Tag Archives: Gay Progress

The Imperative of Gay Marriage

17 Jan

I am in favor of legal recognition of gay marriages. I think that the arguments against it are largely hogwash, boiling down to “We don’t like these people, they’re icky!”

Unfortunately I also think that a number of arguments in favor of gay liberation and gay marriage are also hogwash.
First is the assertion that homosexuality is ‘natural’, and that this puts it beyond criticism. Ridiculous. ‘Natural’ is no excuse for anything. Arsenic is natural. Botulism is natural. Natural, for great apes such as humans, means crouching in trees and picking fleas off of our relatives. Worse; among social mammals ‘natural’ includes committing infanticide followed by forcible rape. ‘Natural’ is no justification for anything. We do not support seven billion people on this planet, with some hope of eventually feeding them all, by being ‘natural’.
Next is the belief that if they are born homosexual instead of choosing to be homosexual, this automatically makes homosexuality alright. It sounds superficially reasonable, but let’s look at it more closely. Set aside that the ‘gay gene’ has not yet been identified. It is fairly clear from the history of Native Americans and alcohol that there is a genetic predisposition for alcoholism. I don’t know that this has been identified in the course of DNA research, but it would surprise nobody. Yet, we do not accept that people are born drunks, and let them live their own lifestyle, based on drunkenness.
The issue with drunkenness, after one clears away the clutter of puritanism, is that a drunk does damage to society. Well, so does a homosexual. The incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among sexually active gay men is seven times that in the general population. And that, in turn, makes the gay subculture a well of secondary infections, such as tuberculosis, that can then spread into society as a whole.
But that isn’t an effect of homosexuality on its own. It is an effect of the ‘Gay Lifestyle’ as it came to be defined during the break-out period of the 1970’s. The ’70’s were the trailing end of the ‘Sexual Revolution’ that started with the widespread use of The Pill in the 1960’s, and saw an explosion in sexually transmitted disease (indeed, STDs were the only winners of that revolution). The heterosexual population took a step or two back, starting in the 1980’s. The Gay population didn’t. Even after the rise of AIDS, the Gay lifestyle is characterized by serial promiscuity, and that is what causes the extraordinary difference in the rate of infection.
It is too easy to say that the problem of promiscuity is rooted in homosexuality itself. Gays do not have the alternative that heterosexuals did when they wished to try more stable relationships; socially approved partnerships called marriages. Maybe if they had they would still have stuck with wretched excess as a lifestyle, but we can’t know that.
Dealing with homosexuality by denying legal recognition to Gay marriages is like dealing with drunkenness by banning alcohol; superficially satisfying a small group of self-righteous twits, but no real solution to anything.
Gay marriage should be recognized not because Homosexuality is ‘natural’, nor because Gays are born that way. It should be recognized because the status quo pushes Gays toward behavior that is a danger both to them and to society at large. They may then chose to take risks with their health; that is their business. It is society’s business to offer them an alternative.
Advertisements

Gay Marriage

1 Jan

I am not Gay. I’m a fiftyish male who has been married for a quarter of a century, who finds homoerotic images range from those that simply leave me feeling “this message is not for me” to those that strike me as creepy.

 
I believe that Gay marriage should be legal.
 
I do not come to this position lightly. The Gay Pride events I occasionally saw while I was living in Washington D.C., during the 1990’s, struck me as circuses in dreadful bad taste. I believe that the word “marriage” has never, in the English or American languages meant anything other than a union of man and woman. I consider the court decisions which have ruled otherwise dubious at best. I observe that the Alexandrian Greeks, who revered homosexual pairings above heterosexual ones, did not use their word for marriage to describe such pairs. And of the claims that Native Americans were accepting of Gay unions, I point out that Western Intellectuals have a tradition, stretching back almost to the discovery of the Americas, of ascribing to Native Americans any culturally disfavored practice they wished to make respectable. In short, I don’t think much of the Political movement that is working for Gay marriage, or their methods, or many of their arguments.
 
For me, it comes down to two issues. Firstly, one of the prime purposes of the institution of marriage is to provide for punishment of partners who do not keep their vows and compensation for the spouse they betrayed.  I cannot think of any reason why those Gay persons who wish to live monogamously should not have legal recourse against their partners if their partners betray them. Secondly, I have yet to strike an argument against Gay Marriage that did not, in my opinion, boil down to either an appeal to religious doctrine or “they’re creeps, and we don’t like them”.
 
Further, I understand entirely why Gay people are unwilling to accept measures like “Civil Unions”. No matter how such a law was worded, simply the difference in term would generate a decade’s worth of stupid incidents where some puffed up functionary would deny a Gay couple the treatment accorded married couples as a matter of course, ostensibly because of a dislike of Gays but probably really simply out of the joy of saying “no”. Even where Gay Marriage has been recognized legally, the Gay community is facing such incidents, and a different term would only multiply them. There is always some sphincter who wants to clench up simply for the pleasure of being obstructive.
 
I think that many Gay people are shocked at how much venom this issue has brought to the surface. They lived in Gay-friendly communities like New Hope PA, or San Francisco CA, and now they feel singled out. In truth the multicultural pattern that the American Media projects is to some degree a fantasy, still, and not just for Gays. The rifts between generations or religious sects are still very much there. Many a respectable older person deeply believes that their grandchild is a bastard, because her parents were married by a Justice of the Peace, or a Reform Rabbi, or in some manner other than The Right Way. We Americans mostly don’t talk about such people, or if we do we caricature them to an extent that makes them absurd. But they are real, and widespread, and if they are going away, it is a slow process. The Gays tripped over this. Which in no way excuses us from dealing with their reasonable aspirations fairly.
 
A big part of the problem is the degree to which married status changes how one is dealt with by the government. And, given the history of marriage and government there probably isn’t a way to disentangle the two. But perhaps something in that direction could be done if we moved toward the customs that exist in Argentina and (I’m told) some other formerly officially Catholic countries. In Argentina the government only extends legal recognition to civil marriages, and many couples hold one ceremony to satisfy that requirement and a religious one to satisfy their religious beliefs. This would free Gay Marriage from the charge that it was an attempt to make people alter their religious beliefs, at least to whatever degree Gays were willing to leave the various churches who would not marry them alone.
 
I remain uncomfortable with many of the excesses of Gay Pride events. Homo-eroticism either leaves me completely unmoved, or actively annoys me. I think that the Gay lifestyle so celebrated by the Gays themselves is self-destructive and tacky. None of that matters. Fair is fair. Gays should be allowed to marry.