Gay Marriage (Part I)

Homosexuality has been a volatile subject in many cultures. While it is incorrect to say that it has been regarded as taboo in all, prohibitions have existed in many cultures as far back as recorded history can go. I'm not here to necessarily argue the rightness or wrongness, that is, the morality of such behavior. Rather, my argument is this: The current debate over gay marriage is a legal one, and as a legal issue there is no reason for prohibition.

First, let me tackle some of the non-legal details. The first, largest and loudest opposition comes from Christianity. And there are verses within the Bible which clearly forbid its practice. Yet in the Bible, Homosexuality is only mentioned in 18 of the 31,273 verses. (If you don't count the story of Jonathan and David in Samuel I, II; which some contraversially hold up as an example of a pro-homosexuality reference). As well, the strongest statements occur in the Old Testament Purity Codes (mainly Leviticus) which were set aside with the New Testament (which is the main reason Christians are not required to keep a kosher diet, or beard, or not sacrifice animals with bruised testicles, when their Jewish brethren must. On the other hand, Verses which are either in support of, or neutral towards human slavery number 30. The main point being, if Christians can accept some things in society have changed (e.g. slavery or even more markedly divorce) and the Bible is not an appropriate arbiter, they should grant that possibility in other cases as well.

But my ultimate point with respect to the Bible is that it is a religious text, and as such should have no legal dominion. As religious institutions, Churches shouldn't be required to perform gay marriages if their canon does not allow for it, but that should not be a concern of the state. There are many examples of things which the Church does not approve of, but remain legal, and for the purposes of government, marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one.

Another argument against gay marriage is its danger to the fabric of society. This paricular argument is taken up by this Orson Scott Card piece on Gay marriage. I'm told Mr. Card is an excellent Science-Fiction author, although I'm not yet read "Ender's Game" or any of his other work. But it is somewhat disheartening to see a clearly intelligent man so absorbed into the role of "Angry White Guy". This is an increasingly common archetype, and his article makes it clear that allowing homosexuals to marry is an attack on him, and a form of discrimination against heterosexuals. One of his central points in philosophy is that "inclusion" of any group requires exclusion by another. This is the sort of "Objectivist" zero-sum viewpoint that is the hallmark of the Angry White Guy argument. I see three primary collapses in his reasoning.

First, the above stated Angry White Guy argument. I'll try to summarize quickly if you're unfamiliar with how it goes. Basically it says, "As a white guy, I've had special advantages my whole life. If you start allowing other people to participate in society, I'll lose my special advantages, which is the same thing as discrimination. It's not fair!" It is a form of solipsism that stems from the same tree of delusion which spawned Objectivism. (I'll have more to say on that particular branch soon.)

Next, Card argues that the institution of marriage is falling apart, primarily due to the influence of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. He then argues that homosexual marriage will hasten this collapse by undermining heterosexual role-models. However, his primary argument is against the "if it feels good, do it" ethic he identifies with the "fanatical Left", professing the standard stereotypes of homosexual promiscuity as an example of this ethic. This seems a strange argument to take as that is what homosexual marriage is also against, in an attempt to legitimize stable, committed, monogamous relationships. Really his argument seems to boil down at its most basic level to pure homophobia. Close reading of his article reveals that his biggest concern is that homosexuals will "take over" and it will become unacceptable to be heterosexual. Why? Because it would become "acceptable" to be homosexual, of course, and inclusion one place means exclusion somewhere else. As much as he continually makes the point that heterosexuality is a natural and genetically selected-for trait, he seems to think that allowing gay marriage would somehow destroy that genetic and hormonal balance. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the majority of people have been heterosexual for all generations. That's where the generations came from. If allowing "Adam and Steve" to get married is all it takes to destory that, then how natural is it?

But an irrational fear of homosexuals as people brings him to the conclusion that allowing them into society will cause everyone to "switch sides." It sounds to me like someone who isn't entirely secure with their own sexuality, personally.

Finally, Card argues frequently that homosexual marriages would lack "reproductive relevance." While in the strictest sense this is true, he does not extend this criticism to heterosexual couples who are infertile or who choose not to have children. Why, you say? It comes back to heterosexual role-models. Heterosexuals make good role-models that children should emulate, and can function as "surrogate parents" to the society. Homosexual couples, apparently, cannot serve as good role-models to children and instead spend most of their time plotting how to unmake the fabric of society and "turn people gay." Card states that it is "absurd to claim that homosexual "marriages" are in any way parallel to childless marriages in their effect on society in general", which is a short way of saying he doesn't have a logical argument against it. I myself can think of several parallels that I do not consider absurd.

*Both encourage monogamy.
*Both create a two-person unit which can serve as a safety net
*Both reduce population pressures.

And not to mention, Gay marriages reinforce the message of commitment and monogamy in a subculture in which those values have not been explicitly encouraged in the same way they have been in heterosexual culture.

The reproductive relevance argument seems all the more foolish in a world which is quickly approaching a Malthusian orgy of unsustainability and population pressures. While life expectancy climbs up, up and our means grow far larger than the long-term supply to support them, less children and reproductive couples are an important check on population increase. "The world must be peopled", surely enough, but the assumption that not having children damages society is untenable. In fact, stable couples that cannot have children of their own can help to soften the problems with surplus children, one of the main results of the irresponsibility so decried by Card. Of course, those children would have to be adopted and raised by dangerous, radical, subversive homosexuals who would convince their children to hate America, democracy, and freedom.

I can, however, agree with Card on the manner in which the most recent changes have happened. Society and homosexual couples desiring this change will be far better served by a movement of the genuine expression of the people than by proclamations issued from the high courts. Cultural revolutions always must come from the bottom up to last, as increasingly captialist China proves.

(To be continued soon with a focus on the forces hoping to pull the clock forward...)

Notes: Being neither Homosexual nor Christian I don't grapple with these religious issues often, but I've found several sites quite interesting in their approaches. As I've said, I don't find any of the Christian arguments to be relevant to the larger societal debate, but it is interesting to read. I'll also admit to a bias here that believes that Jesus meant what he was supposed to have said, and that love and forgiveness and humility are the values Christianity is supposed to be about (not that my opinion matters much).

Homosexuality and the Bible, a liberal slanted reading of the passages on Homosexuality in the Bible.

For me, Tony and Peggy Campolo's represent the real spirit of Christian Love, as Evangelical Christians who value Homosexuals as humans (although they disagree with each other about the Biblical wrongness of it). It's quite long, but this article is a beautiful read. If you've ever been angered by the hatred and intolerance displayed by some professed Christians, you should see how dismayed these (genuine) Christians are.

The case against the "David and Jonathan as lovers" theory

Responding to Pro-gay theology, a polemic by Joe Dallas. This appeared in the "Journal of Human Sexuality" which would appear to be a "faux-Journal" used to attack the gay-rights movement, as other articles appearing equate homosexuals with Nazi's and all articles take an editorial slant against homosexuality.

One Mennonite's opinion on Homosexuality and the Bible

Also, here is Ender's Game, which I'm told is a fine sci-fi book. Unfortunately, I'll have a hard time reading it without thinking of O.S. Card as a bigot. (Also notice, for those of you that might care that I've switched to allconsuming for book links instead of Amazon, thereby not implicitly supporting a company I don't like very much.)