Thursday, January 06, 2005


Over at Left2Right they have a topic on changing marriage to suit those who desire to change it. It would take a while to go through. A few points....

The title, "Tone Deaf to Dignity"

That is ridiculous. Who goes around self defining by their sexual desires and arguing that they define truth for them? Is that dignified? What about gay pride parades? Are they dignified, typically? Gay day at Disney? Just look at the dignity of that!

One might say that "heterosexuals" do the same things as they have their Mardi Gras, etc. Although those who adhere to traditional values, the main issue, do not. And heterosexuals do not take on some religious identity which they are "coming out" to witness and proselytize about. Self defined gays do, that is a portion of their own identity politics. So you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say that "gay people" as a group need this and that. Then have "gay people" as a group disappear whenever the decadence in the hedonism of self defining by your own desires and declaring that they define what is moral and true for you is illustrated. If there is a group that bears a witness for itself when it comes to civil rights, discrimination and the like then there is always a group.

Looking at the way the self defined gay group of "gay people" represents itself, it is not "dignified." Instead, they are tone deaf to dignity, civility and civilization. Examples abound of that....

Dealing with what the author said, more than that which he is replying to. Some of his own views,
"But surely the brouhaha over gay marriage is triggered by the expressive side of marriage. The question isn't just, what are the consequences of being married? It's also, what does it mean to be married?
.....If we extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians, we are saying that in the eyes of the law their relationships are worthy of respect, equal to those of straight couples who want to make the same commitment.

Yes, that's right. Yet, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not on a par, not at all. The sexes are different and complementary. To the same extent of this difference and complementarity homosexuality is inferior. The Yin and the Yang are how human life is created and sustained. Homosexuality and heterosexuality can only be put on a par and treated equally if the Yin and the Yang are the same. They are not. Their difference is celebrated in every Romance movie, book, etc. Therefore, that which is not equal should not be treated as if it is equal.

It is an impossible goal, this New Equality.

"The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaksdown in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(Gender and Parenthood
By Alice S. Rossi
American Sociological Review,
Vol. 49, No.1, Feb., 1984 :10)

The main argument against what he is saying is that one form of heterosexuality is promoted and respected by the State currently. It is one form of sexuality. This is done because it promotes the general welfare. Does another form of sexuality promote the general welfare too? Does it promote the general welfare on a par with the form currently sanctioned?

The answer in the case of homosexuality is a thorough going no. In fact, the behavior patterns of homosexuality harm the general welfare. Homosexuality neglects the complementarity of the sexes. One example, men tend to be more promiscuous than women. In same sex relationships among a community of men this comes out more and more, to a ridiculous and self-destructive extent. Then, a philosophy of hedonism is there too. Perhaps the philosophy came out of it, in the denial of the Yin and the Yang.

"Gay men, as everyone's research shows, are perfectly comfortable with a nonmonogamous philosophy and, in a pre-AIDS world, with institutionalized nonmonogamous partnerships."
(Sociological Research on Male and Female Homosexuality
by Barbara Reisman and Pepper Schwartz
Annual Review of Sociology 1988 14:125-47)

He does not make the argument that same sex marriage will make gay men be monogamous. In fact, he seems to call that "wacky." So I will not deal with it. It is a typical argument from the left on this though, that same sex marriage can reform gay men. I.e., if only they could get married then their new legal status would make them think, "You know, maybe I should stop being promiscuous now. What with being married and all...." Etc.

He goes on, equality and special rights, etc. I say, this New Equality is an impossible goal. So why try to structure society based on an impossibility?

He goes on,
"....what's 'special' if the comparison is being treated the same as straight couples?"

One form of heterosexuality is already being treated in a special way compared to all other sexualities. The real question is why should any other sexuality be treated like one form of heterosexuality is? But here is the little game, invent some "sexual desire people" and then you can have some little groupie groups. So then you can say that people are not being treated equally before the law. That some are being treated as "special" while others are not, etc. This is a silly thing to try to accomplish with the form of sexuality at hand. One could do this with men who want to commit adultery.

Example, I say that there are promiscuity people. That is who they are. That is their sexual orientation. Now, despite millenia of moral teachings there are still promiscuity people. Would you just look at that? They've been discriminated against throughout the ages, yet there they are, the promiscuity people. So, these men were just born that way and society discriminates against them. Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, after all?

Promiscuity people rights! I think we need to have some promiscuity people pride parades and things. Not to mention the fact that promiscuity people sometimes get beat up when they hit on people in bars. That is because of the hatred in society towards promiscuity people. It's mainly from the pulpits. There should probably be some hate speech codes for promiscuity people, to protect them, like they have in Canada.

And so on.

The fact is, this talk of a immutable sexual orientations is just not true. Sexual desires are more situational, environmental and promiscuity people exist in the same way that "gay people" exist,

"In the West, for instance, it may be common to expect that a homosexual preference is life-long, exclusive, and may even be genetic. [A rather ridiculous idea.] McIntosh (McIntosh, M. 1968. The Homosexual Role. Soc. Probl. 16(2):182-92) has argued, however, that this kind of homosexuality is a relatively new Western cultural phenomenon, and Weatherford (Weatherford, J.M. 1986. Porn Row. New York: Arbor House) questions the extent to which exclusive homosexual preferences are even characteristic of present day U.S. culture. The cross-cultural evidence suggests that life-long orexclusive homosexuality is a rare phenomenon. Bisexuality and situational or ad hoc homosexual behavior are more common."
(The Cross-CulturalStudy of Human Sexuality
Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987,
By D. L. Davis and R. G. Whitten :69-98)

Also topical,
"Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation."
(Ib :98)

So the cultural issue is, is homosexuality generally desirable, something worth prescribing and promoting by marriage laws and the like?

I'll finish this later. It's getting long. It'll probably have to be long. Just one of those huge issues....that's what people are saying when they ask, "Do you believe gays are born that way?" I.e., what are your thoughts on biology, genetics, philosophy, religion, men and women, and on and on....