I haven’t been around for a while. In the Real World (TM) things have been manically busy, with work, sorting out place to live next academic year, helping people sort their lives out and somehow fitting in time with the Important People in my life. I haven’t disappeared from the net completely, but significant amounts of my time recently have been spent reading about the American gay marriages events, the surrounding controversy, legalities and social implications. A lot of people have opinions about this and it’s been interesting (and I mean that as in both interesting enraging and interesting encouraging) to watch the debate.
What occurred to me recently though is that people aren’t actually arguing about the root cause of their disagreement. Whether you believe that marriage should be extended to gay people doesn’t depend on whether or not you think it will harm the sanctity of marriage or harm society or whether you think homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of (pick the relevant) god, unnatural, etc etc etc.
The root cause of people’s disagreements over this comes down to there being two groups of people involved in the debate and many people not knowing what group they belong to. The first group believes that your sexuality is a choice … that you are born straight and _choose_ to be gay or bisexual. The other group believes that sexuality is something that is part of you — you are born with the ability to fancy those of the same and/or the opposite sex.
When you look at it through this framework, suddenly it is much clearer why there is so much disparity in people’s views. There are lots of people that contend this is a civil rights issue and (probably more) that believe it is not. This comes back to the beliefs above … if you think that homosexuality is behaviour, of course it isn’t a civil rights issue. These people just need to sort their heads out and start acting like normal human beings. Letting them _marry_ each other will just degrade my privileged position (in being able to marry) and reassure them that they are human beings … which of course they aren’t if they insist on behaving like this.
If, however, you believe (as I do) that attraction to those of the same (and indeed the opposite) sex is something you are born with, then this is a civil rights issue. I can no more change the fact that I am a lesbian than I can the colour of my skin. We have accepted that different colours do not mean people are not human … we just need to get to the point that people understand that sexuality is also not an optional extra.
Comments (6) Permalink
March 4th, 2004 at 4:49 PM
Even if homosexuality is a choice (Not my opinion, just a point), surely that is irrelavant, given the equal protection demanded under for example the united states constitution. Trying to argue that a lifestyle is a choice is like trying to argue that any choice we make is not justification of having the freedom of that choice.
The issue of childbearing ought (imvho) to be separated from the issue of marriage. I honestly don’t know the answer, but I would imagine the solution could be found not as a broad all encompassing rule, but looking at each situation individually. After all there are a lot of straight people who I am convinced would make rather bad parents.
Also just as a side note, the whole thing about sodom of the Religous (Un)Right is similar to what I imagine might exist in a dictionary 3000-4000 years in the future (unless some changes occur)
“American – (Am-er-i-k-an)
A person who attacks and slaughters innocents to serve their own greedy interests”
March 4th, 2004 at 4:55 PM
Yes, freedom of choice is still there. But if it _is_ a choice then it’s back in the realm of “slippery slope” arguments … i.e. that if you allow gay marriage it will lead to bestiality, incest, paedophilia, etc etc. That argument does seem to ignore the “consenting adult” part of gay marriage, but this argument is being fought on moral and emotional grounds, so reason seems a bit irrelevant right now.
March 4th, 2004 at 5:34 PM
Just one sign of light from the Religous (Un)Right, this is an editorial from the student newspaper at the largest Fundamentalist Baptist university in the world.
http://www.baylorlariat.com/archive.cfm?file=http://www.baylorlariat.com/archives/2004/20040227/022704a.html
Despite there being huge outcry about the terrible actions of the members of the newspaper, this article was approved by the editorial board at 5-2.
I do not know how long this article will be up since I’m sure they would like to bury it, but take a look while its still there.
March 5th, 2004 at 1:35 AM
I hadn’t looked at the issue that way before Ms Meri. Its does help make things clearer.
I think that “choose” isn’t the right word though. Nature is out of our hands, but nurture can be as well. Life could force people into a mindset as much as they choose it.
If its something you’re born with, does that suggest that there will be some correlation between your ancestors sexual orientation and your own? I haven’t done the research. Is there?
March 5th, 2004 at 6:24 AM
Being born with a condition does not necessarily indicate that it is genetic inherritance, the variation in the hormonal makeup in development (chosen normally by the genes admitedly) decides whether we remain female or side-develop into male.
Therefore it may be conditions in the womb that move positions on the sexuality spectrum. In any case the 3 “causes” still result in the same situation.
Also given that “gayness” (actually lesbianism was not illegal since Queen Victoria did not believe it existed) until recently was a crime punishable by imprisonment (before that stoning to death), doing far back genetic research might be a little difficult given the massive efforts of people to hide from intolerance and ignorance.
March 5th, 2004 at 9:07 AM
Tony, Tom,
In response to your comments, it has been shown by various researchers that there is a genetic link, believed to be passed down through the mother. There is also evidence to suggest, as Tom does, that conditions in the womb can affect development in various ways.
Although I think nurture also plays a part, there needs to be a seed of nature in order for nurture to have its effect. I think sexuality is a spectrum rather than a binary choice … you have everything from 100% gay through to 50/50 (bisexuals who describe themselves as equally likely to be attracted to either sex) and to 100% straight. More likely, though, as with any spectrum, most people lie somewhere along the line.
I have many friends who society classes as lesbians who are attracted to men. Social constraints often dictate who you actually _date_ but I think there is a very definite case to say that sexuality is defined more by whom you are attracted to than how you actually follow through on that attraction.
If someone is celibate, does that make them asexual? I doubt this is the general view, yet if someone dates someone of the opposite sex, this seems to flick a binary switch in people’s heads to say they are straight. Equally the other way round. Elly is bi, but because she is in a long-term relationship with me, everyone assumes she’s a lesbian. Hardly the case.