marriages “eradicates marriage as we know it.” There may be reasoned opposition to same-sex marriage, but there is also reasoned support for it. So I don’t think it is quite accurate to say reason supports opposition to same-sex marriage.
The question I understand David Blankenhorn to be asking is whether the fight against same-sex marriage is working toward the benefit of marriage, and he seem to think the answer is no.
Ross Douthat said the following in a recent column:
For those who want the primary purpose of marriage to be procreation and child rearing, the fight against same-sex marriage has done nothing to advance that cause. A minority now agree that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. And of course 41% of children are born out of wedlock. The question is whether resisting the trend toward accepting same-sex marriage will do anything to change the heterosexual trend away from marriage primarily as an institution for procreation and child rearing. It is difficult for me to see how, particularly because advocates of same-sex marriage are not trying to discourage heterosexuals from marrying. They are endorsing the value of marriage, not denigrating it.
So the question is whether those fighting same-sex marriage are engage in an activity that will actually “save” marriage or improve the current status of marriage? It seems to me that Pastor Charles Worley and the members of his church interviews in the links I gave above are not concerned with “saving” marriage. They are just appalled and sickened by the idea of two men or two women marrying, and they don’t want it to happen. It has little to do with “saving” marriage. It’s more about making sure gay people can’t get married than about approving the overall situation of marriage in the United States.
December 4th, 2012 | 11:36 am
David Nickol,
I’m going to address your comment in two separate posts. This comment will address your assertion that you never compared those who oppose the redefinition of marriage to racists and anti-Semites. The second will address your point about anti-gay animus driving opposition to the redefinition of marriage “in part,” as well as your link to a guy on YouTube who says we should “put all the queers and lesbians in an electrified cage.”
Here is how you start out your comment that anti-Semitism is the apt comparison for those who have what you call “anti-gay animus.” And who has anti-gay animus? According to you, it’s people who oppose what some men with same-sex attraction do (e.g. sodomy). You explain:
I think that’s straightforward enough. You say anti-Semitism is about what Jews do. Let’s go back to your objection of what I wrote. You said:
DB never defines what he means by anti-gay animus, but you do. So, what’s the difference between those who merely oppose the redefinition of marriage and those who are guilty of anti-gay animus? Well you just explained it. You are guilty of anti-gay animus if you think a homosexual act such as sodomy is wrong (“what people do”). I’m going to go out on a limb here and stipulate that some First Things readers think the act of sodomy is wrong because the Bible tells them so. By your own account, that is a judgement on “what people do” which you say is analogous to anti-Semitism.
But wait! Let’s go back to racism. There’s more to racism than meets the eye, as you say:
So as you just explained above, even racism isn’t about what people look like, it’s also about what they do. So if someone believes the act of sodomy to be wrong, then he has an anti-gay animus and is comparable to an anti-Semite and a racist because you say all are about “what people do.”
I’m imagine you’ll tell me I’m taking you too literally now. Anti-gay animus has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people who oppose what some men with same-sex attraction do (even though that’s exactly the comparison you just made), right? I’ll tackle that video you linked to and the “in part” issue in my next comment later this evening.
December 4th, 2012 | 11:42 am
David Nickol writes:
Anthony Esolen is worth reposting here. I hope this helps you understand:
December 4th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
You are guilty of anti-gay animus if you think a homosexual act such as sodomy is wrong (“what people do”).
Douglas Johnson,
But I didn’t say that. That is your interpretation of “what people do.” I never dreamed of limiting “what people do” to what gay people may or may not do in the privacy of their own homes.
I will say that it is often a facet of “anti-gay animus” not so much to think homosexual acts are sinful, but to think that they are in a wholly different category of evil than heterosexual fornication, adultery, rape, and so on. If you think that two men or two women committing “sodomy” is worse than a man and a woman committing “sodomy,” then that may be a sign of “anti-gay animus.” Of all the gay couples I have ever known, for the vast majority of them I had no idea at all what they did in the privacy of their bedroom—if indeed they did anything. I have known a very few gay and straight couples who gave TMI (“too much information”) about the sexual aspects of their relationships, but very few. And I don’t want to know. So the idea of judging people by “what they do” when you don’t know what they do would hardly be the basis on which I would even imagine people should be judged.
Now, surveys show that half of teens have engaged in “sodomy” in the form of oral sex. Does that change your feelings about teenagers? It is well known that more than 90% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use contraception (and you can bet the unmarried ones use it too). When I meet a Catholic married couple, would you think it decent of me to think, “These people are almost certainly sinners!” Somewhere between 80% and 90% of unmarried people have sex before marriage. Does it make sense to sit in judgment of unmarried people as a group?
Anti-gay animus has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people who oppose what some men with same-sex attraction do (even though that’s exactly the comparison you just made), right?
Wrong. You have almost completely misinterpreted everything I said. Believing that all sex must be inside “philosophical” (or “conjugal”) marriage, and consequently believing homosexual sex is prohibited, does not make someone guilty of anti-gay animus. Believing “sodomy” is wrong does not make someone guilty of anti-gay animus. Opposing same-sex marriage does not automatically make someone guilty of anti-gay animus. Preaching to your congregation that you have a plan to imprison all the lesbians and “queers” in fenced-in areas and leave them there until they die is pretty good evidence of anti-gay animus.
December 4th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
Anthony Esolen is worth reposting here. I hope this helps you understand
Douglas Johnson,
I see very little connection between Anthony Esolen’s philosophical understanding of marriage and civil marriage. It may be true from the viewpoint of certain religious or philosophical understandings that “there is no such thing as same-sex marriage, and can never be.” However, there are indeed same-sex civil marriages, and that is what we are talking about. I am simply not convinced that those who have religious or philosophical views that “conjugal marriage” is the the one true definition of marriage need civil marriage to remain unchanged to reinforce conjugal marriage. Even opponents of same-sex marriage acknowledge that the contemporary concept of marriage among the majority is not primarily about procreation. If there had been a campaign against no-fault divorce that was anywhere close to what is being done to prevent same-sex marriage, than those who claim they are trying to save marriage might be able to make a more convincing case. But that would have required doing something that limited the freedoms of the majority. It would have meant people were willing, for the sake of marriage, to limit their own future options when it came to divorce. But they weren’t. It is very easy to claim to want to save marriage by opposing same-sex marriage when you know you will never want to enter into a same-sex marriage yourself. People who oppose same-sex marriage as their sole contribution toward saving or restoring marriage to what it formerly was are not making any sacrifices or placing any burdens on themselves. It makes it a lot easier to question their motives.
December 4th, 2012 | 2:45 pm
The question is, does the replacement of the marriage idea with the SSM idea restrengthen marriage and counter the nonmarital trends?
The answer is no and no. It locks-in or caos-off the effacement of the marriage idea. The substitute idea is specious.
The gay emphasis with which the specious substitution for marriage (ssm) is being promoted does not transform a bad idea into a better idea than marriage. Quite the contrary.
That substitute is at best an inapt metaphor for the union of husband and wife.
David Blankenhorn now associates directly with the blogging of Barry Deutsch whose attempted rebuttal of “What is Marriage” is featured in an appendix of the book version of the original essay by Robert George et al. Deutsch assured SSM supporters that to legislate based on a metaphor would be immoral.
David Nikol, you might agree that the type of relationship you have in mind (some subset of “the gay relationship” that Blankenhorn has talked about) is like th union of husband and wife in some ways and is its metaphor. You might also agree (as Blankenhorn does) that the two are different types of relationship. If SSM is a metaphorical marital relationship, do you agree that it would be immoral to legislate SSM-as-marriage?
David Blankenhorn might respond as well. As might Deutsch. But neither have bothered, yet, to take up this query that arises from their own rhetoric and argumentation and public assertions.
December 4th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
You might also agree (as Blankenhorn does) that the two are different types of relationship. If SSM is a metaphorical marital relationship, do you agree that it would be immoral to legislate SSM-as-marriage?
Chairm Ohn,
I believe that whatever one feels about Girgis, George, and Anderson’s concept of conjugal marriage, the same-sex relationships of those who desire marriage will be similar enough to heterosexual marriage to make it reasonable to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. Civil marriage as we have it today is not identical to conjugal marriage as the authors define it. I think in a democratic, pluralistic society, people may have the marriage laws they choose (and I include the courts as a legitimate democratic institution representing the people).
I remain noncommittal on whether same-sex marriage is a human right. Contrary to what some seem to think, I do not consider merely being opposed to civil same-sex marriage as bigotry. However, this does not mean there are no bigots opposed to same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t want to guess the number, but I am sure some people voted against Obama merely because he was black. I would call them racist. But that doesn’t mean that all 59 million people who voted for Romney were racists.
Let me just add that racism and anti-Semitism are terrible things, but there are degrees of racism. A married couple who were friends of my parents (this was back in the 1960s) said really snide and ugly things about black people. However, from the little I know about their personal lives, I suspect they would never have treated a black person any differently from a white person. Their racism was all talk. It was very ugly talk, but if it ever did any real harm would be difficult to tell. So while I abhor racism and anti-Semitism and “anti-gay animus,” when I compare the three, I am not necessarily thinking about the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party. Who among us doesn’t have at least some trace of irrational prejudice? And one bigoted remark or position or feeling doesn’t necessarily make a person “a bigot.”
December 4th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
It is a huge contribution to restrengthening marriage, David Nikol, to promote the core meaning of marriage both culturally and in lawmaking.
The nonmarital trends of increased incidence and prevelance of premarital sex, premarital childbearing, any-excuse abortion, unwed cohabitation, extramarital sex and procreation, and sodomical practices — these trends upon which the SSM campaign trumpets its inevitability — are best addressed with the core meaning marriage understood, favored, and supported by the public institutions of civil society as well as by governmental authority. The first task is to promote the marital type relationship. That necessarily means rejection of the specious substitution of marriage.
On this point fully agree with the authors of “What Is Marriage?” who list as a real harm the obfusification of the purpose of governmental authority vis-a-vis the good of marriage.
Imposing SSM is to wave a white flag of surrender. It is wore than that though because it means not merely appeasing the proponents of the supremacy of gay identity politics but also the entrenchment of the negative trends of which you wrote. The heavy hand of Goernment would severely restrain if not strangle heretofore legitimate efforts to promote authentic marriage itself.
Society would become one big re-education camp under the rule of a profound falsehood. The truth matters most of all. It will always be there for us to return to, but Government opposition would make that far more difficult and unnecessarily prolonged.
December 4th, 2012 | 5:13 pm
David Nickol quotes me and then writes:
David, I’ll get to the “in part” comment and the video later, but I’m lost on your comment above. I explained at some length why I don’t think the meaning of the phrase “anti-gay animus” is self-evident. You respond by asking me if I think gays and lesbians are worthy of death.
December 4th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
On “anti-gay animus”:
Regardless of any moral evaluation of homosexual behaviour, marriage remains heterosexual because the human body remains heterosexual. Instinct allows for the forming of an opinion without logical/intellectual enquiry. This does not mean an instinctual opinion contradicts a logical one. In the case of homosexual behaviour, the instinctual outcome (animus) is the same as the logical/intellectual outcome. We all have an inherent procreative potential. If we engage in activity that renders that potential irrelevant, the activity is wrong according to the objective reality of the physical body. The subjective mind does not determine the reality of the body. All human bodies are heterosexual.
There may well be animus, but that does not amount to unjust discrimination – only an instinct that perhaps cannot be explained by those feeling it. Far from undermining an understanding of marriage, animus provides a valuable reading on the compass.
December 4th, 2012 | 7:07 pm
david nickol,
re: your last reply to doug johnson and esolen, what is the difference between “philosophical” understandings of marriage and “civil” marriage? methinks as soon as you try to define anything, you’re doing philosophy, i.e. discussing ontology. just ask socrates….
December 4th, 2012 | 8:16 pm
Society would become one big re-education camp under the rule of a profound falsehood. The truth matters most of all. It will always be there for us to return to, but Government opposition would make that far more difficult and unnecessarily prolonged.
Chairm Ohn,
Your ability to see the future is exactly the same as my own—nonexistent. Predictions of future dystopias are perhaps slightly more plausible, since entropy tends to increase, but you have absolutely no more basis for saying the consequences of same-sex marriage will negatively impact heterosexual marriage than I do if I predict same-sex marriage is the very key to a resurgence in heterosexual marriage.
I would say there are numerous factors that account for the state of marriage today that won’t be affected one way or another by same-sex marriage—economic growth, ability to afford higher education, ridiculously high incarceration rate (particularly among black men), affordable child care, affordable medical care, good premarital preparation, good marriage counseling. And yet where is the focus? Trying to defeat marriage “equality” for a tiny fraction of the population.
December 4th, 2012 | 10:11 pm
methinks as soon as you try to define anything, you’re doing philosophy, i.e. discussing ontology.
andrew,
I use philosophical marriage (or conjugal marriage) to indicate the approach to defining marriage taken in the essay and book What Is Marriage? The authors are definitely “doing philosophy.” But the same could not be said of anthropologists, who try to come up with a comprehensive definition of marriage that fits all known “marriage-like” arrangements. And it is certainly not a philosophical inquiry if one looks at the marriage statutes in the 50 states to see how they are the same and how they differ. Supporters of conjugal marriage insist that same-sex marriage is simply impossible. But I know people personally here in New York who are in same-sex marriages. I have never heard anyone claim that two men or two women who go through all the necessary steps to become legally married are not, in fact, legally married.
The homicide statutes in New York State define a person as a human being who has been born and is alive. I don’t believe the lawmakers who came up with that were looking for a “philosophical” definition of a person. They were creating a legal definition.
December 4th, 2012 | 10:30 pm
Far from undermining an understanding of marriage, animus provides a valuable reading on the compass.
gentlemind,
Well, I suppose it’s a creative solution to redefine animus as something good, and to apply heterosexual to a human body, which clearly makes no sense. But it seems to me that if your theory is correct, and people have some kind of innate abhorrence for non-procreative sex, it is difficult to explain why young college men don’t beat up their roommates if they are discovered to use condoms or if they get their girlfriends to engage in oral sex.
The fact of the matter is that people from the earliest known times have been attempting with varying success to thwart the procreative component of sex. (We all remember the story of Onan, I am sure.)
It is, in my opinion, just nonsense to say that there exists a natural (and laudable) “animus” against non-procreative sex.
And assuming non-procreative sex is always wrong, there is a real question in my mind as to who is more blameworthy for engaging in it—those who can’t have procreative sex with the person whom they find sexually attractive (two men or two women), or those who have been endowed with fertility but deliberately thwart it. And, of course, we know that the vast majority of married people (including married Catholics) deliberately thwart their fertility. And, of course, when they fail to thwart it and have unwanted pregnancies, over a million of them a year abort the babies.
December 4th, 2012 | 10:53 pm
David Nickol, it’s easy to predict that if we allow people to reproduce offspring with someone of the same sex, it will cost money, it will put kids at risk, it will require government regulation, it will use energy…that’s just the start of the totally obviously unavoidable consequences. And there is absolutely no need for it, nor a right to do it, that would justify even one tenth of the costs and risks of it.
And the benefits of prohibiting it would be tremendous, it would end the costly marriage debate (which itself costs billions and wastes time and burns energy), it would help kids plan their future, it would affirm everyone’s equal reproductive rights.
It’s ridiculous to insist that people have a right to reproduce with someone of the same sex. It is just so harmful in so many ways, just give it up.
December 4th, 2012 | 10:58 pm
Douglas Johnson, what do you think about people attempting to reproduce with someone of the same sex, or as the other sex, using some kind of stem cell derived gamete or something? I am trying to get people to push for a law against it, so that kids aren’t taught that it might be possible someday, and to stop some crazy lab from trying to manufacture a child that way. Chairm too: will you guys help get a law passed that prohibits creation of people to the union of a man and a woman? I think that is a critical first step that can’t be ignored.
December 5th, 2012 | 12:11 am
David Nickol writes to Chairim Ohm:
I wonder…if more young men absorbed the lesson that they really wouldn’t matter to their kids one way or the other, would that increase the occurrences of the things David Nickol lists above? No one would deny that it would, but where do I get off suggesting that redefining marriage might send such a message?
That seems like some crazy reach doesn’t it? Well read this quick exchange and then see if it still sounds like a stretch. QED.
But that’s just one kid, right? David Nickol mentioned the incarceration rate of black men. There is one segment of society that was the first to absorb the philosophy of the kid on the plane, and having lived through that social experiment it’s that same demographic that is most emphatically against redefining marriage today.
December 5th, 2012 | 12:17 am
@John Howard,
I can’t say I know anything about this. Also, I don’t understand this sentence of yours: “will you guys help get a law passed that prohibits creation of people to the union of a man and a woman?”
December 5th, 2012 | 12:26 am
David Nickol writes:
If you could drum up the votes, you could also pass a law declaring that all New Yorkers were born on Mars. After that all New Yorkers would be legally recognized as having been born on Mars. But I would still insist that it is impossible that they were born on Mars.
December 5th, 2012 | 12:31 am
David Nikol,
You said: “you have absolutely no more basis for saying the consequences of same-sex marriage will negatively impact heterosexual marriage than I do if I predict same-sex marriage is the very key to a resurgence in heterosexual marriage”.
You manage to miss the point more often than most who comment here.
The negative trendlines exist. The SSM campaign depends on such to argue that the SSM idea has become more plausible today. You did just that yourself. You know that this basis is not a basis for resurgence. So why the odd dichotomy?
Meanwhile there is no evidence of a resurgence where SSM (under whatever form) has been enacted or imposed. There is evidence of a continued decline — and the entrenchment or capping-off that I described earlier.
Likewise, the efforts to re-educate society are well underway among the elites (as I noted) and would gather even more steam with the full imposition of the SSM idea by governmental authority.
As I said, in response to a previous comment of yours, the first thing is to restrengthen marriage (and in fact it is an obligation of elites and governmental authority) is to promote the marriage idea rather than hinder by entrenching a specious substitution — aka the SSM idea.
When the elites and government get marriage wrong, then, the basis for further decline exists; the basis for a resurgence is obscured, hindered, and repressed.
The SSM idea does not reverse the negative trends. Nor does it stall the negative trends. It depends on them and so locks them in and gets in the way of promoting the marriage idea itself.
You said, missing the point once again:
“And yet where is the focus? Trying to defeat marriage “equality” for a tiny fraction of the population.”
It is not about that tiny fraction of the population. It is about the conflict of ideas: the SSM idea is set in direct conflict with the marriage idea.
The gay emphasis is irrelevant to marriage but you and other SSM advocates have insisted that it is central to the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.
You have yet to justify that gay emphasis. You have done much question begging but very little justification for what the SSM campaign demands of all of society.
However, you now concede that your focus is very narrowly on privileging, unjustifiably, the gay identity group.
December 5th, 2012 | 12:47 am
David Nikol said:
“the same-sex relationships of those who desire marriage will be similar enough to heterosexual marriage to make it reasonable to open civil marriage to same-sex couples”.
Civil marriage law is for marriage, not for non-marriage.
You did what so many SSM advocates do. You used the term, “same-sex relationship” one one hand and the term, “heterosexual marriage” on the other hand.
Marriage is two-sexed. It is not a matter of how I “feel” about that. This is about the core meaning of marriage. Its truth.
What I think about the book is that it aptly describes the marital type relationship, its special status, and boundaries for eligiblity drawn around its core meaning. It takes societal regard for the core for society to justify the boundaries around that core.
The book, I think, aptly reveals the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea. The gay emphasis does not save that mess. As such it is a false rendering of marriage and would be an unjustified replacement of the marriage idea in our civil laws.
If we are to use “reasonable” as a measure of legitimate lawmaking on the type of relationship you have in mind, then, you need to provide the intrinsic features, the essentials, of that type of relationship such that it can be distinguished from non-marriage while also so similar to the union of husband and wife as to necessitate the same treatment.
The SSM idea, minus the gay emphasis with which it is promoted, is a call for protections for non-marital types of relationships and living arrangements. Reasonable alternatives exist to address such protections.
But the gay emphasis is your emphasis here. Why do you think (or feel if you prefer) it is “reasonable” to treat the gay identity group (or “the gay relationship” as superior to the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the non-marriage category and to which it is very similar?
David Blankenhorn thinks, it appears but he can correct if this is mistaken, that gay identity politics (not his words but that pretty much captures his meaning, I think) is the key. Such politics have already gotten in the way of his convincing the elites. He may be on to something; it is a something that the SSM campaign has been insisting upon all along — the supremacy of gay identity politics over the marriage idea.
December 5th, 2012 | 5:47 am
David Nickols. The nature of every object can be determined by observing its shape, substance, and effect. The human body has a shape, substance, and effect that undeniably point it towards the opposite sex. A woman’s body does not make sense in relation to that of another woman, a boy, a girl, an animal, herself, or an inanimate object. It only makes sense in relation to the body of a man. The female body used homosexually has the same shape substance and effect as the female body used heterosexually. The body does not change, but the homosexual use renders the shape substance and effect irrelevant. Put bluntly, when two women try to have sex, their bodies may as well be those of two girls, two boys, or two men. The only way to argue against this is to assert that the mind trumps the body. In all other areas of health, we seek to move from disorder towards order. For example, we do not merely accept that those with asthma are “born that way”. We recognise the need to move away from suffering, towards harmony. All sexual disorders are regarded this way. Homosexual behaviour is the only exception, and only from the mid 20th Century onwards. Either mankind has made a staggering discovery about the human body ( the discovery of the homosexual body) or…mankind has made a mistake. The question then (as is being asked on this thread and others) is: “Where did we go wrong?”.
I did not mention non-procreative sex. Nevertheless, your objection revolves around context and content. Heterosexual contraception/oral sex/adultery/etc are right in context (heterosexual) but wrong in content. In the case of homosexual behaviour, there is never any right content because the adult body is heterosexual and therefore there is no homosexual context
December 5th, 2012 | 8:30 am
You seem to believe that same-sex civil ,”marriage” is compatible with the continuing State recognition, regulation and reward of actual marriages (one man and one woman). This is not the case. There is one legal definition of marriage. In order to allow two people of the same sex to legally marry, that one definition has to change. The legal understanding of all natural marriages is altered, from “One man and one woman” to Two people”. Thus we will have created a mechanism that legally describes relationships in terms that differ from the physical reality of those relationships. Same-sex marriages will no more legally exist than natural marriages. If we really want a mechanism that recognises and rewards same-sex relationships, our only option is to found a new institution a la civil unions. There is no way of housing the two opposite relationships within a single institution without leaving a definition that describes neither relationship. This is why “Genderles marriage” is an accurate term. Same-sex marriage is being requested but it is Genderless marriage that is being created.
There will no longer be a legal mechanism (Marriage) through which men and women can have the physical reality of their relationship (with each other and with their children) recognised, protected and rewarded. But there will be a mechanism (Marriage) that allows the State to legally consider a man and a woman to be “Two people”. The mechanism therefore will allow the State to ignore the fact that children are physically related to their parents. The natural family unit will no longer be legally recognised.
December 5th, 2012 | 9:05 am
It’s ridiculous to insist that people have a right to reproduce with someone of the same sex. It is just so harmful in so many ways, just give it up.
John Howard,
I believe I have made it clear previously that I in no way support a “right” of same-sex couples to reproduce through some kind of scientific manipulation of the genes of both of them. I also do not support a scientific effort to do such a thing. I would be happy to see it banned. I freely “give it up.” In fact, I renounce it. Exactly what more you want to hear from me I can’t imagine.
December 5th, 2012 | 9:41 am
If you could drum up the votes, you could also pass a law declaring that all New Yorkers were born on Mars.
Douglas Johnson,
I don’t think this analogy gets us anywhere. Legislation can’t change real-world facts, but states have the power to make laws as to who can and cannot get married. Catholics insist (and I read What Is Marriage? to say the same thing) that those who have been married before and divorced simply cannot enter into a second marriage until the death of their former spouses. If marriage is permanent and exclusive, there can be no second marriages. It is impossible. Yet no one opposing same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is impossible is objecting to second marriages on the grounds that they are impossible.
Being civilly married and having been born on Mars are in two entirely different classes. In spite of any religious or philosophical beliefs about “real” marriage, people who are civilly married are civilly married. It is a legal relationship and state that government has the authority to establish and (with divorce) dissolve. The fact that Catholics don’t believe divorce is actually possible does not mean they don’t recognize civil divorce. In fact, it’s a prerequisite for getting an annulment.
December 5th, 2012 | 10:10 am
Put bluntly, when two women try to have sex, their bodies may as well be those of two girls, two boys, or two men. The only way to argue against this is to assert that the mind trumps the body.
gentlemind,
Of course “the mind trumps the body” when it comes to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is much more about mind than about body. Back to the Merriam Webster Unabridged, homosexuality is “atypical sexuality characterized by manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one’s own sex.” While it is possible that the ultimate cause of homosexuality and heterosexuality is physical, desire is not a physical attribute of the body. It is of the mind. The concept “heterosexual body” makes no sense. Certainly a male and a female body are necessary for sexual reproduction (in the absence of various technological interventions), but the words heterosexual and homosexual were not coined to describe bodies. Male and female work just fine for that. They were coined to describe orientations of persons.
December 5th, 2012 | 10:49 am
Heterosexual contraception/oral sex/adultery/etc are right in context (heterosexual) but wrong in content. In the case of homosexual behaviour, there is never any right content because the adult body is heterosexual and therefore there is no homosexual context.
gentlemind,
I see no usefulness to your context/content distinction. I suspect you are not looking at this from a Catholic perspective or even from the perspective of What Is Marriage? But heterosexual oral sex (and other forms of non-procreative sex) is morally condemned for exactly the same reason homosexual oral sex is condemned (by those who condemn both). Implying non-procreative heterosexual acts are in some ways of greater moral permissibility than homosexual ones is nonsense. Saying, “Yes, I raped her, but it could have been worse. I might have raped a man,” does not seem to me to get the rapists off the hook.
December 5th, 2012 | 11:26 am
@Douglas Johnson: Looks like I got mixed up mid-sentence. I mean to write “will you guys help get a law passed that prohibits creation of people that are not the union of a man and a woman?”
An “Egg and Sperm” law will make a distinction in the rights of male-female couples and same-sex couples, they won’t be able to use that little “=” logo anymore and won’t be able to teach kids that there is no difference any more. When combined with a law setting the effect of marriage as approving and allowing the conception of offspring of the couple using their own genes, it would end same-sex marriage in every state (actually that second isn’t necessary because that is already the effect of marriage and always has been, but that is under serious threat right now and needs to be codified to be secure.)
If you have any questions feel free to ask, but there really isn’t much you need to know. We should just reject “postgenderism” and prohibit labs from attempting to make offspring from two people of the same sex, and affirm natural procreation rights. Will you (and Chairm) help pass that law, just by supporting it right now and in the future?
December 5th, 2012 | 11:27 am
In all other areas of health, we seek to move from disorder towards order. For example, we do not merely accept that those with asthma are “born that way”. We recognise the need to move away from suffering, towards harmony. All sexual disorders are regarded this way.
gentlemind,
However, homosexuality is not regarded as a sexual disorder. But let’s assume for a moment it is a disorder and a medical problem. A great deal of medicine, it seems to me, is helping people to do the best they can with what they have (or, if you like, to play the hand they are dealt). I remember seeing a report (on 60 Minutes I believe) about a woman who was born without arms. She managed to do a great many things (drive a car, go grocery shopping) using one of her feet as a hand. Some people found this freakish and repellant. I found it heroic. If people are so emotionally stunted that they have difficulty forming emotional relationships with other humans, but get great satisfaction out of having a pet dog, is it wrong of them to have the pet dog? Maybe having a pet dog even isolates them, and if it could be taken away and they could be required to have therapy, they could form more mature attachments to other persons. Should we take away their dogs? Should deaf people be prevented from using sign language because “normal” people speak? Suppose a woman for some reason is unable to form a close emotional/romantic bond with a man—let’s say because of the way she was mistreated by her father. Does that mean she must go forever without forming a close emotional bond with anyone?
It seems to me you are willing to justify or semi-justify just about anything that heterosexuals so, but you apparently demand lifelong celibacy (and lonliness) of gay men or lesbians. Any heterosexual behavior gets a kind of tacit approval because our “bodies are heterosexual.” That seems to me to either be heterosexual chauvinism or “anti-gay animus.”
December 5th, 2012 | 11:38 am
David Nickol: “I believe I have made it clear previously that I in no way support a “right” of same-sex couples to reproduce through some kind of scientific manipulation of the genes of both of them. I also do not support a scientific effort to do such a thing. I would be happy to see it banned. I freely “give it up.” In fact, I renounce it. Exactly what more you want to hear from me I can’t imagine.”
That’s excellent. You understand then, that would prohibit people from conceiving offspring with someone of the same sex? It would create a distinction in rights, depending on the sex of the person we were with. I would still be allowed to reproduce with a woman (provided we were eligible to marry each other), but not with a man, because the ban would prohibit reproducing with a man by limiting reproduction to a man and a woman.
I certainly do not give up my right to conceive offspring with my spouse, so do not give it up for me just to say same-sex couples have equal rights. They should not have equal rights, specifically when it comes to marriage and reproduction.
December 5th, 2012 | 11:58 am
First David Nickol wrote:
Then I wrote:
Then David Nickol responded as follows:
David, I think what you mean is that my analogy doesn’t help your argument. Your sentence above is what the whole debate is all about.
I hope I don’t need to explain why I would say it is impossible that they were born on Mars. But consistent with how you advocate redefining marriage, it would not be impossible at all. The impossibility from where I sit hinges on the meaning of the words “born on.” Mars advocates might argue that “born on” is just another set of words up for grabs that can mean whatever we want to say it means, they could argue it refers to a state of mind, and besides we are only talking about a tiny number of people that want to take advantage of the new meaning.
But to anyone else reading this comment, please note how David Nickol just arbitrarily assumes “born on” MEANS something that is not up for grabs, but “marriage” is an institution that IS up for grabs. Those who want to redefine marriage breeze over it like a magician’s sleight of hand, but the whole trick is their claim that marriage didn’t mean anything before they went to work trying to redefine it. But something has to first mean something if you are going to redefine it, right? Well what about marriage do you want to redefine? Easy–that marriage has anything in particular to do with the fact that it takes a man and a woman to create new life.
David Nickol et. al. spend an incredible amount of time trying to either avoid or dance around this argument because “redefining marriage” frames the argument in a way that is near impossible for them to overcome. For years opponents like me made a major concession to David Nickol’s side by using the meaningless phrase “gay marriage.” Even on the first day it was invented a handful of years ago, they announced “gay marriage” as if it was a type of marriage all along from the beginning of time, just waiting in the wings. Obviously that’s nonsense, but when we use the phrase “gay marriage” we concede that nonsense. This is why it is so important to never use those words and instead refer to “redefining marriage,” which changes marriage that existed before and above any government and turns it into an arm of the government.
Anyway, thank you David Nickol for your earlier post that triggered the idea of my “born on Mars” analogy. I used it in conversation last night and it proved very effective.
December 5th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
david nickol,
unless i’m misreading you, your argument amounts to the following:
premise 1: some gay people in new york state are “legally married”
premise 2: “legally married” means “really married”
conclusion A: some gay people in new york state are “really married”
conclusion B: same sex marriage is not a metaphysical impossibility
it’s not hard to see that this argument begs the question — premise 2 assumes what you’re trying to prove. it assumes a definition of marriage instead of arguing for it.
put another way, if new york state law allowed my dog and me to get married, this fallacious argument would still “work” to show that our human/canine marriage was “real.”
December 5th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
What ho!
David Nickol wrote:
For a minute there I thought we were all safe since “anti-gay animus” only seemed to apply to the guy who says “let’s put all the queers and lesbians in an electrified cage.” But it appears I spoke too soon.
gentlemind wrote this…
And David Nickol responded with this….
There you have it folks. What is anti-gay animus? Well it’s guys who say they want to put “queers and lesbians in an electrified fence” and it’s guys who said what gentlemind said above.
(David Nickol says he might only accuse gentlemind of chauvinism so we might still have to wait for his final declaration on this.)
December 5th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Thank you Douglas, but David’s final declaration is not going to make much sense until he grasps the fact that the body itself is heterosexual. Sorry David. I’ll have another go:
An orientation is a direction caused by a stimulous. Adultery and voyeurism are orientations. Heterosexual and Homosexual can only properly refer to the relationship of one body to another. Jesus described marriage in terms of Male and Female. There is simply no need to add a layer on top (individual emotional “orientation”) when that layer does not override Male and Female. If the body in relation to ours is the same as our own, the relationship is homosexual, regardless of individual “orientation”. Our emotional orientation” (desire) is therefore out of harmony with the physical orientation of our body (homosexual) or in harmony (heterosexual). All bodies are heterosexual. Free will allows us to use our body homosexually.
December 5th, 2012 | 6:50 pm
gentlemind,
I see no point in further discussion if you wish to use words to mean what you think they should mean instead of what they do mean. Adultery and voyeurism are not orientations. Sexual orientation, according to Merriam-Webster Unabridged Medical Dictionary is “the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior.” That’s the extent of it. If it’s something other than heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, it’s not a sexual orientation.
Heterosexual and homosexual can only properly refer to the relationship of one body to another.
This is simply wrong. Read Wikipedia’s entry on Sexual Orientation.
All bodies are heterosexual.
This simply makes no sense. All bodies are either male or female (disregarding rare genetic anomalies), but given the definition of sexual orientation, it makes no sense to say that all bodies are heterosexual. Heterosexuality, as defined, is a matter of psychology, not biology (although a biological cause may be found).
I enjoy these exchanges, but it seems to me futile to go on if the key terms of the discussion mean one thing to me (and the dictionary, and the American Psychological Association, etc.) and you use them to mean something else.
December 5th, 2012 | 7:02 pm
Douglas Johnson,
You have, of course, badly misinterpreted and misquoted what I said. You gave two quotes, one from gentlemind and one from me, and made it appear that my quote was in direct response to the paragraph you quoted from gentlemind.
How I characterize gentlemind’s ideas, and how he characterizes mine, hardly allow for me to meaningfully accuse him of “anti-gay animus,” since he interprets animus (and sexual orientation, homosexual, heterosexual, etc.) differently from the way I (and the dictionary) interpret them. I fear if I tried to insult him, he would believe it was a compliment, and if I tried to compliment him, he might take it as an insult!
December 6th, 2012 | 4:47 am
All bodies are heterosexual.
David wrote: “This simply makes no sense. All bodies are either male or female (disregarding rare genetic anomalies), but given the definition of sexual orientation, it makes no sense to say that all bodies are heterosexual. Heterosexuality, as defined, is a matter of psychology, not biology (although a biological cause may be found).”
Oh, so very wrong. Does a woman who is incapable of establishing a heterosexual relationship with a man (a woman with a lesbianism problem) stop menstruating? Does a man who is incapable of establishing a relationship with with a woman (a man with a homosexual problem) stop producing sperm? Are they incapable of conceiving a child if they have heterosexual sex?
No, to all three. Their bodies are heterosexual, because they were designed for heterosexual reproduction and sex.
Does a man who develops a pedophilia problem suffer a change in his body to adapt it to his pedophilic activities with children? Not at all. Even though, like homosexuality, his problem is psychological, his body continues to be designed for heterosexual, adult sex.
Sure, an adult can physically engage in sex with a cadaver, a sheep, a child, or with person of the same sex, but that doesn’t mean their bodies were not designed for heterosexual sex and reproduction.
Sexuality is very much a question of biology, bodies, and psychology.
Everyone is born heterosexual (unless, as David noted, they have congenital deformations – which most people with a homosexual problem do not have). Claiming otherwise makes no sense at all.
December 6th, 2012 | 9:43 am
Everyone is born heterosexual . . . . Claiming otherwise makes no sense at all.
Heather,
I thought we had agreed that it makes no sense to say babies are born heterosexual. Sexual desires and behaviors of the reproductive type is not possible until puberty. Heterosexuality means “the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of the opposite sex.” What sense does it make to say a 2-year-old is heterosexual if he or she does not manifest sexual desire toward the opposite sex?
Once again, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual were words deliberately coined to describe sexual orientation—manifestation of sexual desire toward the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes. They are not words used to describe bodies. A person, not a body, has a sexual orientation.
Now, if you want to maintain that heterosexuality is innate, that all persons are destined to become heterosexual at puberty, that all people really are heterosexual at puberty but that for people with “a homosexual problem,” something is interfering with their ability to feel and express their heterosexuality, then that is another matter.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:58 am
Douglas, do you see that David Nickol is conceding that people do not have a right to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex? That means he recognizes that there is a difference in rights. Consider these four unrelated unmarried adults, two males and two females, Mike, Mark, Fannie, and Freda: Mike has a right to conceive with Fannie and Freda but not with Mark. Freda has a right to conceive with Mike and Mark but not Fannie. David Nickol concedes that when he agrees that there is no right to do genetic engineering or stem cell manipulation or whatever it takes to allow two people of the same sex to reproduce offspring together:
David Nickol: “I believe I have made it clear previously that I in no way support a “right” of same-sex couples to reproduce through some kind of scientific manipulation of the genes of both of them. I also do not support a scientific effort to do such a thing. I would be happy to see it banned. I freely “give it up.” In fact, I renounce it. Exactly what more you want to hear from me I can’t imagine.”
But right now, there is no law against it, and the fact is Freda and Fannie are allowed to attempt to conceive offspring together, and so are Mark and Mike. What we need to do is prohibit that by limiting creation of people to the union of a man and a woman. That’s what you and Chairm need to say, you need to help push for that law. Without that law, then courts will say that they have a right to marry, since they are allowed to conceive offspring together.
December 6th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
Heather,
I really enjoyed reading your arguments in your last post. Just before reading your comment I was reading the opening pages of Josef Pieper’s “The Concept of Sin,” wherein he discusses how reason and sin are both tied to nature. I first picked up Pieper’s classic, “Leisure, The Basis of Culture” and “The Philosophical Act” this past summer and just re-read the Philosophical Act again last week. My priest calls Pieper “the greatest Thomist of the 20th century.”
David Nickol eats up about 80% of the bandwidth on First Things, which isn’t all bad because he’s drawn out some great arguments in response, such as those written by Ken Zaretzke and Blake. But sometimes I wish we all spent more time talking to each other. It’d be sort of nice if First Things would setup a separate discussion area for those who profess a full faith in the Nicene Creed.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
Heather or anyone else,
As a follow up to my previous comment, I would like to set up a website where we could invite the best commenters to gather and share ideas with one another. It’d be an invitation only discussion board, but I’d like to be able to post questions to specific members that everyone could read.
I think First Things is a great place to gather, but it’s mostly a discussion run by David Nickol and a few others. That is, if 85% of us agree on a topic we are letting the 15% who disagree control the whole conversation (this is a problem in politics as well!).
I know about Word Press, Tumblr, etc. but if anyone can recommend the best place to host this sort of thing, let me know.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
Hi John,
I have to confess that I haven’t read most of the posts going back and forth between you and David Nickol, but I am certain I am on your side without doing so!
As far as your proposed law goes, I really haven’t given it much thought but based on what you’ve said about it I don’t see any reason to oppose it. In the future what concerns you now might be the next big battle.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:30 pm
This is a deep concern of yours, isn’t it John? It isn’t of mine, mainly because marriage can be adequately understood without reference to artificial rights, which is all same-sex reproduction/cloning can ever be.
However there is still a danger, and it stems from our diminishing ability to explain what human rights are. If a State insists that marriage is heterosexual but nevertheless gives homosexual relationships the opportunity to “found a family” outside of marriage, then the State would have simultaneously protected marriage and weakened the case for its necessary heterosexuality. For that reason, your concerns are valid, as they help block a potential tunnel into marriage. Rather terrifyingly, the United Nations is turning human (natural) rights into positive (artificial) rights. Thus the word Right itself is no longer a defence of reality.
In no way am i approving of same-sex reproduction/cloning. Both are hideous. I am appalled that the country i live in is a world leader at manipulating the future body of people before they have even been born.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
“I am not sure what the point is of criticizing this premise, since no one in this debate has endorsed it or would even dream of doing so. If you believe someone has, please point out where.”
It is implicit in the promotion of the acceptance, celebration and institutionalization of homosexual behavor.
I’m sorry that you can’t seem to fathom that.
December 6th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
David Nickol eats up about 80% of the bandwidth on First Things . . .
Douglas Johnson,
I write a lot of messages, but even if I wrote 80% of the messages, it wouldn’t be 80% of the bandwidth. Surely this forum is operating nowhere near capacity. It’s not that I write so much. It’s that others write so little.
The latest message from Blake I am able to find is from September 1 of this year. Of course, as Alessandra knows, you can always come back under a different name.
I have Josef Pieper’s Death and Immortality, but have not read it yet.
December 6th, 2012 | 4:20 pm
David,
I meant “bandwidth” metaphorically, not in terms of whatever it technically means with regard to computers.
December 6th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
” Everyone is born heterosexual . . . . Claiming otherwise makes no sense at all.”
David Nickol wrote: “I thought we had agreed that it makes no sense to say babies are born heterosexual.”
Why do you use the pronoun “we” to refer to you agreeing with yourself?
” Sexual desires and behaviors of the reproductive type is not possible until puberty. Heterosexuality means “the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of the opposite sex.”
David, are you unaware that there is an enormous number of other elements, aside from what you may deem to be “sexual desire,” that are part of human sexuality?
“What sense does it make to say a 2-year-old is heterosexual if he or she does not manifest sexual desire toward the opposite sex? ”
Because if this child doesn’t develop a host of psychological/ideological problems that will prevent him or her from developing normally, that’s exactly how this child will function as he or she grows into an adult – heterosexually. It’s body is designed for heterosexual sex and it’s mind is completely integrated with its body. It’s not the body that drives the mind, they are equally integrated.
Thus the matrix for this heterosexual development is something every person is born with. It can certainly be deformed along the way, but that’s because of detrimental factors.
All children are born heterosexual, and unless they have congenital problems regarding its sexual organs or other developmental problems, a child’s body and mind have been designed to undergo a development that will enable it have heterosexual sex and produce offspring once it reaches an age where it becomes sexually mature.
Human sexuality is much more complex and complicated than mere sexual biological development however. For example, witness the horrible cases of 10-year-old girls being pregnant or people with a homosexuality problem – who are psychologically incapable of establishing a heterosexual relationship – of which sexual desire is a tiny element within the entire realm of personal relationships.
December 6th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Douglas Johnson wrote: “As a follow up to my previous comment, I would like to set up a website where we could invite the best commenters to gather and share ideas with one another. It’d be an invitation only discussion board, but I’d like to be able to post questions to specific members that everyone could read.”
=============
Douglas, I am ALL for it!
Excellent idea.
And who knows, depending on the number of people who participate, it could grow to be a great online resource and we might even collaborate in producing material for publication/distribution elsewhere.
I actually had left a comment on your blog a couple of days ago…
I find wordpress excellent, but I’m no expert about all current blog options.
December 6th, 2012 | 5:34 pm
David, are you unaware that there is an enormous number of other elements, aside from what you may deem to be “sexual desire,” that are part of human sexuality?
Heather,
Yes, but we are talking sexual orientation, not human sexuality.
Briefly put, it makes no more sense to say that a child is born heterosexual than it does to say that Shaquille O’Neal was born tall. This does not mean that heterosexuality is not basically predetermined, but nobody knows that for sure.
The problem with your writings on this topic is that you have your own personal theories of what Freud called psychosexual development, and you seem to pull them out of thin air. Freud (as you may very well know) considered children to be born bisexual or even “polymorphous perverse” and for their sexuality to go through a series of stages that resolved, if all went “well,” into heterosexuality, at least on the surface.
You can’t (or at least haven’t) pointed to any work and said, “This is where I get the idea that everyone is born heterosexual.” What you say cannot be verified or corroborated. What I say can be found in Wikipedia and any good reference work or textbook.
Any further discussion is pointless.
December 6th, 2012 | 9:30 pm
Heather,
“All bodies are heterosexual”
I’m sorry, but David is right on this issue. A body cannot heterosexual, but interests can be. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of heterosexual in English is 1892, and it meant “Characterized by a sexual interest in members of the opposite sex.”
You’re welcome to change the meaning of the word “heterosexual,” of course, but you should at least recognize that you’re changing the definition of the term.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:17 pm
Douglas,
“Anyway, thank you David Nickol for your earlier post that triggered the idea of my “born on Mars” analogy. I used it in conversation last night and it proved very effective”
Ok. Let’s look at the analogy then. You say, “If you could drum up the votes, you could also pass a law declaring that all New Yorkers were born on Mars. After that all New Yorkers would be legally recognized as having been born on Mars. But I would still insist that it is impossible that they were born on Mars”
Your analogy isn’t as far fetched as you think. We do something similar with adoption. Adoption law varies by state, but it often alters the child’s birth certificate. By law, I am the father of my adopted children. No one—not even the state—calls me the adoptive father. I am the father. The law has decreed possible what you call impossible.
I have a friend who adopted her nephew. She is his legal mother. He, of course, just calls her mother. The law works this way all the time.
“For years opponents like me made a major concession to David Nickol’s side by using the meaningless phrase “gay marriage.” This is why it is so important to never use those words and instead refer to “redefining marriage,”
While you’re fighting about language, I encourage you to take up Heather’s lingo. Instead of using words like gay or homosexual which also concede that such people exist, use phrases like “heterosexual with a homosexual problem.”
In the meantime, I’m looking forward to this weekend. We’re celebrating two heterosexual women with a homosexual problem who have spent seventeen years sharing the same household and committing unnatural acts that are otherwise sanctioned in the context of marriage. The reason for the celebration is that one of the heterosexual women with a homosexual problem has received news that her cancer is at last in remission. Her sodomite partner has spent a long four years caring for her through the painful and routine assaults on personal dignity that come with chemotherapy.
Transplants from Maine, they are looking forward to taking advantage of the state’s redefinition of marriage sometime this summer. They will, of course, have to choose their caterer, florist, photographer, wedding planner, and hotel carefully. But then, they have lived their whole lives being careful about what they say, how they behave, and who they trust.
Heterosexuals with homosexual problems never know for sure when some stranger or retailer will become eager to present carefully reasoned arguments to them.
December 6th, 2012 | 10:19 pm
Douglas,
“I think First Things is a great place to gather, but it’s mostly a discussion run by David Nickol and a few others. That is, if 85% of us agree on a topic we are letting the 15% who disagree control the whole conversation (this is a problem in politics as well!)”
This is a fascinating idea. I’m struck by how counter it is to Neuhaus’s vision of journal in which even atheists would be invited to talk about the proper role of religion in the public square.
David, of course, doesn’t “run” anything. He participates in the discussion and almost always begins by responding to the actual article. You are free, of course, to ignore David’s comments and carry on whatever conversation strikes your fancy. You do so all the time, in fact. You ignore lots of people’s comments in order to attack David’s.
I’ve been reading and commenting on this site long before you or David appeared, and so you might not remember when Brettongarcia and Papalinton used to contribute. They were genuine trolls, willing to say anything to get a rise out of other commenters. Eventually, people stopped responding to them and they left, though one kept reappearing occasionally under different names.
One of the things I value about David’s contributions is that he often brings in intelligent reading. I am frequently struck by some new way he’s approached a subject. Often, he brings up some piece of the Roman faith that Romans themselves haven’t considered. In fact, his first comment on this thread raises the question of whether the Roman Church discriminates against orientation. No one chose to think about that question and instead went after the red-meat topic of whether it’s proper to use terms like “anti-gay.” The conversation went south from there, and it wasn’t David’s fault. He asked a good question, but other commenters brought the conversation down to sillier matters.
Given the number of times he’s attacked by name, I’m impressed that David so rarely loses his temper or responds in kind.
But I wonder how much you and others are actually interested in engaging each other in the way you propose. On this thread, for example, you have directed comments to Blankenhorn, Lythgoe, and Nickol. It was only after Howard asked you something that you started to pay attention to your allies. I would love to see you carry on a conversation with Heather and Howard that simply ignored people like Blankenhorn , Lythgoe, and Nickol. Perhaps you would go farther in educating them.
December 7th, 2012 | 6:46 am
“All bodies are heterosexual”
Michael wrote: I’m sorry, but David is right on this issue. A body cannot heterosexual, but interests can be.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of heterosexual in English is 1892, and it meant “Characterized by a sexual interest in members of the opposite sex.”
=========
I’m sorry, but both you and David are wrong. Having heterosexual sex does not require an interest in the members of the opposite sex. A person with a homosexuality problem – and who is thus incapable of having a normal interest in members of the opposite sex – can have heterosexual sex and can even carry out heterosexual reproduction. This is because their bodies are heterosexual and they are equipped for heterosexual reproduction.
To underscore the above, heterosexual reproduction is impossible without heterosexually-designed bodies and a heterosexual biological functioning of these individuals (unless you intervene with artificial procedures which still replicate the natural heterosexual reproduction ones).
Dictionary definitions related to complex phenomena as sexuality are often reductionist, incomplete, and easily distorted.
This is a great example. Human sexuality covers an entire universe of elements, and heterosexuality is this entire universe of elements, which go far beyond a simplistic notion of “sexual desire,” referring to psychological, physical, ideological/cultural, social or behavioral interactions between women and men.
“Heterosexual” is the adjective related to this entire universe of human (hetero)sexuality – which you and David apparently don’t like recognizing very often in terms of its complexity or of its biological realities.
The concept of “human SEXUALITY” is not equal to “sexual orientation.” “Heterosexual ORIENTATION” is one thing, “heteroSEXUALITY” is much, much more complex and encompassing.
Thus, the adjective “heterosexual” cannot be restricted to simply meaning desire, if “sexual” also does not simply refer to desire.
More reductionists definitions of “sexual orientation” exist, meaning just “sexual desire,” but they are often useless and misleading, or used in such ways.
If a person’s biology is designed for heterosexual sex and reproduction, we can certainly say that their bodies are heterosexual, in the sense that they have a heterosexual reproductive apparatus and functioning (which will normally entail heterosexual behaviors).
In conclusion, every person is born heterosexual. One does not need to be born an adult – as David claims – in order to be heterosexual. All that is required is to be part of the human species, which is a heterosexual species. True hermaphrodites don’t exist in the human species, and intersex individuals have congenital defects.
December 7th, 2012 | 1:43 pm
Douglas Johnson and gentlemind, the law that would prohibit same-sex couples from attempting to reproduce offspring together is needed right now! Enacting that law is necessary to end same-sex marriage and protect children from being mis-educated right now, today! It’s like what Lincoln said in the new movie: “Now, now, now!”
Just tell David Nickol and every other person who favors same-sex marriage that marriage should always approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together with their own genes, and same-sex couples should be prohibited from conceiving offspring together with their own genes. And then tell Congress to enact the law, ASAP!
December 7th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
David Nickol, your use of the word, bigotry, is a departure from the defniition you cited from the dictionary. Yet you rely on your peculiar useage.
Heather is usin heterosexual in a way that gets at the root of the issue of sexual a
Heather has used the word, heterosexual, in a way new to your thinking. She pointed out the two-sexed nature of humankind and of human sexuality. Our bodies are designed for mating, man and woman, and this is so even as the human being develops bodily and mindfully into adulthood. Just as we are bipedal even as the young child crawls on all fours. The difference is that human mating joins two mature adults, one of each sex (of course).
Sexual attraction between man and woman, and its volitional fulfilment, is in accord with the two-sexed nature of humankind. Volitional, not because of variations possible in obkects of sexual attraction, but because the subject is, by nature, a creature of reason and moral conscience, that is to say a human being.
Is sexual behavior possible without mutual consent? Yes. Is that in accord with the nature of human sexuality? No. Likewise it is possible for experienced sexual attraction to venture afield and to manifest against the nature of humankind.
Our bodies are not mere costumes or machines that we use to serve our minds. We are both mind and body, of course. So, as Heather put it, we are born with bodies sexually oriented man to woman and woman to man.
This is so no matter the subject’s contrary will, just as volition is in our nature, even contrary the subject’s acting or feeling or desiring otherwise. Each human being is the subject who experiences the choice, urge, want, need, behavior. Acting in accord with our nature means taking into account the subject’s volition as well as that of the object (another human being) and that person’s equal dignity as a fellow member of humankind. To act otherwise is to act against oneself and against the other person.
Just as the individual person is neither mind-only nor body-only, it is wrong for that individual (the subject) to treat another individual (the object of one’s choice, desire, need, behavior) as less than oneself. To do so would be to go against the nature of humankind.
Humankind is oriented man to woman and woman to man. Sexually, yes, and more.
The notion of “homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual orientation” does not describe the nature of human sexuality; it does describe a range of possibles but not the complete range of possible sexual attractions that human beings are capable of experiencing.
To the extent that “heterosexual” means sexual attraction between man and woman, it merely describes the sexual nature of humankind. Some people might act against that nature, but that does not alter it.
When volition is not manifested in a sexual act, for instance, whether this involves one or two persons or one or two sexes, that does not alter the volitional nature of humankind and thus of human sexuality. Acting contrary to the nature of humankind and human sexuality with or without mutual volition can not alter the volitional nature of humankind and of human sexuality.
Using the word, heterosexual, to desvribe the nature of humankind is reasonable. Using other terms like homosexual or bisexual to describes variances or anomalies is also reasonable. The latter is juxtaposed with human nature but does not alter human nature.
December 7th, 2012 | 7:27 pm
Heather,
“To underscore the above, heterosexual reproduction is impossible without heterosexually-designed bodies and a heterosexual biological functioning of these individuals (unless you intervene with artificial procedures which still replicate the natural heterosexual reproduction ones)”
You’re making your argument more difficult than it needs to be by making up new uses for words when you could simply use the English language. No one talks about “heterosexual reproduction” in the way you do. People say instead “sexual reproduction.” Bodies are not “heterosexual”; they are “sexed,” male and female.
Let me reword your sentence, and maybe you’ll understand: “sexual reproduction is impossible without sexually-designed bodies and a sexual biological functioning of these individuals (unless you intervene with artificial procedures which still replicate the natural sexual reproduction ones).”
Notice that this sentence makes complete sense and would be accepted in any biology textbook. There’s no reason for use the word “heterosexual” when the word “sexual” works just as well, is the traditional choice, and doesn’t confuse the issue.
What do you think you gain by bending the language into knots the way you do?
December 8th, 2012 | 5:07 am
Michael wrote: Let me reword your sentence, and maybe you’ll understand: “sexual reproduction is impossible without sexually-designed bodies and a sexual biological functioning of these individuals (unless you intervene with artificial procedures which still replicate the natural sexual reproduction ones).”
Michael,
Apparently you are unaware that various types of sexual reproduction exist. I see that it is breaking news to you that hermaphrodite reproduction exists – it is sexual, but it is wrong to characterize it as heterosexual. In your paragraph above, we can’t know if you are talking about heterosexual or hermaphrodite or homosexual reproduction.
“In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.
Many taxonomic groups of animals (mostly invertebrates) do not have separate sexes. In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which both partners can act as the “female” or “male”.”
Contrary to your claim, heterosexual reproduction and hermaphroditic reproduction are not the same, even though they are both sexual. Neither is homosexual reproduction the same as heterosexual reproduction.
Thus your example would not be accepted in any biology text that was explaining the difference between the various types of sexual reproduction or in any context where it was necessary to explicit that the reproduction in question was heterosexual (involving opposite sexes or male-female mating) – and not of any other kind.
Let me explain a little bit more: “Sexual” is not interchangeable with “heterosexual” in every reproduction context as you insist.
====================
Michael wrote: “Let me reword your sentence, and maybe you’ll understand: “sexual reproduction is impossible without sexually-designed bodies and a sexual biological functioning of these individuals (unless you intervene with artificial procedures which still replicate the natural sexual reproduction ones).”
And just underscoring how silly your claim is, you’ve just stated above that two men could reproduce, since they both have “sexually designed” bodies and a “sexual biological functioning” of their bodies. Yet they can’t. And no, your claim that two men could reproduce would not be accepted in any biology textbook.
I hope that you can finally understand what the issue is and that your very limited understanding of the term “heterosexual” is not shared by many other people, including the most basic biology books on various types of reproduction.
December 8th, 2012 | 11:49 am
Heather, two men could try to reproduce, but it would be unethical and they should not be allowed to try. They do not have complementary genomic imprinting, so joining their genes together would result in many genes that were “on” twice and many genes that were “off” twice, causing major genetic defects and probably a still birth. It would be unethical to attempt it, so people should be prohibited from conceiving offspring with someone of the same sex.
Meanwhile, all marriages should always approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together, there should never be any marriages that are publicly prohibited from conceiving offspring together using their own genes.
December 8th, 2012 | 7:32 pm
Heather,
“Apparently you are unaware that various types of sexual reproduction exist”
Not in humans. Humans reproduce only through sexual reproduction.
“Neither is homosexual reproduction the same as heterosexual reproduction.”
There is no such thing as “homosexual reproduction.” Some plants and animals reproduce through “asexual reproduction,” but no textbook calls that phenomenon “homosexual reproduction.”
Try this. Google “asexual reproduction,” and you’ll get a list of sites describing how plants and animals reproduce. Then Google “homosexual reproduction,” and you’ll a list of sites describing what scientific breakthroughs would be required for two humans of the same sex to create a child from their combined DNA.
In other words, homosexual reproduction does not yet exist anywhere in the plant, animal, or human world. In fact, John Howard on this very thread is trying to gather people to oppose the development of the means of homosexual reproduction.
“you’ve just stated above that two men could reproduce, since they both have “sexually designed” bodies and a “sexual biological functioning” of their bodies.”
I’ve stated no such thing. You’ve badly misread my statement. The only way men can reproduce is through sex with women. Period. That is what SEXUAL reproduction means. But you’ve been arguing that such a thing as HETEROSEXUAL reproduction exists. It doesn’t. Every textbook in the world calls it sexual reproduction.
Again, try the Google test, and you’ll see that “heterosexual reproduction” creates a list of sites that talk about fish, evolution, and babysitting. Google “sexual reproduction,” and the sites talk about biology. Clearly, the people talking about “heterosexual reproduction” have gotten their terminology confused.
“I hope that you can finally understand what the issue is and that your very limited understanding of the term “heterosexual” is not shared by many other people, including the most basic biology books on various types of reproduction”
Can you recommend a single biology textbook that uses the term “heterosexual reproduction” rather than the standard term “sexual reproduction”?
Here’s another Google text. Go to Google books and search “biology textbook ‘heterosexual reproduction,’” and you’ll get a list of cultural studies books. Search instead for “biology textbook ‘sexual reproduction,’” and you’ll get a list of biology textbooks.
You’re confusing the issues by using the wrong terminology.
December 9th, 2012 | 2:20 am
Michael wrote: “Again, try the Google test, and you’ll see that “heterosexual reproduction” creates a list of sites that talk about fish, evolution, and babysitting.”
Funny, I found so many sites talking exactly about what I was talking about – something you claimed did not exist (“No one talks about “heterosexual reproduction” in the way you do.”).
For example, let’s take a site talking about fish reproduction:
“At least three modes of reproduction–heterosexual, hermaphroditic, and parthenogenetic–are found in fishes. In the most common form, heterosexual reproduction, there are separate male and female parents, but even here there is considerable variation. In some live-bearing fishes, the female is able to store sperm for up to 8 or even 10 months, and this sperm is used to fertilize new batches of eggs as they develop. In some cases, a female may carry sperm from several males at once. In hermaphroditic reproduction, a single fish is both male and female, produces both eggs and sperm (either at the same time or at different times), and mates with other similar hermaphroditic fishes. External self-fertilization occurs in one hermaphroditic fish, which sheds egg and sperm simultaneously. In another, internal self-fertilization may occur. In certain fishes there is a time sequence of hermaphroditism, young fishes reversing their sex as they grow older.”
According to you and Nickol, when the author mentions “heterosexual reproduction,” he/she is talking about the “sexual desire” of the fish, not the fact that it refers to their bodies, their reproduction system, and the actions needed to reproduce – all of which are heterosexual.
It is plain to see how silly your claim is. The author here is distinguishing three types of sexual reproduction: heterosexual, hermaphroditic, and parthenogenetic. He/she is not talking about desire. Heterosexual, like the other two, is a type of sexual reproduction. It further specifies what kind of sexual reproduction we are referring to: between two opposite-sex members, who have bodies built to reproduce only with opposite-sex members. The prefix “hetero” means “opposite/different.” “Sexual” relates to everything encompassed by sexuality. The term “heterosexual” cannot be reduced to “heterodesire” as you and Nickol claim. Thus “heterosexual” can refer to desire, but it also refers to anything related to sexuality, including bodies, actions, and reproduction.
Let me explain further something you fail to understand: without a heterosexual body, there is no heterosexual reproduction. This is why there is no homosexual body and no homosexual reproduction in humans – the human species is heterosexual and its form of reproduction is heterosexual.
Michael wrote: “I’ve stated no such thing. You’ve badly misread my statement. The only way men can reproduce is through sex with women. Period. That is what SEXUAL reproduction means. ”
That’s not true. “Sexual” applied to the concept of reproduction means the reproduction is enabled by a sexual act – it does not specify the act or the kind of people/animals involved, and thus the difference between sexual and asexual means of reproduction.
So, “sexual reproduction” does not forcibly mean reproduction by two members of the opposite sex as you claim. Why are you entangling yourself further instead of just admitting you were wrong about the term “heterosexual”?
Furthermore, a sexual act can be done with a person of the same sex, a sheep, or a doll. But these are all dysfunctional in terms of reproduction in humans.
People with a homosexual problem have heterosexual bodies, organs, and a reproductive system. But they are so psychologically deformed that they cannot function as they should and they don’t like to establish relationships with the opposite sex. It doesn’t change the fact that the only way they can naturally reproduce is by heterosexual sex and heterosexual reproductive means.
December 9th, 2012 | 10:25 pm
Heather, your explaination is reasoned.
David Nickoland Michael, your criticism of Eather’s remarks are understandable, given your gay emphasis, however yours is a misunderstanding.
Obstinantely clinging to your misunderstanding is perhaps the best you will offer. One might expect better. Unreasoned obstinancey is the source of bigotry and intolerance, as per the common definition cited by David Nickol.
The gay emphasis does not alter the meaning of these terms. But it might distort useage, as your misunderstanding with Heather has exemplified.
Sometimes bigotry is expressed as bloody-minded contraryism. I think that is probably the apt charicterization of your objections to “heterosexual reproduction”. But you might demonstrate otherwise, yet.
December 9th, 2012 | 10:58 pm
Meanwhile, David Nickol and Michael, why do you demand that society favor the gay subset over and above the rest on the wide range of types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate to non-marriage category?
Apart from the arbitrary gay emphasis in your rhetoric, what do you think justifies special status for those who’d SSM? It cannot be sexual attraction, because that does not make eligible those relationships that are ineligible under the bride-groom requirement of marriage. Besides, there is no such criterion for eligibility to SSM — not where SSM has become entrenched nor is it proposed by SSMers.
It cannot be the distinguishing feature of the type of relationship that is bestowed special status in SSM law, but that contradicts your gay emphasis.
So, in whay way(s) do you claim that “the gay relationship” is like the union of husband and wife — but unlike the rest of non-marriage?
Surely it cannot be the mere desire to SSM? Esire does not make eligible those types of relationships that are ineligible to marry under the bride-groom requirement. So why would it be “reasonable”, do you think, to cite desire to SSM as making some eligible and not others?
Reason would require that you return to the core meaning of SSM. It is not the same as for marriage. Yet you offer nothing to actually distinguish SSM from the rest of non-marriage. Neither sexual attraction, nor desire, nor gay identity (inborn or otherwise) does the job for you.
As per David Blankenhorn’s reliance on the gay emphasis, your position favor effacement of the marriage idea for the sake of the gay identity group.
The supremacy of white identity politics has been repudiated. Yet you depend on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. The racist analogy is the supporter of the SSM idea whose rejection of the marriage idea is based on favoritism of an identity group. It is your tangled web.
December 10th, 2012 | 12:32 am
Chairm, they value controlled laboratory conception with designed evaluated and regulated genomes over our natural genomes because that would stop sick children from being born.
December 10th, 2012 | 3:06 am
Heather,
“Funny, I found so many sites talking exactly about what I was talking about – something you claimed did not exist (“No one talks about “heterosexual reproduction” in the way you do.”)”
You’re right that I overstated my case when I claimed that “no one” uses the term “heterosexual reproduction” in the way you do. I should not have been so incautious. We live, after all, in a culture in which people use the word “irregardless” when they mean “regardless” and “infer” when they mean “imply.” People misuse language all the time, even after they have been directed to a dictionary.
So I’ll modify my claim to say that the vast majority of biologists, psychologists, and other educated people use the term “sexual reproduction” and not “heterosexual reproduction” because “sexual” in this context refers to sexed bodies (bodies with different sex organs) while “heterosexual” is a fairly recent word (less than 150 years old) that refers to sexual desire.
Please look at the fish site that you take as evidence of your claim. To reach that site, you had to walk past the first hit (which is a French university site that is pro-homosexuality), then you had to walk past an online sexuality encyclopedia that features a picture of Dr. Ruth (who is pro-homosexuality), and then an old law article that is pro-homosexuality. Only then did you reach the site about fish reproduction.
And who sponsors that site? It’s not really clear who sponsors LookD, but there’s general information about pets and advertisements for pet supplies. I don’t get a good, strong scientific vibe from this site. Do you?
What do you make of the fact that the first three sites are pro-homosexuality?
Did you try my other Google tests? I hope you went onto Google books and observe that the vast majority of biology textbooks talk about “sexual reproduction.”
“According to you and Nickol, when the author mentions “heterosexual reproduction,” he/she is talking about the “sexual desire” of the fish”
No, I wouldn’t say anything about the sexual desire of the fish. I would say that this author is misusing the term.
“thus the difference between sexual and asexual means of reproduction”
Please explain to me what you think “asexual reproduction” means.
“It doesn’t change the fact that the only way they can naturally reproduce is by heterosexual sex and heterosexual reproductive means”
You seem to think that we are arguing about homosexuality, but I’m not. I’m arguing about terminology. The only way for a homosexual to reproduce is through sex with a person of the opposite sex. Period. This is the case because humans have sexed bodies and reproduce sexually.
Could you please point to one biology textbook that explains things your way? Just one.
December 10th, 2012 | 3:13 am
Chairm Ohn,
“David Nickoland Michael, your criticism of Eather’s remarks are understandable, given your gay emphasis, however yours is a misunderstanding”
My “misunderstanding” is shared with every biology textbook. What I think about homosexuality has nothing to do with my ability to understand basic dictionary definitions. I encourage you, as I have encouraged Heather, to read the best dictionary of English and major biology textbooks. Please do so.
“Sometimes bigotry is expressed as bloody-minded contraryism.”
I agree completely and believe that this thought is pertinent to several comments on this issue of basic definitions.
December 10th, 2012 | 1:51 pm
I have shown the way to resolve the debate. The people still arguing can only be eugenicists and transhumanists intent on stripping procreation rights from marriage and ushering in genetic engineering of human beings. They should just admit it, and argue for those things without using gay people as pawns and wasting so much time and energy and dividing the country. It’s treason, it is a subversive conspiratorial attack on the country by attacking the principles that make this country what it is. I think the death penalty is appropriate for those who try to hoodwink the American people and usher in genetic engineering and deny equality.
December 10th, 2012 | 4:26 pm
John,
“The people still arguing can only be eugenicists and transhumanists intent on stripping procreation rights from marriage and ushering in genetic engineering of human beings.”
Which people are arguing for the genetic engineering of humans?
December 10th, 2012 | 11:50 pm
Michael, Dr Ruth’s website is her encyclopedia of human sexuality. You referred to her and that site as pro-homosexual (whatever that is supposed to mean). She wrote about “heterosexual reproduction” and used that term repeatedly to explain, in part, what Heather has explained.
Anyway, in your remarks you agreed with Heather’s main point. The nature of human procreation is two-sexed. For humankind, sexual reproduction is heterosexual. Our sexual embodiment is not contradicted by human biology, physiology, psycology and so forth.
At best your complaint is that “heterosexual reproduction” is burdened by redundancy because you think that “sexual reproduction” suffices to say the same thing. But that does not negate Heather’s use of the term”heterosexual reproduction”.
Bt it does appear that your complaint is that term “heterosexual reproduction” needs to be divided and in that splitting of the term you chose to nitpick on the proper use of the word heterosexual. Yet your description of sexual reproduction matches the meaning of heterosexual that you and David rely upon. Sexual attraction is hardly irrelevant to human sexual reproduction. It is heterosexual if it is sexual. If our bodies are sexual, in the context of reproduction, then our bodies are heterosexual.
Your narrow use of “heterosexual” does not do what you imagined.
December 11th, 2012 | 12:16 am
@Michael. Everyone who still hasn’t agreed to an egg and sperm law, and to my compromise proposal for civil unions without conception rights.
December 11th, 2012 | 3:14 am
Michael wrote: “People misuse language all the time, even after they have been directed to a dictionary.
============
Michael, the Meriam-Webster dictionary confirms what I have told you about the word heterosexual. I encourage you to read it.
Michael wrote: “You’re right that I overstated my case when I claimed that “no one” uses the term “heterosexual reproduction” in the way you do.”
You didn’t overstate your claim, you made a completely nonsensical claim. I found thousands of articles, books, and other writings from academics and others using the word exactly in the way I was using it. Apparently you are the only one who is unaware of the fact.
Moreover, I see no evidence of any psychologist or biologist who claims that the word “heterosexual” can only equal “hetero-desire” and does not also refer to hetero-sexuality as an adjective, employing the meaning I have already explained at length for sexual/sexuality. In which book did you ever see your claim for your exclusive, reductionist definition? There isn’t a single one.
==============
Michael wrote: “Please look at the fish site that you take as evidence of your claim. To reach that site, you had to walk past the first hit (which is a French university site that is pro-homosexuality), then you had to walk past an online sexuality encyclopedia that features a picture of Dr. Ruth (who is pro-homosexuality), and then an old law article that is pro-homosexuality. Only then did you reach the site about fish reproduction.”
Michael, why do you entangle yourself in greater and greater nonsense? Do you know what SEO is? Are you suggesting that how Google’s engine ranks sites will now determine how scientific their content is or that SEO techniques are the scientific means for us to know what the term “heterosexual” refers to? Please explain how Google’s search engine is now a dictionary or sexuality encyclopedia. You must have a fascinating explanation.
And how did the other sites you found use the term “heterosexual reproduction”? Were they making your claim that “heterosexual” only means desire? I don’t think so. In fact, I see no such reference by anybody. Only you and David insist upon your silly claim.
Michael wrote: “And who sponsors that site? It’s not really clear who sponsors LookD, but there’s general information about pets and advertisements for pet supplies. I don’t get a good, strong scientific vibe from this site. Do you?”
Michael, in order to know if the content about fish reproduction is valid, you need to understand something about biology. Otherwise, looking at advertisements is a poor way to judge content.
I see no biology book that states that what I quoted in terms of the three types of fish reproduction was wrong. Do you know of such a book? I suggest you read more biology books and less ads. There’s nothing wrong with ads, but contrary to what you might think, they are not how we analyze if something is right or wrong from a scientific perspective.
Michael wrote: “Could you please point to one biology textbook that explains things your way? Just one.”
Every single one of them. Which biology book says that you can have homosexual sex and procreate? All of them state that heterosexual sex is necessary for human reproduction.
Try looking up “heterosexual sex” if you are unfamiliar with this term as well.
December 11th, 2012 | 11:15 am
“All of them state that heterosexual sex is necessary for human reproduction.”
Yes, that’s due to genomic imprinting. Even though it is true though, we still allow same-sex couples to attempt to join their genes, there is currently no law against them trying, and that is the reason courts often rule in favor of same-sex marriage. We need to prohibit attempts at same-sex conception, Heather. That’s a request for you to join me in saying that we need to enact an egg and sperm law to rule out same-sex couples joining their genes.
December 11th, 2012 | 11:25 am
Heather,
Have you seen this piece? I read it today for the first time. We often debate here about the fact that sperm banks provide fatherless families to lesbians, and therefore we’re sticking our heads in the sand not to call those relationships families because, de facto (or so the argument goes), the families exist.
We look at a woman who has an awful husband and we say she made the wrong choice. Not wanting to make “the wrong choice” a woman/man goes to a sperm bank instead and instead imposes the wrong choice on an innocent child. And yet, no one is supposed to say such men or women did anything wrong. Love to hear what you think.
December 11th, 2012 | 4:28 pm
Adam,
“You referred to her and that site as pro-homosexual (whatever that is supposed to mean).”
It means that she approves of homosexuality and believes it is normal. One of the ironies in this argument is that only people who promote the normality of homosexuality use terms like “homosexual reproduction” as Heather and you do.
Most people, including most gay activists, use “sexual reproduction” because that’s the term all biologists use.
“Anyway, in your remarks you agreed with Heather’s main point. The nature of human procreation is two-sexed.”
Exactly. Thank you for finally understanding my point. Will Heather?
“For humankind, sexual reproduction is heterosexual.”
This is where you and Heather slip into nonstandard ways of discussing reproduction. By repeating this mistake you confuse the issue. Human reproduction is about the mechanics of sex organs, male and female. Heterosexuality is about desire. Your sentence implies that one must desire the opposite sex in order to reproduce, and that simply isn’t true. All you need for reproduction is functioning sex organs and a person of the opposite sex.
I think the point you and Heather are trying to make is that it is normal and natural for sexed species like humans to be heterosexual, to desire the opposite sex so that we can reproduce.
December 11th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Heather,
That’s what I thought. You can’t name a single biology textbook that discusses “heterosexual reproduction.” Not one. They all describe “sexual reproduction.” All you need to do is provide a link. It’s pretty easy. Unless, of course, such a textbook doesn’t exist.
December 11th, 2012 | 10:33 pm
Heather and Douglas Johnson, are you intent on stripping procreation rights from marriage and ushering in genetic engineering of human beings? If so, then by all means keep ignoring me. If not, then start saying that we should not allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring together, and we should preserve the meaning of marriage as allowing conception of offspring.
December 12th, 2012 | 2:47 am
Michael, you said that Heather walked past pro-homosexual Dr Ruth’s website as if this had special importance in your view. What does pro-homosexuality mean in that regard?
Dr Ruth referred to this “biological imperative”.
“In strictly biological terms, heterosexual reproduction has a number of advantages [....] So humans evolved to be men and women and they must mix their genes or become extinct.”
Also: “Humans are a heterosexually reproducing species, designed, as all organisms are, to procreate.”
Heather has said pretty much the same thing.
Sexual desire has already been discussed, Michael, in my responses to David Nichol. Desire does not make the distinction you wish to impose, however, the reality of difference between mere desire manifested in this or that way and desire ordered to human procreation is perhaps the stumbling block that has prompted your misunderstanding.
Sexual embodiment is not superficial. Human procreation is sexed in its particular way. Sexual reproduction in humankind is heterosexual by virtue of us being sexed. Or vice versa. No matter.
Okay, you’d prefer to corral the term, heterosexual, for use as a comparative for the terms homosexual and bisexual — both of which are irrelevant to human procreation and yet confirm our sexual embodiment and our being a sexually reproductive species, human beings.
As per Dr Ruth’s reasonable summary and use of the term “heterosexual reproduction” this is rooted directly in biology. I’d add other sciences to support this biological view of human procreation.
This points to the reality of bodily union which is intrinsic to the comprehensive union of man and woman in the marital type relationship. But misuse of the term, marriage, to promote the alleged “equal dignity of homosexual love” is at the root of the SSM campaign and, sadly, David Blankenhorn’s acceptance of “gay marriage”. It is an asserted moral equivalence that depends on assumptions unsupported by reason, much less by science, and is promoted with a deliberate, if sincere, misuse of standard usage of common words. of great significance
Do you thus object to the SSM campaign on that basis, at least?
December 12th, 2012 | 3:09 am
Attempts at “same sex conception” would not be efforts to procreate but rather attempts to manufacture human beings. That is a vital distinction in reality (both scientific and moral reality) and not a mere quibble about standard word usage.
But that points back at the reality of bodily union and the comprehensive relationship of husband and wife.
December 12th, 2012 | 11:39 am
Right Chairm, attempting to create offspring with someone of the same sex would be better described as manufacture than procreation, but that’s not how it would be described by the people that attempt it, they’d surely refer to it as procreating together, same as a man and a woman do. If all you would do to oppose it is stand on the sidelines and throw derogatory pejorative at them, telling them that they are manufacturing their child and not procreating it as they claim, it won’t stop them at all, instead it would just embolden them and prolong the divisive culture war.
We need to prohibit attempting to create human beings by any method other than joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. And we need to affirm that marriage approves and allows the conception of offspring with the couple’s own genes. Merely quibbling about what word to use to describe what we should be banning is not enough.
December 12th, 2012 | 6:19 pm
Chairm,
“Sexual embodiment is not superficial.”
I agree. It is much more than skin deep or even restricted to organs. There are psychological and spiritual dimensions to sexuality that no one on this thread is denying.
“Sexual reproduction in humankind is heterosexual by virtue of us being sexed. Or vice versa. No matter”
Can you explain to me the difference between your sentence and my revision? Here’s my revision: “Reproduction in humankind is sexual.”
What my revision means is that humans can only reproduce through the sexual intercourse of a man and woman. My revision is the standard one found in all biology textbooks. It introduces no extraneous words that might mislead readers into thinking that anything else is necessary for human reproduction other than a man and a woman.
“Okay, you’d prefer to corral the term, heterosexual, for use as a comparative for the terms homosexual and bisexual — both of which are irrelevant to human procreation”
You’re exactly right that the terms “homosexual” and “bisexual” are “irrelevant” to procreation.
What you get wrong is that I’m trying to “corral” anything. I didn’t invent these words or their meanings. I’m just trying to use them correctly and accurately the way every biologist and psychologist does. The words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” were invented in 1892.
Read that again. 1892. Just 120 years ago. The word “sex,” on the other hand has been used to mean male and female since 1650. “Sex” is an old word to describe reproduction. The words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” were invented by Krafft-Ebbing in 1892 in order to explain why some people “wanted” to have sex with the opposite sex and some did not.
“As per Dr Ruth’s reasonable summary and use of the term “heterosexual reproduction” this is rooted directly in biology.”
Why do you prefer Dr. Ruth’s non-standard use of the term to EVERY biology textbook ever written?
“But misuse of the term, marriage, to promote the alleged “equal dignity of homosexual love” is at the root of the SSM campaign”
If you believe that “marriage” is being misused, then you should attack the misuse of the word “marriage.” What I don’t understand is why you and Heather feel like you have to invent a new meaning for the word “heterosexual.”
“Do you thus object to the SSM campaign on that basis, at least?”
Not at all. I fully support gay marriage and have since the 1980s.
But my support of gay marriage has nothing to do with my use of the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” My use of the terms is completely standard and is used by everyone on either side of the gay marriage debate with the rare exception of you, Heather, and apparently a few others.
December 12th, 2012 | 6:43 pm
John,
“If all you would do to oppose it is stand on the sidelines and throw derogatory pejorative at them, telling them that they are manufacturing their child and not procreating it as they claim, it won’t stop them at all, instead it would just embolden them and prolong the divisive culture war”
You seem to have trouble converting Chairm, Heather, and Douglas to your cause.
Earlier you explained that “Everyone who still hasn’t agreed to an egg and sperm law, and to my compromise proposal for civil unions without conception rights” “can only be eugenicists and transhumanists intent on stripping procreation rights from marriage and ushering in genetic engineering of human beings”
Would you classify them as eugenicists or transhumanists?
December 12th, 2012 | 8:41 pm
Here’s my revision: “Reproduction in humankind is sexual.” Wow, are you admitting that people of the same sex don’t actually have sex, in the real sense of the word? That’s great. I agree that they can intimate relations and arouse their sexual organs together, but not in a way that can be described as “sexual” or as “sex.”
But this discussion is all just annoying bickering. How about you admit that being allowed to conceive offspring is a right that all people have, but not with someone of the same sex?
December 12th, 2012 | 11:32 pm
John,
“Wow, are you admitting that people of the same sex don’t actually have sex, in the real sense of the word?”
No, I’m not admitting any such thing. The subject is reproduction. Of course, homosexuals have sex. They simply don’t have the kind of sex that can lead to reproduction.
“But this discussion is all just annoying bickering.”
Heather and Chairm want to marshal the best arguments they have against both gay marriage and homosexuality itself, but they are sowing confusion by using non-standard terms to describe reproduction and sexuality. It’s hard to be convincing when you are using the wrong terms. I’m just trying to educate them so they can make better, less confusing arguments.
If you find the conversation annoying, you should not enter it.
“How about you admit that being allowed to conceive offspring is a right that all people have, but not with someone of the same sex?”
I wouldn’t say that all people have the “right” to conceive children. I don’t approve of surrogacy any more than I approve of the artificial homosexual reproduction that you are concerned with. I would say that most people are born with the capacity to conceive children with the opposite sex.
Although I agree with your aim of preventing the development of such technology, I don’t agree with your means. You frequently appeal to anti-gay sentiment. You thus conflate two separate issues. Your grand compromise does allow civil unions, but you would appear to be just as happy if gays had no rights to live and openly and in committed relationships. I can’t accept someone who attacks artificial reproduction by demeaning gays.
December 12th, 2012 | 11:45 pm
“Would you classify them as eugenicists or transhumanists?”
Yeah, they seem to be very stubbornly opposed to a law against same-sex reproduction or genetic engineering or a law that affirms the right of married couples to conceive offspring with their own genes. Those are things that eugenicists and Transhumanists believe.
December 13th, 2012 | 12:00 am
Why quote Dr Ruth’s encyclopedia? She is a psychologist who unaashedly writes of “heterosexual reproduction” in “strictly bological terms”.
And because you accused Heather of walking past a pro-homosexual website. But you skipped past that psychologist’s reasonable explaination despite her pro-homosexual credentials that you brought up.
That explaination does align with biology. It is reasonable.
As for standard usage why did you walk past the dictionary definition which Heather quoted?
In multiple dictionaries there are entries along the following lines:
“of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex”.
Note the lack of mention of desire or orientation.
Also:
“of or relating to different sexes”.
There is more than one type of sexual reproduction. Biologist agree. True, the politics of sexual orientation might overshadow usage but nothing in your revision is out of alignment with Heather and Dr Ruth’s explaination. You even agree on the behavioral definition. So your beef is actually political and not substantive in strictly biological terms.
Perhaps you would prefer heterosexed reproduction, I dunno, but heterosexual reproduction is not a nonstandard use of the adjective heterosexual and the term “heterosexual reproduction” is hardly worth your nitpicking.
On the other hand, the term “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.David Nichol all but conceded that the type of relationship he has in mind is metaphorical marriage. It is not really marriage except through the misuse of common words of significance. The marital type of relationship has a reality independent of the law and of societal consensus. SSM, well it does not share that reality and actually depends on the very thing you here have complained about. The misuse of language to throw in extraneous stuff. But you don’t complain about that.
Also, like much of your misunderstandings expressed in your comments here, you are mistaken about my view of human manufacture. Also, I have long supported reciprocal beneficiaries which has long existed in our legal system. O need to touch marriage. No need to press a gay emphasis into laws govning nonmarital types of relationships and arrangements. So the two parts of John Oward’s proposal are okay with me. I do not support treating nonmarriage as marital or tieing marital status to civil union nor to gay identity politics. Otherwise, John Howard’s reasonable concerns are shared by myself and many other marriage defenders.
Human manufacture is not human procreation. Same sex sexual orientation is irrelevant to both except in the unjust pressing of gay identity politics into it. It is reasonable, and not bigoted, to stand against that.
December 13th, 2012 | 12:39 am
Michael, I’m not asking you to accept me, I’m asking you to accept the compromise, to accept that people don’t have a right to make biological offspring with someone of the same sex.
My personal belief, for the record, is that it would be compassionate and just to give legal recognition and equal benefits and security and show respect to gay people in committed relationships, but I know that Chairm and Douglas object to civil unions, so I just remind them that the compromise is not already written in stone, and the civil unions are not required. I think they may just be using the civil unions as an excuse to reject my proposal, when what they really object to is the law that affirms marriage’s conception rights and the law that prohibits same-sex conception. Perhaps they will clarify, if their contracts allow them to.
And when I say that all people have a right to conceive children, I mean it in the same sense that you surely believe that all people have a right to have sex or to marry or to be homosexual. It doesn’t mean a right to have a partner provided to you, and it doesn’t mean a right to successful satisfactory sex, it just means you can’t be prohibited if you find a willing partner, provided that partner is not ineligible to marry you for a supportable reason like being your sister or married or 14. Eugenicists want to strip the right to procreate from marriage, that’s been a goal of eugenics since Sanger and Saleeby a hundred years ago, and is still their goal, but it is highly offensive to equality and dignity. All marriages should be allowed to have sex and procreate without being prohibited or coerced from it, it is their basic human right and the basis of equality.
December 13th, 2012 | 11:34 am
the term “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.
No, Chairm, that’s not productive to harp on. Marriage is a legal status. “Same-sex marriage” makes perfect sense legally, it means giving the legal status and rights of marriage to same-sex couples. It means approving and allowing of them conceiving offspring together, most essentially, and consenting to all the obligations that are required to get that approval and the benefits that follow from those obligations. If society doesn’t approve of a certain type of relationship making genetic offspring together, it prohibits marriage. This is the case for siblings, people already married, children, and it should be the case for people of the same sex. But it isn’t, currently people are allowed to try to make offspring with someone of the same sex, there is no law against it, and kids are taught in schools that it will be possible someday.
Indeed, it might be possible, but we don’t have to allow or approve it, just as it’s possible for siblings to conceive. Sibling marriage is illegal, but it is not an oxymoron. There is no right to marry a sibling, and there is no right to manufacture human beings, and it is much better public policy to prohibit it and stop confusing kids about their future. That’s what we need to do. Not merely say you share my concerns in an oblique manner, but go on every blog making the argument that we need to prohibit manufacture of children and people do not have a right to conceive children with someone of the same sex.
Michael: No, I’m not admitting any such thing. The subject is reproduction. Of course, homosexuals have sex. They simply don’t have the kind of sex that can lead to reproduction.
So Chaim and Heather are correct. Your statement “reproduction in humankind is sexual” makes no sense if you think that same-sex couples have sex. What you mean to say is “reproduction in humankind is sexual, but only if the kind of sex is heterosexual” which is what she has been saying. We have two different definitions for “sexual,” see? One is the biological definition based on reproduction, the other is a colloquial definition based on touching someone else’s sex organ. If you use the colloquial definition, then you have to specify “hetero” when referring to reproduction, or more specifically, “sexual intercourse” since it’s possible for a man and a woman to have the colloquial form of sex (which is also known as sodomy).
December 13th, 2012 | 11:53 am
John Howard — “if their contracts allow them”? Huh?
Provisions for reciprocal beneficiaries is more than sufficient. No need to touch marriage. No need to attach a non-marriage to the hip of marital status. And no need to give pride of place to gay identity politics. One of that stuff is justified.
Sustaining marital status for marriage, that is well justified. Affirming the core meaning of marriage — including the attempt to procreate as husband wife — is best achieved by clearly distinguising between responsible procreation (particularly the unity of motherhood and fatherhood) versus human manufacture. Civil union is no compromise if it works contrary to these well and readily justified priorities.
We have gone through this many times John. But the gay activists continue to show they mean civil union as a prybar to entrench the very opposite of what is justified. Their arbitrariness is their stumbling block and they just don’t see able or even open to getting over it. It is an obstinate and unreasoning attachment to their dogmatic favoritism of the gay identity group.
As I said to David Blankenhorn, treating “the gay relationship” as something it is not is hardly how to show greater respect for it, even on his own terms. He had suggested civil union minus the procreation stuff but that gained zero traction amongst SSMers. He gave that up and thens withed to SSM. That is the easy slip from civil union to SSM that awaits the compromise you propose, unfortunately and contary to your best intentions.
December 13th, 2012 | 12:10 pm
Typo correction: none of that stuff is justified.
And: they just don’t seem able or even open to getting over that.
And: he gave that up and then moved to SSM.
December 13th, 2012 | 12:29 pm
Chairm,
“There is more than one type of sexual reproduction.”
There is NOT more than one type of sexual reproduction. There are two types of reproduction—sexual and asexual. This is basic biology.
I think what you are trying to say is that there are two types of sex—heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. But homosexual sex doesn’t lead to reproduction.
The problem with using the term “heterosexual reproduction” is that it implies that there is such a thing as “homosexual reproduction” and there isn’t.
Why have you read only Dr Ruth and not the whole slate of references to biology textbooks that I provided?
December 13th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
“He [David Blankenhorn] had suggested civil union minus the procreation stuff but that gained zero traction amongst SSMers.”
What?? When?? I don’t think he ever did, his compromise had something to do with a religious exemption, and I badgered him constantly but he never said we shouldn’t allow same-sex procreation. He did go much further than most people do in a statement about “children’s rights”, but still didn’t call for a law.
I even titled my post “Another scholar on board!” but apparently I was wrong.
December 13th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
The problem with using the term “heterosexual reproduction” is that it implies that there is such a thing as “homosexual reproduction” and there isn’t.
Well, that doesn’t stop you from claiming a right to do it anyway, does it? Go ahead and admit that there is no right to attempt “homosexual reproduction” and that whatever right anyone ever has to reproduce, it is only with someone of the other sex. And don’t tell me that a married man and woman don’t have a right to reproduce offspring, they sure do.
December 13th, 2012 | 2:30 pm
“if their contracts allow them”? Huh?
For all I know, many of my long-time adversaries are paid to blog about marriage in order to occupy all the bandwidth talking about everything but whether same-sex couples should be allowed to conceive offspring together. That’s the only way I can explain NOM and Wesley Smith and Opine and Dreher’s complete silence: their funding comes from the Koch Brothers who are Libertarian Transhumanists and are specifically trying to separate conception rights from marriage.
You still haven’t said that people don’t have a right to manufacture children or that people should not be allowed to reproduce with someone of the same sex, for all your talk about responsible procreation. You realize that it is currently legal and there is no law against it? And you realize that we already have same-sex marriage, same-sex couples can get legally married in this country right now?
Provisions for reciprocal beneficiaries is more than sufficient. No need to touch marriage.
But same-sex couples in RB’s that are allowed to manufacture children together is much much worse than same-sex couples only being able to get CU’s that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and who are explicitly not allowed to manufacture children together. Especially when you consider that marriage is also available to those couples in RB’s if they just fly to Boston for a short vacation.
Of those two scenarios, how can you possibly prefer the status quo over my proposal that would clearly differentiate the unique meaning of marriage and preserve marriage and stop human manufacture? And if you avoid the question by stating some third option, please tell me your plan to achieve it.
December 13th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
John,
“I’m asking you to accept the compromise, to accept that people don’t have a right to make biological offspring with someone of the same sex”
Why is a compromise necessary? Just make a law stating that it is illegal to pursue artificial methods of reproduction, including surrogacy. Children should be raised by their biological parents.
Why is it necessary to drag gays into this question? The law should apply to all.
“We have two different definitions for “sexual,” see? One is the biological definition based on reproduction, the other is a colloquial definition based on touching someone else’s sex organ.”
Most words have different meanings, and usually context clarifies which meaning is meant. When the context is reproduction, “sexual” and “sex” mean that the species is divided male and female. When the context is sex acts, then “heterosexual” means the partners are of the opposite sex, and “homosexual” means they are of the same sex.
The term “heterosexual reproduction” mixes up the context by implying there is such a thing as “homosexual reproduction.”
December 13th, 2012 | 11:04 pm
Michael, a cooment is in the moderator’s que.
You are mistaken. The definition offered by David Nichol is not restricted to sexual orientation. You treat the dictionary as prescriptive rather than descriptive and yet dropped two of three meanings of the word, heterosexual.
Your political bias is what you insist is prescriptive.
Also you are wrong about multiple forms of sexual reproduction.
You are wrong to pretend that heterosexual reproduction mixes contexts when Heather was careful and explicit not to do so and when the dictionary definitions do not make that eror. Indeed Dr Ruth’s explaination leaves no doubt about the proper context.
Meanwhile consider the zoological and biological context of a term like heterogamy. There is no implied homogamy. Or the biological context of heterologous; also no implied homologous meaning.
Note that the dictionary does not list psychology as the context for heterosexual. But it does offer behavioral meanings (and reproductive meaning as in mating). Heterosexual is not corraled as a name for a subtype of human being. Other or different, that is the classic sense of hetero.
There is more than one form of sexual reproduction but even if you insist that there is just one, for the sake of discussion, it is not incorrect to describe human procreation as heterosexual reproduction.
Doess “heterosexual orientation” include extraneous verbage? Yes, if orientation is intrinsic to the word heterosexual. No, if the word heterosexual is a qualifier meaning different-sexed bodies and different-sexed sexual behavior. And that is what it means in the dictionary entry that you have chosen to clip short.
You are merely pressing your gay identity politics into biology and much else. Take off the blinkers. Your view has been narrowed arbitrarily.
Why would you cite Dr Ruth’s pro-homosexual credentials — and accuse Heather of walking past Dr Ruth’s website — when Dr Ruth used heterosexual reproduction in its correct biological and physiological context?
Why have you walked past two-thirds of the dictionary entry that David Nichol cited and which both of you have insisted is prescriptive?
Your nitpicking is political and not scientific nor relevant to the context of this discussion.