There once was a bee hive. This hive was not particularly large, nor, did it seem from the outside, particularly special. But there was something special about this hive. The bees in this hive were exceptional. They were extraordinarily ambitious. They were extraordinarily hard-working and productive. They were also extraordinarily kind to their fellow bees. This hive was so productive, that it often made more honey than it needed, and the bees were able to transport their excess to other hives who could not produce as much. As you can imagine, most of the bees in this hive were happy, and were humbled by their great success and very grateful. They were happy to help the other hives, and even welcomed some of the other bees who chose to relocate to their hive.
Now, it happened that, there came a generation of bees in this hive who began to forget the principles of productivity and kindness that had led to their parents’ and grandparents’ great success. Over time, some of these bees did ultimately become productive and the hive still seemed to thrive, but others became lazy or ill. The number of drones increased, those bees who were able-bodied but did no work. Some bees ate too much or too little honey and became ill. Some bees became greedy and withheld their honey from other bees in need. It wasn’t too long before this thriving hive became somewhat less productive. Some of the bees went to the Queen to complain. One of the bees, Darryl, became a spokesman for the sick bees. “Our bees are ill! Some of them cannot work! We need to help these, our fellow bees. Let us set aside a portion of the honey we make to support these, our brother and sister bees! Then, when they have regained their strength, they will again be able to join us in the production of honey!” The Queen liked the idea. A honey tax was imposed, and all of the worker bees willingly sacrificed a small portion of their honey to help those unable to work. The ill bees gratefully accepted the tax, although many of them did not regain their strength. Others regained some strength, but living off of the honey tax was so easy, it was hard to give up. The honey tax remained.
A few seasons passed. The drones came to Darryl, complaining of the oppressive nature of the work of making honey. Some of them felt ostracized by some of the more productive bees. These bees argued that theirs was a lot too hard to bear, and they needed assistance as well. Darryl went again to the Queen. “Queen, these, my fellow bees have alerted me to the fact that their particular natures make it difficult for them to produce very much honey. They are drones. It isn’t fair that other bees are able to work harder because they are bigger or smarter, and therefore wealthier. These bees should be fairly compensated when they are unable to be as productive. Surely the wealthy bees can afford to give a portion of their honey to help these drones?” The Queen again agreed, and the honey tax was increased to include help for the drones. The worker bees were a bit surprised that more aid was needed. After all, these drones were their friends and neighbors, and they had always had enough, though it wasn’t much. And if one of them was found lacking, a worker bee would gladly offer some of their honey to help them get by. Now, they worried, with the increased honey tax, they would only have enough to support themselves, and wouldn’t be free to give their honey to any of the other poor bees.
The Queen soon became overwhelmed with all of the requests for honey from the honey tax. She quickly realized she would need help in distributing the honey to those who qualified for aid. And so, the Queen solicited some of her worker bees to help in the distribution. “But we need to make honey to sustain ourselves!” the worker bees cried. “Do not worry,” said the Queen. “For helping me distribute the honey from the honey tax, your needs will also be provided.” And so another tax was laid on the remaining worker bees, in order to pay those bees who helped the Queen in the distribution of the honey tax.
By now, the remaining worker bees were starting to worry. Not only had the sick bees and drones been taken out of the business of making honey, but even more able worker bees were no longer making honey in order that they could administer to the sick bees and drones. And they now required honey they did not make themselves either, because they had no time anymore to make it. The number of worker bees producing honey was now significantly decreased, while the number of bees who required honey had not changed. It didn’t take long for the Queen to realize herself how bad things were apt to get under these circumstances. But, not wanting to displease her bees who now depended on her for their sustenance, and fearing rebellion if she did so, she dared not tell the drones and sick bees she could no longer help them. Nor dare she displace the worker bees in charge of the honey tax, who, after working for her for so long, had forgotten how to make honey. She did the only desperate thing she could think to do. She turned to one of the other hives and asked to borrow some of their honey. Since she and her hive had helped them in the past and they were on friendly terms, they had no trouble loaning her some honey. Years went by. The Queen kept returning to this hive to borrow more and more honey. She never did start paying it back. How could she? She had no honey of her own to spare! New problems arose. The older bees now demanded taxes to help them in their old age because they were tired of making honey, or couldn’t make honey, or had no children who would give them some of their honey. Worker bees began cheating other worker bees out of their honey, loaning some of it to those who couldn’t afford to pay it back, then selling those loans to other bees in other hives. When these honey loans defaulted, a part of the honey industry collapsed. Things were starting to look very grim.
Now the Queen was beginning to get old. She was frightened. She knew that her only hope was to remain queen, because surely a hive would always sustain and support its queen. After all, she did not know how to make honey, either. And she hadn’t had any baby bees in years. Not after she had learned about a method for baby bee birth control. How that had saved her the pain of beebirth and bee-rearing in her youth! Now, it was starting to catch up with her as she realized that most of her hive were getting older, and the younger bees, so few in number, were struggling to keep the hive dream of honey production alive. They were also incredibly depressed when they learned it was they who were not only expected to sustain the aging drones and sick bees, but also pay back the honey loans the Queen had amassed all those years. There was only one thing left for the Queen to do. She had one of her bureaucrabees write up some motivating slogans, print up some inspiring posters, and began advertising a new era of hope for their hive, a new hope for bees everywhere. It started with a tour of the other hives, where she apologized on behalf of the bees in her hive, simply for being the bees in her hive. She quickly started amassing as many honey loans as she could, and began doling them out to the sick and aged bees, as well as to many of the young bees. She offered the bees everything they could want--housing, health care, even transportation. And how were they going to get it? By taxing the remaining worker bees! The worker bees whose taxes had provided everything for all of the other bees up to this point. The worker bees who never gave up the hope that their hard work would eventually pay off and their hive would again thrive. The worker bees had now become the enemy of the sick and aging bees, as well as the younger generation. Some of these worker bees tried to speak out against such insanity, but their voices were reviled by those younger and older bees seduced by the alluring promises of the Queen. At the same time, the Queen was all but ignoring effective strategies for ending war with two neighboring hives. Ounces and ounces of honey had been poured into supporting the bees fighting these wars, whose lives were threatened and taken daily, yet the aid they needed to be successful was not forthcoming. It was looking very very grim indeed for this poor hive. What were they to do?
What will you do?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Gay Marriage Follow-Up: Some Tough Questions
What is the pro gay marriage opinion on:
How encompassing homosexual unions under the moralizing institution of marriage would affect the overall moral, psychological, spiritual, and emotional well-being of children who grow up in such a society? How would having "gay marriage" as a given affect them in these ways? As children, and further down the road as adults themselves?
To get you started, do a mental exercise for yourselves: "What would I be like and what would I believe about human relationships and human sexuality if cohabitation and divorce, or even pornography were not so prevalent for my own generation growing up and currently? Are there things I take for granted that, as a younger child, I initially questioned or had misgivings about?
I know that for myself, I first heard about divorce, homosexuality and teen pregnancy before I was 6, from sources other than my parents, and I still recall my immediate feelings of, "Something is not right about that." And when I first learned about abortion that totally freaked me out.
We all inherit some new take on human sexuality from the prior generation. I would argue that what Gens X and Y inherited from the Boomers was overall negative. Do we want to pass on revolutionary changes to human sex and the morality of human sex to our children (and other people's children), with less thought for them than for ourselves, as our parents' generation did? Should we be so hasty in demanding supposed "rights" for ourselves and our friends without first asking how that would affect other, less obvious "rights" for children--the only group with no political voice whatsoever? Before we make major moral societal shifts with policy and law, we need to seriously consider and make sound arguments for how it would benefit, or at least do no harm to the rising generation. Our parents' generation did not, in general, do that for us, and I would hate to see us do the same to our kids.
Remember that I am asking for well-thought-out theories, based on deep consideration. I do not necessarily need to be referred to current research--that I can find on my own. The theories and hypotheses are what precede the research anyway, and so I feel that it is these that deserve more of our meditation and immediate attention.
However, if you are interested in some related research, check out:
http://voteonmarriage.org/GenderComplementarityByrd.pdf
How encompassing homosexual unions under the moralizing institution of marriage would affect the overall moral, psychological, spiritual, and emotional well-being of children who grow up in such a society? How would having "gay marriage" as a given affect them in these ways? As children, and further down the road as adults themselves?
To get you started, do a mental exercise for yourselves: "What would I be like and what would I believe about human relationships and human sexuality if cohabitation and divorce, or even pornography were not so prevalent for my own generation growing up and currently? Are there things I take for granted that, as a younger child, I initially questioned or had misgivings about?
I know that for myself, I first heard about divorce, homosexuality and teen pregnancy before I was 6, from sources other than my parents, and I still recall my immediate feelings of, "Something is not right about that." And when I first learned about abortion that totally freaked me out.
We all inherit some new take on human sexuality from the prior generation. I would argue that what Gens X and Y inherited from the Boomers was overall negative. Do we want to pass on revolutionary changes to human sex and the morality of human sex to our children (and other people's children), with less thought for them than for ourselves, as our parents' generation did? Should we be so hasty in demanding supposed "rights" for ourselves and our friends without first asking how that would affect other, less obvious "rights" for children--the only group with no political voice whatsoever? Before we make major moral societal shifts with policy and law, we need to seriously consider and make sound arguments for how it would benefit, or at least do no harm to the rising generation. Our parents' generation did not, in general, do that for us, and I would hate to see us do the same to our kids.
Remember that I am asking for well-thought-out theories, based on deep consideration. I do not necessarily need to be referred to current research--that I can find on my own. The theories and hypotheses are what precede the research anyway, and so I feel that it is these that deserve more of our meditation and immediate attention.
However, if you are interested in some related research, check out:
http://voteonmarriage.org/
Friday, December 5, 2008
Gay Marriage: A Look at Semantics
From a purely semantic point of view, the argument for gay marriage is problematic on at least two levels: the created, moral meanings of words, and word specificity and inclusiveness. This argument does not endeavor to dictate what gay couples should or should not be allowed to do by law, but discusses only the implications of vying to call it "marriage" specifically.
All things, ideas, etc. have strict definitions because words bear moral, legal, and emotional weight. For example, if I were to say:
“Undocumented civilians are becoming a permanent part our American economy,” that would sound much different than if I had said,
“Illegal aliens are taking our American jobs.”
The words "undocumented" "civilians" and "economy" carry much different moral meanings than the words "illegal" "aliens" and "American jobs." By the same token, the word “marriage” carries with it its own moral, legal, and emotional weight. Changing what we mean by “marriage” would alter significantly how it is understood legally, morally, and emotionally. I submit that to alter it in such a way that includes gay unions would alter these aspects of the word negatively.
If, indeed, the homosexual community is largely concerned with applying the word “marriage” to their unions more so than finding a new or alternative legal term that would give them the same status and privileges as straight married couples, then we can throw out the “gay rights” argument. Unless of course, being considered, by name separate from legal status, morally equal to heterosexual couples is considered a "right." However, an agenda of this sort would deign that there is something more morally satisfying about being “married.” It is a term which bears high moral weight. Which brings me to the issue of word specificity and inclusiveness.
When a word is more specific in its meaning, it has the potential to carry with it more specific moral weight. The word "sex" could refer to gender or the act of reproduction. "Reproduction" could refer to human intercourse or animal mating. "Intercourse" is sometimes referred to as "making love," a decidedly adult human term for the reproductive act. It is more specific, and is typically used only in more highly moral contexts. No one talks about teenagers wanting to "make love." It is too moral a term.
Unfortunately, when we alter terms to be more inclusive, such terms lose their specificity and therefore lose moral ground. That which is included in the new meaning of the term does not gain a significant amount of moral ground, but the term itself loses moral weight. To give an example, I’ll use the term “anti-social.”
This word used to mean introverted, socially reclusive, or extremely shy. To refer to people who are aggressively antisocial, or in other words, have no regard for other humans, psychologists used the term “sociopaths.” The word “sociopath” came to have a negative connotation, so the label was reduced to simply “anti-social,” or as someone having “anti-social personality disorder.” So now, the word “anti-social” brings to mind, not so much one who is simply shy, but one who is angry at society and takes advantage of others. It has become, then, somewhat insulting to refer to a simply shy person as “antisocial.” Not to mention, the original word “sociopath” has lost all original meaning to hyperbole.
We do not necessarily see groups of people in a different light just because we change how we label them. As words become more inclusive, they lose moral weight as they take upon themselves the least of their meanings. When you think about the word “retard” you do not think, “to hinder, delay, or slow the advance or progress of” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, IV Ed.). The word “erection” does not typically bring to mind a structure such as a building or a bridge. The point is, the meanings of words are found in what they describe, especially in the least of what they describe. Once you change or add to what a word is to mean, you fundamentally change what the word brings to mind.
Back to the term “marriage.” The fact that language evolves means that once we began using the word “marriage” to refer to either: a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, the term would have become too broad, and eventually, the term “marriage” would take on the meaning of least moral weight. If homosexuality is less of a social ideal than heterosexuality, which is likely, due to its inability to produce children, the new “marriage” would slowly but likely gravitate to mean only that, gay marriage. So, in 30 years, when you say you are “married,” you would have to specify “straight” because otherwise one might assume that you are gay and married.
Also, let's not forget that the fundamental purpose for the institution of marriage is for creating an economically and morally pleasing context for bearing and raising children. Sanctioning gay partnerships under the term "marriage" is simply absurd by this logic, since they cannot have children by natural means. Let you who support what you suppose to be gay rights, realize that being called "married" itself is not a right. Let us prove how creative we can be, and perhaps think of a different name for a similar set of legal privileges that gay couples may truly have a claim on. Let me explain by talking a bit about the term "rights." Closely tied in to the semantics argument is the argument concerning definitions. Let me define for you, from the Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "right":
"2a) that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition."
"by tradition": There is no lasting tradition in this country or in Western history to support couching gay unions under the term "marriage."
"by nature": It is certainly not by nature gays should be called "married" since marriage in the social sense is primarily for the bearing and raising of children as a natural result of heterosexual sex, and gays cannot have children by virtue of their homosexual behavior; the very behavior they want accepted as "married" behavior, "married" sex. This is where gays and blacks have had very different arguments concerning their rights. Blacks, by nature, could do everything that had ever been denied them until the late 1960s. Being gay goes against the nature of everything marriage has always been, what it stands for, and what is its primary purpose.
"by law": The people of California have amended their constitution, as have 30 other states, so as to make impossible marrying gays under the law, proving that they will not tolerate "legislating from the bench." Something, I understand many pro-gay liberals are also against. Interestingly, a similar thing happened in Utah recently concerning school vouchers. Vouchers were approved by the state legislature, (which should have given it more legal permanence) and immediately it went to a public vote, where the legislative decision to allow parents to use state funds to aid their child's private education, should they choose to do so, was soundly defeated in a 3-1 vote. Was there any great upset because those parents' "rights" to choose how and where and with what money their children were to be educated were being refused? Indeed not. This is a process which is part of our democratic government. We cannot cry "bigotry" or "hate" when it works against something we care about, words used often to describe those against calling gay couples "married."
Finally, and honestly, I would think, that since homosexuals and heterosexuals largely have very different feelings about the morality of their own behavior and the morality of the other, homosexuals themselves would be eager to create a new definition for their unions, separating themselves semantically, and thus, morally, from married couples. Unless, they feel that heterosexual married couples have something of a higher morality to offer, as I have guessed at earlier in this piece. Even something to aspire to. Yet, this cannot be. Something cannot aspire to be something it entirely is not. It can only supplant it. I propose that, before we take this enormous ideological leap, the homosexual community first think of a new name for it. As it was suggested in a recent Utah newspaper editorial, "How about calling it 'hitched'?" Yes, semantics are a big deal. And I believe the recent voting has more to do with that than with anything else. So let's clear it up. Give it its own name. Then we can begin talking about rights. The rights a homosexual couple may truly have claim to, "by law, by nature, and by tradition."
All things, ideas, etc. have strict definitions because words bear moral, legal, and emotional weight. For example, if I were to say:
“Undocumented civilians are becoming a permanent part our American economy,” that would sound much different than if I had said,
“Illegal aliens are taking our American jobs.”
The words "undocumented" "civilians" and "economy" carry much different moral meanings than the words "illegal" "aliens" and "American jobs." By the same token, the word “marriage” carries with it its own moral, legal, and emotional weight. Changing what we mean by “marriage” would alter significantly how it is understood legally, morally, and emotionally. I submit that to alter it in such a way that includes gay unions would alter these aspects of the word negatively.
If, indeed, the homosexual community is largely concerned with applying the word “marriage” to their unions more so than finding a new or alternative legal term that would give them the same status and privileges as straight married couples, then we can throw out the “gay rights” argument. Unless of course, being considered, by name separate from legal status, morally equal to heterosexual couples is considered a "right." However, an agenda of this sort would deign that there is something more morally satisfying about being “married.” It is a term which bears high moral weight. Which brings me to the issue of word specificity and inclusiveness.
When a word is more specific in its meaning, it has the potential to carry with it more specific moral weight. The word "sex" could refer to gender or the act of reproduction. "Reproduction" could refer to human intercourse or animal mating. "Intercourse" is sometimes referred to as "making love," a decidedly adult human term for the reproductive act. It is more specific, and is typically used only in more highly moral contexts. No one talks about teenagers wanting to "make love." It is too moral a term.
Unfortunately, when we alter terms to be more inclusive, such terms lose their specificity and therefore lose moral ground. That which is included in the new meaning of the term does not gain a significant amount of moral ground, but the term itself loses moral weight. To give an example, I’ll use the term “anti-social.”
This word used to mean introverted, socially reclusive, or extremely shy. To refer to people who are aggressively antisocial, or in other words, have no regard for other humans, psychologists used the term “sociopaths.” The word “sociopath” came to have a negative connotation, so the label was reduced to simply “anti-social,” or as someone having “anti-social personality disorder.” So now, the word “anti-social” brings to mind, not so much one who is simply shy, but one who is angry at society and takes advantage of others. It has become, then, somewhat insulting to refer to a simply shy person as “antisocial.” Not to mention, the original word “sociopath” has lost all original meaning to hyperbole.
We do not necessarily see groups of people in a different light just because we change how we label them. As words become more inclusive, they lose moral weight as they take upon themselves the least of their meanings. When you think about the word “retard” you do not think, “to hinder, delay, or slow the advance or progress of” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, IV Ed.). The word “erection” does not typically bring to mind a structure such as a building or a bridge. The point is, the meanings of words are found in what they describe, especially in the least of what they describe. Once you change or add to what a word is to mean, you fundamentally change what the word brings to mind.
Back to the term “marriage.” The fact that language evolves means that once we began using the word “marriage” to refer to either: a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, the term would have become too broad, and eventually, the term “marriage” would take on the meaning of least moral weight. If homosexuality is less of a social ideal than heterosexuality, which is likely, due to its inability to produce children, the new “marriage” would slowly but likely gravitate to mean only that, gay marriage. So, in 30 years, when you say you are “married,” you would have to specify “straight” because otherwise one might assume that you are gay and married.
Also, let's not forget that the fundamental purpose for the institution of marriage is for creating an economically and morally pleasing context for bearing and raising children. Sanctioning gay partnerships under the term "marriage" is simply absurd by this logic, since they cannot have children by natural means. Let you who support what you suppose to be gay rights, realize that being called "married" itself is not a right. Let us prove how creative we can be, and perhaps think of a different name for a similar set of legal privileges that gay couples may truly have a claim on. Let me explain by talking a bit about the term "rights." Closely tied in to the semantics argument is the argument concerning definitions. Let me define for you, from the Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "right":
"2a) that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition."
"by tradition": There is no lasting tradition in this country or in Western history to support couching gay unions under the term "marriage."
"by nature": It is certainly not by nature gays should be called "married" since marriage in the social sense is primarily for the bearing and raising of children as a natural result of heterosexual sex, and gays cannot have children by virtue of their homosexual behavior; the very behavior they want accepted as "married" behavior, "married" sex. This is where gays and blacks have had very different arguments concerning their rights. Blacks, by nature, could do everything that had ever been denied them until the late 1960s. Being gay goes against the nature of everything marriage has always been, what it stands for, and what is its primary purpose.
"by law": The people of California have amended their constitution, as have 30 other states, so as to make impossible marrying gays under the law, proving that they will not tolerate "legislating from the bench." Something, I understand many pro-gay liberals are also against. Interestingly, a similar thing happened in Utah recently concerning school vouchers. Vouchers were approved by the state legislature, (which should have given it more legal permanence) and immediately it went to a public vote, where the legislative decision to allow parents to use state funds to aid their child's private education, should they choose to do so, was soundly defeated in a 3-1 vote. Was there any great upset because those parents' "rights" to choose how and where and with what money their children were to be educated were being refused? Indeed not. This is a process which is part of our democratic government. We cannot cry "bigotry" or "hate" when it works against something we care about, words used often to describe those against calling gay couples "married."
Finally, and honestly, I would think, that since homosexuals and heterosexuals largely have very different feelings about the morality of their own behavior and the morality of the other, homosexuals themselves would be eager to create a new definition for their unions, separating themselves semantically, and thus, morally, from married couples. Unless, they feel that heterosexual married couples have something of a higher morality to offer, as I have guessed at earlier in this piece. Even something to aspire to. Yet, this cannot be. Something cannot aspire to be something it entirely is not. It can only supplant it. I propose that, before we take this enormous ideological leap, the homosexual community first think of a new name for it. As it was suggested in a recent Utah newspaper editorial, "How about calling it 'hitched'?" Yes, semantics are a big deal. And I believe the recent voting has more to do with that than with anything else. So let's clear it up. Give it its own name. Then we can begin talking about rights. The rights a homosexual couple may truly have claim to, "by law, by nature, and by tradition."
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A Look at Same-Sex Marriage: Marriage, Family, and Children: A follow-up
Since I wrote my original article 4 months ago, I have had a few thoughts to add on the sanctity and definition of marriage.
Let us assume that religion is a human invention. Marriage is designated by cultural or religious ceremony, and so has ever been a religious institution, or at the very least, an institution to support part of the collective cultural and moral consciousness of a group of people--what could be considered a more general description of religion. The question, then, is, why was marriage instituted? Why is it something so desirable or useful that it has been created among all cultures? But first, let me reiterate, or rather, revise, my definition of marriage. Marriage has always been, at its core: at least one man and one woman coming together for the purpose of having and/or raising children. Not all versions of this have been perfect or even desirable, but this basic definition has always been common. But, since marriage and sexual reproduction are mutually exclusive, what is the usefulness of marriage?
Marriage is the institution created to moralize, or give meaningful context and limits to, human sexual behavior. All other human sexual behavior outside that which is expected in the definition of marriage in a particular culture, is then considered immoral. Currently, in American culture and law, homosexuality falls without those limits. Marriage has ever been invented for the purpose of excluding sexual behavior seen as unhelpful, undesirable or immoral, whatever that may mean specific to a culture's beliefs. It has always been instituted for the purpose of creating a safe haven for what is collectively seen as useful, helpful, and moral sexual behavior. Our definition of marriage necessarily defines that sexual behavior we consider immoral.
Seeking to place homosexual unions under the morality of marriage is the gay community's way of arguing that their sexual behavior is equal, morally, to the behavior of heterosexual couples. Many people, strait included, have already gone so far ideologically as to say that this is the case. This is why they cannot understand those of us who wish for the moral line to remain where it has always been, for religious, as well as social reasons.
Let us consider, finally, that strait sex has the potential to produce life. Gay sex does not have that potential. In order to be perfectly honest with ourselves, we would have to first agree that creating life is not a social moral imperative, or even a moral good. The greatest good in sexual expression must then be not about creating life, but about fulfilling one's desires. Only then could we honestly agree that both forms of sexual expression were morally equal.
Let us assume that religion is a human invention. Marriage is designated by cultural or religious ceremony, and so has ever been a religious institution, or at the very least, an institution to support part of the collective cultural and moral consciousness of a group of people--what could be considered a more general description of religion. The question, then, is, why was marriage instituted? Why is it something so desirable or useful that it has been created among all cultures? But first, let me reiterate, or rather, revise, my definition of marriage. Marriage has always been, at its core: at least one man and one woman coming together for the purpose of having and/or raising children. Not all versions of this have been perfect or even desirable, but this basic definition has always been common. But, since marriage and sexual reproduction are mutually exclusive, what is the usefulness of marriage?
Marriage is the institution created to moralize, or give meaningful context and limits to, human sexual behavior. All other human sexual behavior outside that which is expected in the definition of marriage in a particular culture, is then considered immoral. Currently, in American culture and law, homosexuality falls without those limits. Marriage has ever been invented for the purpose of excluding sexual behavior seen as unhelpful, undesirable or immoral, whatever that may mean specific to a culture's beliefs. It has always been instituted for the purpose of creating a safe haven for what is collectively seen as useful, helpful, and moral sexual behavior. Our definition of marriage necessarily defines that sexual behavior we consider immoral.
Seeking to place homosexual unions under the morality of marriage is the gay community's way of arguing that their sexual behavior is equal, morally, to the behavior of heterosexual couples. Many people, strait included, have already gone so far ideologically as to say that this is the case. This is why they cannot understand those of us who wish for the moral line to remain where it has always been, for religious, as well as social reasons.
Let us consider, finally, that strait sex has the potential to produce life. Gay sex does not have that potential. In order to be perfectly honest with ourselves, we would have to first agree that creating life is not a social moral imperative, or even a moral good. The greatest good in sexual expression must then be not about creating life, but about fulfilling one's desires. Only then could we honestly agree that both forms of sexual expression were morally equal.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
A Look at Same-Sex Marriage: Marriage, Family, and Children (part I of V)
Introduction
I wrote some time ago on this topic, and felt that I did not give it as much thought as it merited. The following is the first of five articles, arranged by topic, with regards to same-sex marriage. All the articles together represent my thoughts on the issue based on what I have read, studied and pondered over the last several years. The articles are written with a Christian, particularly LDS, perspective. My hopes are that I might bring to the conversation points of view that, in my opinion, have been largely ignored or neglected in recent public discourse.
Marriage, Family, and Children
When it comes to homosexuals and family, it does not seem relevant to speak of the fitness of individuals for marriage or for raising children—all kinds of individuals, gay or strait, can love and nurture children in ways that would benefit them. Rather, I speak of the fitness of context for raising children. Insofar as traditional marriage is still accepted as the major context for raising children, let us consider the fitness of that context by how we define it. In all of the research that I have read to this point, it appears that children, in general, do best in all areas when they are raised by their married biological mothers and fathers. Truth be told, single, cohabiting and divorced parents create alternative, and often problematic contexts for raising children. Yet, these alternative contexts do not change what is meant by “marry,” which is, "To join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, IV ed.). To include homosexual unions under the term “marriage” or "marry" would mean to alter its meaning considerably, and thereby transform significantly the context in which children could be raised. I do not have space here to go into detail as to what such a context would mean for the well being of children, but perhaps I may do so in the future. For now, simply consider that it would change the context. This is one of my chief concerns because, in the past few generations, as the definition of “family” has become more inclusive, and other, alternative family forms have taken shape, the overall well being of children has declined.
As to the definition of “marriage,” I oppose dramatically changing the definition of marriage to include gay unions for a number of reasons. One being that doing so would greatly diminish, if not completely obliterate its sanctity and meaning. “Sanctity” because it is not only a social but a religious institution as well—signifying a couple’s willingness to come together sexually under the auspices of the church, and in fulfilling God’s command to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Of course, those who are not religious are not likely to give credence to the religious perspective. Yet, consider that if God does not exist, then all things metaphysical are inventions of the mind. Well-reasoned arguments from both sides of the issue ought to therefore be given equal voice until society can generally concur as to which argument bears more desirable fruit.
Unfortunately, what happens in the process of awaiting such "fruit" is that personal freedoms are allowed to expand indefinitely, and by the time we “know” something is socially detrimental, such behavior is already a permanent part of the new culture, and it is too late to go back. We now have an abundance of compelling evidence that no-fault divorce is devastating for children. In fact, losing a father to abandonment is more highly correlated with childhood and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems than is losing a father to death (David Popenoe, Life Without Father). Yet, such no-fault divorce laws have not been repealed or changed, but in fact gained popularity after California became the first state to offer them. In the case of same-sex marriage, as it comes to be accepted legally, it will likely be a permanent change in our culture, even if we were to eventually conclude, scientifically, that same-sex marriage had undesirable outcomes. And while no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage are not the same thing, I make the comparison because, again, both alter the context of the child-rearing home.
I believe that traditional marriage, as an outlet for sexuality as well as a context for raising children, has the greater potential to benefit individuals and society. My theories about this have their assumptions in Christian, and particularly, LDS doctrine. To give the most concise explanation of what these assumptions are, I refer you to the article, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” written in 1995 by the former LDS prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, and his counselors, which details what the church believes about human nature and families, and what that means in the context of our global society. You can find it on www.lds.org. At the top of the page, go to “Gospel Library—Support Materials.” On the left hand side, click on “Family.” This will take you to a list of articles, etc. Near the bottom of the list, you will find “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
Finally, a bit about the traditional family in cultural context. I will define “traditional” as being a family in which at least one woman and at least one man come together in marriage and bear and raise their own biological children. Anthropologists and sociologists have found this kind of a family to exist in every self-sustaining culture, with, of course, variations as to extended family and polygamy. And, it might be worth noting that, while homosexuality exists in many, likely all cultures, to some extent, Western civilization is the first in modern history to attempt to sanction it by law. In any case, despite cases of alternative sexual behavior, the assumption is that the traditional family is the foundational unit of society. If this is so, and marriage is at the heart of the family in almost every culture, then dramatically changing rules about marriage, and therefore, changing the definition of what a “family” is, could likely lead us into social entropy.
We can see the correlation between the breakdown of the nuclear family into single, cohabiting, divorced and step- families, and increasing youth crime, drug use, and sexual exploration and experimentation, which carry with them significant costs to society. (Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood and David Popenoe, Life Without Father). While such a correlation may not be the cause for such problems, it certainly creates a context of confusion, anger and frustration for children in which these problems are more likely to be realized. Adding gay marriage to the list of “alternative but equal” family forms is likely to create its own set of difficulties, at least for the children of such households. This is, again, not to say that gay couples cannot parent children well—they likely can with the same probability as strait couples. Only to say that the context of gay parents is likely to create its own difficulties, in addition to those that already face heterosexual parents.
And, although I will not go into detail here, I theorize about what being raised in a home headed by homosexual partners would mean for the sexual education, identity, and orientation of their children, and what that could mean for their long-term well being and success in their relationships. These are the kinds of concerns that might raise some important questions with regards to research in this area. So often, when it comes to research and policy that would affect children, we only think to ask questions from the perspective of the adults involved. Before making any permanent cultural changes, we might do well to consider the children's points of view.
I wrote some time ago on this topic, and felt that I did not give it as much thought as it merited. The following is the first of five articles, arranged by topic, with regards to same-sex marriage. All the articles together represent my thoughts on the issue based on what I have read, studied and pondered over the last several years. The articles are written with a Christian, particularly LDS, perspective. My hopes are that I might bring to the conversation points of view that, in my opinion, have been largely ignored or neglected in recent public discourse.
Marriage, Family, and Children
When it comes to homosexuals and family, it does not seem relevant to speak of the fitness of individuals for marriage or for raising children—all kinds of individuals, gay or strait, can love and nurture children in ways that would benefit them. Rather, I speak of the fitness of context for raising children. Insofar as traditional marriage is still accepted as the major context for raising children, let us consider the fitness of that context by how we define it. In all of the research that I have read to this point, it appears that children, in general, do best in all areas when they are raised by their married biological mothers and fathers. Truth be told, single, cohabiting and divorced parents create alternative, and often problematic contexts for raising children. Yet, these alternative contexts do not change what is meant by “marry,” which is, "To join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, IV ed.). To include homosexual unions under the term “marriage” or "marry" would mean to alter its meaning considerably, and thereby transform significantly the context in which children could be raised. I do not have space here to go into detail as to what such a context would mean for the well being of children, but perhaps I may do so in the future. For now, simply consider that it would change the context. This is one of my chief concerns because, in the past few generations, as the definition of “family” has become more inclusive, and other, alternative family forms have taken shape, the overall well being of children has declined.
As to the definition of “marriage,” I oppose dramatically changing the definition of marriage to include gay unions for a number of reasons. One being that doing so would greatly diminish, if not completely obliterate its sanctity and meaning. “Sanctity” because it is not only a social but a religious institution as well—signifying a couple’s willingness to come together sexually under the auspices of the church, and in fulfilling God’s command to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Of course, those who are not religious are not likely to give credence to the religious perspective. Yet, consider that if God does not exist, then all things metaphysical are inventions of the mind. Well-reasoned arguments from both sides of the issue ought to therefore be given equal voice until society can generally concur as to which argument bears more desirable fruit.
Unfortunately, what happens in the process of awaiting such "fruit" is that personal freedoms are allowed to expand indefinitely, and by the time we “know” something is socially detrimental, such behavior is already a permanent part of the new culture, and it is too late to go back. We now have an abundance of compelling evidence that no-fault divorce is devastating for children. In fact, losing a father to abandonment is more highly correlated with childhood and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems than is losing a father to death (David Popenoe, Life Without Father). Yet, such no-fault divorce laws have not been repealed or changed, but in fact gained popularity after California became the first state to offer them. In the case of same-sex marriage, as it comes to be accepted legally, it will likely be a permanent change in our culture, even if we were to eventually conclude, scientifically, that same-sex marriage had undesirable outcomes. And while no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage are not the same thing, I make the comparison because, again, both alter the context of the child-rearing home.
I believe that traditional marriage, as an outlet for sexuality as well as a context for raising children, has the greater potential to benefit individuals and society. My theories about this have their assumptions in Christian, and particularly, LDS doctrine. To give the most concise explanation of what these assumptions are, I refer you to the article, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” written in 1995 by the former LDS prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, and his counselors, which details what the church believes about human nature and families, and what that means in the context of our global society. You can find it on www.lds.org. At the top of the page, go to “Gospel Library—Support Materials.” On the left hand side, click on “Family.” This will take you to a list of articles, etc. Near the bottom of the list, you will find “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
Finally, a bit about the traditional family in cultural context. I will define “traditional” as being a family in which at least one woman and at least one man come together in marriage and bear and raise their own biological children. Anthropologists and sociologists have found this kind of a family to exist in every self-sustaining culture, with, of course, variations as to extended family and polygamy. And, it might be worth noting that, while homosexuality exists in many, likely all cultures, to some extent, Western civilization is the first in modern history to attempt to sanction it by law. In any case, despite cases of alternative sexual behavior, the assumption is that the traditional family is the foundational unit of society. If this is so, and marriage is at the heart of the family in almost every culture, then dramatically changing rules about marriage, and therefore, changing the definition of what a “family” is, could likely lead us into social entropy.
We can see the correlation between the breakdown of the nuclear family into single, cohabiting, divorced and step- families, and increasing youth crime, drug use, and sexual exploration and experimentation, which carry with them significant costs to society. (Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood and David Popenoe, Life Without Father). While such a correlation may not be the cause for such problems, it certainly creates a context of confusion, anger and frustration for children in which these problems are more likely to be realized. Adding gay marriage to the list of “alternative but equal” family forms is likely to create its own set of difficulties, at least for the children of such households. This is, again, not to say that gay couples cannot parent children well—they likely can with the same probability as strait couples. Only to say that the context of gay parents is likely to create its own difficulties, in addition to those that already face heterosexual parents.
And, although I will not go into detail here, I theorize about what being raised in a home headed by homosexual partners would mean for the sexual education, identity, and orientation of their children, and what that could mean for their long-term well being and success in their relationships. These are the kinds of concerns that might raise some important questions with regards to research in this area. So often, when it comes to research and policy that would affect children, we only think to ask questions from the perspective of the adults involved. Before making any permanent cultural changes, we might do well to consider the children's points of view.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Worse Than I Thought
What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? I can think of 3 ways.
1) Using names of Deity when you're really just filling in the blank or exclaiming in surprise or anger. This is the one Mormons focus so much on, but is probably the least insidious of the three.
2) Professing the name of Deity when, in fact, you are acting in your own selfish interests. Priestcrafts are the most common; particularly, televangelists who are happy to take your money.
3) Possibly the worst is one I had never thought of before today, while I was reading in Evon O. Flesberg's "The Switching Hour." She talks about a girl who, because she was sexually abused by her father, can no longer hear the word "Father" without being filled with darkness and dread. This means she cannot pray to her "Heavenly Father." She cannot think about God as a father.
Whose name are we tacitly taking on when we decide to be parents, especially fathers? What does this mean for Mormons, who especially believe in God the Father as the literal Father of our spirits, a perfected Man of flesh and bone, and who also believe in a Heavenly Mother? Parenthood is truly about pointing young souls to God, in more ways than many of us probably think about.
1) Using names of Deity when you're really just filling in the blank or exclaiming in surprise or anger. This is the one Mormons focus so much on, but is probably the least insidious of the three.
2) Professing the name of Deity when, in fact, you are acting in your own selfish interests. Priestcrafts are the most common; particularly, televangelists who are happy to take your money.
3) Possibly the worst is one I had never thought of before today, while I was reading in Evon O. Flesberg's "The Switching Hour." She talks about a girl who, because she was sexually abused by her father, can no longer hear the word "Father" without being filled with darkness and dread. This means she cannot pray to her "Heavenly Father." She cannot think about God as a father.
Whose name are we tacitly taking on when we decide to be parents, especially fathers? What does this mean for Mormons, who especially believe in God the Father as the literal Father of our spirits, a perfected Man of flesh and bone, and who also believe in a Heavenly Mother? Parenthood is truly about pointing young souls to God, in more ways than many of us probably think about.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Revision
I have revised (re-written) my earlier post, "Tolerance and Morality." It is much, much improved in my opinion. And, a whole lot shorter! Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
