If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.
What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.
The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.
The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.
The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.
As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.
As with other issues discussed recently, removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share their life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 18th, 2005 at 8:10 am and is filed under Common Sense, Equality, Government, LGBT, Life, Politics, Reform, Religion, Sex.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom as a natural occurence. The same goes for the human population. Animals just don’t have religion as a barrier, that’s all.
http://pimme.blog-city.com
February 18th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Recognize homosexuals as human beings with legal rights? Next thing you know society will be condoning other religious abominations like eating pork, shellfish, and wearing clothes with more than one kind of fiber. God will be VERY angry.
February 18th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
your arguement about the influence of religious influence on this debate really only refers to monotheistic religions. there are other, older approaches to thinking about deity that are much more tolerant of sexual diversity. the fact that sex is pleasurable is not universal in the animal kingdom. many species experience little or no pleasure in sexual reproduction. therefore, sex for pleasure’s sake is a valid natural occurrance. it may also be an aspect of natural selection to have non-reproducing members of a social group. extra adults, those without the burden of their own children, may support the tribe/clan in ways that those with children to tend can not. some have agrued that religion and spirituality may have been roles taken on only by those members of the group without children, ie the queer ones. finally, many supposed pro-family policy makers want to discriminate against gays and lesbians, make abortion illegal, and at the same time pass legislation that makes it increasingly difficult for families to access supports they need. as a gay father, I have had to deal with policies (like income tax filing) that completely ignores that fact that I have a family. my partner and I have to file separate tax forms and we have to decide which of us can claim our son (yes, ours, adopted by both of us at the same time) as a dependant. pro-family really is about recognizing a very limited and exclusionary definition of family. and mine just does not make the cut. thanks for posting and thanks for your blog – great reads.
February 19th, 2005 at 12:47 am
Ken, you have a lot going on in your head. Fantastic post again. Can’t get enough. I wonder where you find the time to write. As a father of two young sons, my time is crimped. So, I blog in between naps and wiping kids noses, and backends for that matter.
Anyway, to the issue. I have to say, I know a great many gay, lesbian bisexual and transgendered individuals. And I have to say, there are a number in my own family. When the marriages in San Francisco were nullified, our hearts were broken becuase that meant my son’s grandmothers (two lesbian women who have been together for longer than many heterosexual couples) were no longer legally sanctioned.
I decided to simply ignore the policy move, and recognize their marriage anyway. My son’s get nothing but love from these two women. And, there is nothing perverted about their relationship. Quite the contrary, they are the very model of a committed, monogomous, loving, long term relationship that I hope both of them will find some day, with whomever they are lucky enough to settle down with.
As to the recognition of same sex marriages – it should be substantiated in the law, not sanctioned. Even so, we cannot wait. I started a post long ago where people who were inclined could recognize gay marriages, even if the laws don’t. It is still there if you like, go and post your support. The more we have the stronger the movement becomes and we may make a dent in one of the last remaining legalized bigotries in our country.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2004/08/solution-to-same-sex-marriage-issue.html#comments
On a finally note: I wanted to say, my Cousin was one of the first lesbians in Canada to get married, legally a couple of years ago in Toronto. My family and I went to the wedding. They are now the proud parents of a wonderful baby girl. What could be so legally wrong with two loving parents, getting married and raising a lovely daughter even if they are the same gender? There are plenty of examples of lousy heterosexual parents – just look at the Keyes family as good example of what is wrong with bigots who marry each other.
February 19th, 2005 at 5:25 am
Brilliant. As a straight, Asian woman, I take offense to the “homosexuality, bad” arguments because they explicitly aim to discriminate against a population strictly based on some arbitrary notion about with whom one has sexual relations.
If we were to take this a step further – and many people I’ve talked to say I’m reaching here – who’s to say that one day people will rally against interracial marriages as being “immoral” and “unnatural” and “icky”? Not too long ago in our country’s history did we discriminate because of the arbitrary notion of the color of one’s skin. Who’s to say it won’t happen again?
I’d like to think of myself as a fairly well-educated person, so I try to empathize with people whose views oppose mine. However, aside from using the crutch of “religion” to justify their bigotry against homosexuals and gay marrage, I struggle to find any kernel of understanding or common ground with people who feel so strongly against this. What, seriously, do they have to lose if gay people marry? How does it affect their lives if gay people exist? I’m Catholic, but my faith – my spirituality – won’t allow me to pass judgment on other human beings. I just don’t understand how some people believe that it is their God-given right to do just that.
Anyway, great post. I’ll be coming back to read your future musings.
February 19th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Nice post, as usual :-). As to the religious argument, I wrote this to express my interpretation of one of the most commonly used passages to assert that it is an abomination. Thank you for your thoughtful writing.
February 19th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
I have to wonder about a few ideas being put forth by this post and some of the commentors.
We are expected to not treat homosexuals as being “different” from “anyone else”, and yet we see some need to change the way things are to make them less “different”. So how is this not a form of discrimination?
However, my biggest concern is with re-defining the word “marriage”, or perhaps un-defining it. My case in point: A hypothetical situation that could be possible…
I’m currently going thru a divorce. When it’s all over I could invite my best-friend of 23 years to live in my house, and share living expenses, as a means of creating a more stable financial situaton for the both of us (and subsequently our kids). If I were to do so, and my best-friend were to agree, could we not consider ourselves “married”, even though we’re not having any kind of sexual contact with each other (which is not dissimilar to many heterosexual marriages anyway)?
We’ve already established a long term relationship. Why not be afforded the same “rights” as other heterosexual couples who’ve found a member of the opposite sex to share their lives with? Does being heterosexual now mean being at a disadvantage because we lack the desire to have sex with one another, or can’t find a suitable member of the opposite sex? Are we any less of a “family” than two men, or two women, who are having sexual relations with one another? What about siblings? Could two siblings inherit a residence and declare themselves “married” for the same reasons as I and my friend? Wouldn’t it only be fair that in such a situation the “death tax” could be avoided when one, or the other, passed away?
I’m not asking these questions facetiously. I’m actually concerned about how these questions should be answered if the word “marriage” is extended to include the relationships between homosexuals.
Likwise, if we should alter the definition of “marriage”, how does it not slip into the same morass of meaninglessness as such words as “gentleman” once meaning a land owner, now just “a nice guy”. Or “fatal” once meaning unavoidable, now meaning “deadly”. Or even into the same non-definition as Sexual Harassment policies which make such statements as “Sexual Harassment is defined as, but not limited to… ” (yes, that is actually what my employers Employee Handbook says, and my employer’s isn’t the only one with such wording). Is this really a definition? Will we not be simply opening the door for some slick lawyer to make the cases that I’ve mentioned?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t allow gay couples to enjoy some of the benefits that heterosexuals have, but isn’t it enough to call it a “Civil Union”? Can the “State” acknowledge this arangement without inflicting it upon the “Church”? Or upon those members of our society that don’t wish to see the trditional definition of “marriage” cast aside as if it had no value?
Again, these are genuine concerns that I have, and I’m curious as to how they might be answered.
Now, just for a few other observations.
I’ve never heard it said in any church that I’ve attended that “sex is bad”. Quite the contrary. I’ve always been taught that sex is a good thing, and a great gift from God, but it can be misused like any other gift from God.
I do believe that it’s possible for homosexuals to change, even if they are “hard-wired” genetically. We see evidence of genetic links to alcoholism, drug addiction, obesity, obsesive compulsive disorder, and many other behavioral conditions. And I don’t wish to reduce homosexuality to simply a “behavioral condition”, but that is the most obvious way of defining who is gay.
But all of these behaviors require a desire to change, and I don’t wish to inflict anything compulsory upon anyone… again I come back to my Freewill convictions… And that is why an organization like Exodus International exists. But these are issues for another essay.
I’m looking forward to responses and replies to my thoughts.
February 20th, 2005 at 5:22 am
Ken,
Great, thoughtful post as usual. I was really surprised that none of the hardcore homophobes showed up to comment (yet anyway).
I can’t disagree with any of your points and have posted many of the same thoughts (see: My Take on Same-Sex Marriages). Since posting this however (especially since the last election) I’ve come to the realization that the small segment of the gay population that is pushing the gay marriage agenda is doing more damage than good to the eventual wide-spread acceptance of the gay lifestyle as a normal part of society.
If there was any question about how the majority of Americans feel about marriage being ONLY between a man and woman, this last election should have answered it. That doesn’t make it wrong or invalidate any of the points you and I have made but, realistically, I don’t feel that now is the time to try and change the traditional definition of marriage — especially since all the practical objectives can be obtained through the legal system.
February 20th, 2005 at 7:08 am
(responses)
windreader- thanks for dropping by. it’s high time that gay and lesbian people are afforded the same legal status when they commit to each other in a relationship. i hope that the day comes sooner rather than later.
windspike- i have a family and job and all that stuff going on too. i just stay up really late. thanks for joining the fight to end this kind of discrimination, one that exists because of ignorance and irrational fear.
mags- thanks for putting this issue in another perspective. true enough, abridging the freedoms of one segment of society opens the door to easier acceptance of it happening again. Our country was headed in the direction of recognizing and appreciating the differences in people and then all of a sudden, we found ourselves a new public scapegoat. let’s help turn this back around.
diogenes- interesting take on the biblical side of this debate. personally, i feel that religion should have nothing to do the legal recognition that gay people deserve. we have no problem taking their tax dollars, do we…?
M+
The reason we are seeing homosexuals as different is because the laws prohibit them from having the same things we all want to have with regards to family situations. We make them different, so they become different. To eliminate the difference, and thus the discrimination, we need to normalize the situation.
The term marriage, like many other societal institutions, means different things to different people. For some, it is an affair of the heart, a natural union of two people. For some, it is a business realtionship meant to tie two families together and increase the family fortunes. For some, it is a sham of appearances sake. Marriage is as maleable as the golden bands that symbolize it. If the problem then, is merely semantics, let us call no legal unions “marriage” at all. Let unions seeking legal recognition be performed in a secular ceremony without regard for the sex of the individuals. Call it a “legal marriage.” Keep them cheap, but make them necessary for tax and benefits purposes. This makes the law blind in matters that do not concern it. Then, everyone who wants a “religious marriage” can go to their palce of worship and have their union blessed by their god(s).
Because the term “marriage” has the intended meaning of a joining of two individuals into a union forged from mutual love, affection, support, and attraction, the analogy you provide doesn’t fit either the hetero or the homo sexual definitions of marriage. But you do bring up a good point. I see no reason why a form of domestic contract could not be formed to allow such circumstances to enjoy the same tax advantages and benefits provided they too ahd entered into a legally binding partnership, which is really all a legal marriage is.
Marriage is many things to many people. But at it’s core, it represents two people attempting to find happiness and love between themselves. With the dearth of broken families, self-centered partnerships, and loveless households, what possible good comes from preventing anyone from making a go of it? But if it is just a “name thing” then homosexual people should also not get hung up on the word marriage. They, and the rest of us, need to focus on ensuring their ability to have a family of their making, as we all do.
To say that homosexuality is simply a behavioral thing akin to alcoholism or obesity conversely means that heterosexuality is also a behavioral matter. Does that mean that if you just concentrated hard enough, you could easily slip into a loving, physical relationship with another man? Something to think about….
Whymrhymer- Thanks for backing me up. I’m coming to think that this is just a semantics issue, being whipped into something of great social importance. With no real sound argument for the legal codes as they stand now, it shouldn’t be all that ahrd to come to some sort of equitable solution that solves the problem. But not if people just let it go…we have to work to save the freedoms we have while we work to make other freedoms come back.
February 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Ken, I completely agree. Discussing homosexuality in terms of religious beliefs only serves to obfuscate. But since religion is the starting point for many of the objections, it’s useful to debunk the notion that it has validity. I wrote another post today discussing it (and other topics) hoping to advocate tolerance for differing opinions. Within a religion, belief of one form or another is expected and accepted – I don’t expect others to abandon their beliefs. But believing something and attempting to force others to act according to your beliefs are two entirely different things.
February 21st, 2005 at 3:39 am
If you argue that homosexuality is part of the natural order then you have to argue that typhoid, small pox, malaria and AIDS are, too. Don’t they occur naturally?
Further, if restricting homosexuality is wrong because it is “natural” then restricting those above diseases is wrong for the same reason.
February 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pm
this could quite possibly be the most intelligent blog post i’ve read in a very long time.
you’ve got a great mind (and i bet you know it!), and you are very well-spoken.
as to the issue itself, i concur. i find it reprehensible to discriminate against anyone based on what they do behind their bedroom door. that’s their own business, not anyone else’s (unless, of course there are children involved, and that goes for heterosexuals as well). as long as no one’s being hurt (as pertains to this issue), there isn’t a problem, in my opinion.
February 21st, 2005 at 9:14 pm
(replies)
Gary B- Your analogy is weak. Disease organisms are a direct threat to the well being of the individual and keeping diseases viable benefits no one. To imply that homosexuality is on an equal par to an organism whose only function is to ultimately destroy its host and thus bring about its own demise is farcical. Once you can show me a benefit to animals or plants that these diseases promote, I will gladly hear your argument.
Mai- You are too kind. I am glad you stopped by. Hope you come back again.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:27 pm
I found this to be a very well-thought-out, well-reasoned post. It was a pleasure to read, thank you for sharing your thoughts.