The Prop 8 Debate and the Fiction of the Autonomous Self
(I know; just what you were dying for is yet another Bloggernacle post on Prop 8. But if you’re burned out on the topic, you’ve had sufficient warning as to the topic of this post–feel free to click away now.)
A popular argument in favor of SSM goes something like this: how could gay marriage possibly threaten the marriages of heterosexual couples? Why should it make any difference to Cinderella and Prince Charming if the gay couple down the street, Hansel and Jack of the Beanstock, are married as well? I do think this argument has a certain intuitive appeal. However–and I say this as someone who voted against Prop 8–I don’t find it entirely persuasive, and I’ve been wondering if there might be a better way to frame the debate.
The questionable premise I see here is the notion that the choices of individuals in their private lives have no impact outside of that private sphere. Such a premise, it seems to me, rests on a typically modern and individualistic understanding of the human being. In the modern conception, the self is something separate, autonomous, self-contained, something that can be understood in isolation. Though this self might be in relationships with others, those relationships are secondary to its basic identity. But this model has been sharply critiqued in recent decades—and rightly so, I think—for overlooking the fact that human beings are profoundly social and interdependent, living in complex webs of relationships. Humans form society, but society also forms human beings, as the culture and values in which we immersed play a profound role in shaping who we are. A person is not a completely self-contained, autonomous unit, but a constitutively relational being.
This is the bias I bring to this discussion, and it is for this reason that I find myself skeptical of any approach which seems to place the human in a self-contained bubble, where she is impervious to broader social forces and can make decisions without causing ripples in the world around her, ripples that will inevitably impact others. As feminists have famously pointed out, the personal is political. I am not gay, nor am I married, so one might think that the legality (or not) of SSM has little if anything to do with my life. But as long as I continue to live in a particular society and culture, as long as my life is intertwined with the lives of others (and I resist the urge to go become a hermit on a desert island), social and cultural values and norms and ideals will affect me.This means that I am hesitant to assert that the legality of SSM will have no effects whatsoever beyond the private relationships of the married couples in question.
Yet it is precisely because of its potential social effects that I am inclined to support gay marriage. I want to live in a society which does not use sexual orientation as a litmus test of whether one is to be granted full personhood or equal opportunities, in which gays and lesbians do not have to resign themselves to accepting a marginalized status, in which a homosexual teenager can have the same dreams for future family life as those entertained by his or her heterosexual classmates. Additionally, I see the existence of monogamous, committed relationships which are granted a special legal and social status as having positive social effects, which leads me to think that it would be a good thing to make them more broadly available. In short, I find myself supporting gay marriage not because I don’t think it will have any impact on the world in which I live, but because of my hopes that it will have a positive one.
As I said above, I voted against Prop 8. I did so, I will confess, with some reservations. Some of them had to do with the unknowns involved in terms of where this will take us, uncertainty about the unforeseen social effects this might have—especially because I cannot see this as an exclusively private matter. Some of them had to do with religious reasons; heterodox though I may be, it still at least gives me pause to dissent from Church leaders. Some of my concerns I am still struggling to articulate, even to myself. Yet in the final analysis, I decided that if I was going to err, I would rather err in the direction of a more inclusive society, one which seeks to give all its citizens equal opportunities.
But because this is where I am coming from, I can see why those who oppose SSM worry about the effects it will have on their lives, and on the culture in which they raise their children. If you see greater normalization of homosexuality as having destructive social consequences, it makes sense to me that you would try to curtail trends in that direction. And I’m not sure that the best response to that concern is to simply repeat over and over the argument that “this won’t affect you, so you shouldn’t worry about it.”
To be fair, I should add that I think some arguments in favor of Prop 8 suffer from a similar problem in terms of downplaying the reality of the effects of their position. For example, take the frequently-repeated contention that Prop 8 doesn’t do anything harmful to gays, but simply seeks to protect the institution of marriage. In an interesting parallel to the anti-Prop 8 argument that legalized gay marriage won’t have any effects on heterosexual couples, this argument makes the case that reversing legalized gay marriage does not actually affect gays in any significant way. As long as they get the legal benefits, why should gays care whether they get to call their partnerships “marriage”?
Yet Prop 8 was clearly designed to keep a particular kind of relationship (heterosexual, monogamous marriage) normative–and in doing this, it necessarily places other relationships in a different kind of status. However you want to describe that latter status, it must lack something important that is granted to those relationships which get favored with the term “marriage.” If there were really nothing special about “marriage,” after all, if it were the same in every respect to a civil union, the debate would be moot–the whole point of Prop 8 is to ensure that whatever it is that is special about marriage, those benefits be restricted to certain kinds of relationships. And of course that impacts those who are excluded from those benefits.
Some have noted that to a certain extent, this is an argument over symbolism. But to say that is not to trivialize the issue. Symbols play a tremendously influential role in shaping how we see the world, how we understand ourselves and each other, how we relate. They matter. And I think that to overlook that, to reduce the question to an exclusively legal one (who has what legal rights?) is to miss something crucial about the debate.
The SSM controversy, like any cultural clash, involves competing and often deeply-held visions of what is best for society. And regardless of one’s perspective, I think it’s a good idea to take seriously the concerns of those who fear a negative impact if the other side achieves its goals. I’m not sure that it’s helpful to spend lots of energy hammering our political opponents with the refrain that what we are out to accomplish has no real implications for their lives, and their reactions are therefore unjustified. Given that we are interdependent beings who all have a very real stake in the nature of the society in which we live, I think such arguments are bound to ring hollow. A better use of energy, perhaps, would be to work to more persuasively articulate our own hopes for a better world, what it is about our own vision that we find so compelling.
- 15 November 2008
I’m all debated out on this topic, but I wanted to highlight one thing you said.
And regardless of one’s perspective, I think it’s a good idea to take seriously the concerns of those who fear a negative impact if the other side achieves its goals.
Have we really seen the anti-8 side taking seriously the concerns of the pro-8 side? Even in the Bloggernacle, I don’t think so. There has been more debate over whether or not leaders should be followed, or whether dissent is allowed? But do the anti-8 denizens really give any credence to the concerns of the pro-8 crowd? And if they did, what form would it take (other than acknowledging that not all relationships may be equal)?
Just curious…
Queuno, Lynnette is speaking prescriptively–how this debate might best be approached–and most of your comment is descriptive–how you’ve actually observed people behaving in these skirmishes. Since I doubt it’s productive to attempt to determine which side has been well-mannered, empathetic, and longsuffering and which side has behaved like feral savages (and Lynnette isn’t responsible for the behavior of other prop 8 opponents anyway), why don’t we skip to your final question: how do you think those who opposed prop 8 could take seriously the concerns of the other side, to understand before being understood?
It’s a difficult question because either side tends to argue the only way their concerns can be taken seriously is for people to agree with them. Maybe that’s the case, but if so we’re at an ideological impasse.
I realize that much of the conversation surrounding Prop 8 has generated more heat than light, but I have seen some moves in the Bloggeernacle on the part of those who oppose Prop 8 to at least seriously consider the concerns of those who support it. For example, I’ve seen the question raised of whether, if the concern of those who oppose SSM is primarily about religious freedom, or education, there might be ways of specifically addressing those issues without giving up the fight for SSM. That strikes me as a constructive way of thinking. While clearly there are some competing interests in this debate that are in direct conflict with each other, I’m not convinced that this has to be quite the zero-sum game that it’s frequently being presented to be.
(And I think it could just as easily be asked, have we really seen those who support Prop 8 taking seriously the concerns of those who are opposed to it? But I’d prefer that this thread not devolve into an argument over which side has been more guilty of bad behavior.)
Is this the sort of comment you’re looking for, Queuno? Or something that goes further than this?
From MikeinWeHo:
(See here.)
Lynnette,
I wrote something similar here. I thought that the responses I received were responsible and thoughtful. I was also being very heavy handed, which probably helped.
You, of course, made your case much more intelligently than I did.
Thanks, John. I liked your post; I was actually thinking of it, and the problem of unintended consequences, in my attempt to articulate my own reservations about SSM, even though I ended up opting to vote against Prop 8.
I found this article from Slate to be very interesting in looking at the side of the pro-8 groups from an anti-8 person: http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/?from=rss. Sadly, being for North Carolina at the moment, my personal opinion on voting for or against it was more “Thank goodness it wasn’t me.”
You are an amazing writer, and obviously very intelligent. You have made me think about this issue in a way I hadn’t yet. Thank you.
I do have a question, and please understand I am sincere in what I am asking. I actually like to think. I enjoy having my mind opened to new perspectives. So, I am curious what your response will be. Excited too, because it will give me more to think about.
Anyway, you wrote the following:”Yet in the final analysis, I decided that if I was going to err, I would rather err in the direction of a more inclusive society, one which seeks to give all its citizens equal opportunities.”
My question is this: What about polygamy? If we continue to redefine things so as to make everyone feel more included, at some point there will be those who fight to then redefine marriage as between one man and as many women as he chooses. Words do not really express how I feel. I am torn. This is because I want people to have equal opportunities, and to feel included. Yet, I feel strongly about the need for some social norms. I know, I know, who decides what the norm is….see my conflict?
Again, I am sincere in this question. I am honestly just attempting to understand all aspects of this redefining “tradtional” marriage issue. Thanks.
I think the problem that many of the “No on 8″ people have with the “Yes on 8″ people is that the “Yes on 8″ argument boils down to “God said so.” This is inarguable. Either you believe it, or you don’t. It is also uncomfortably close to “God hates Gays.” Also unarguable. Where is the meeting point?
Also the argument “I don’t hate gays, I’m just voting to take away their rights in the spirit of love and kindness, but I have no problem with them, personally.” Well, change the word “gays” to “Mormons” to see how problematic it is.
Natalie, here in the US not all discrimiation is treated equally; there is a three-tiered system set up to determine the constitutionality of any law–strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational relationship. Strict scrutiny is an extremely high standard and very few classes of laws fall under it.
California has decided that laws concerning sexual orientation are deserving of the very highest protection, “strict scrutiny.” I cannot see how laws about polygamy (not about sexual orientation–an immutable characteristic, important in the analysis) would be affected at all.
There are already plenty of protections in place within our court system. Relax.
This was a thoughtful post. Thank you.
I have said this elsewhere, but ultimately, I think one of the most important ways we can respect and love one another is to respect one another’s agency.
I have been impressed how the Church leaders have essentially reminded us of that. For all of the Church’s clear and active position, it allowed members to sort through the issues. And the leaders have continually reminded us to engage respectfully on this topic.
I also think it’s important to steer away from generalizations about the ‘other.’ There have been extremes on both sides, but those extremes should not be used as representative samples of the ‘other.’ I think there has emerged another fiction — the fiction of the evil other.
Thanks for the link, tkangaroo; that article makes some interesting points. The question of what this all has to do with gender roles is something that I’ve wondered a lot about. Is Church opposition to gay marriage primarily based on the fact that such marriages can’t last eternally in LDS theology, and can’t reproduce–or is the concern more about the way in which they challenge gender roles? I realize that it’s not necessarily an either-or, but I think the question of precisely what is problematic about homosexual behavior from an LDS perspective is a bit murky. In a similar way, I’ve wondered whether the Church continues to emphasizes gender roles because of fears about gay marriage, or vice versa–in other words, is the primary threat gay marriage per se, or the lack of traditional gender roles? Though that’s maybe a chicken-and-egg problem.
Natalie, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the respectful way in which you pose your question. I agree with you that we all end up drawing lines somewhere in terms of what behavior can be considered normative; the heated debate, of course, arises from the fact that there are some very diverse opinions regarding where to draw that line. I’m still thinking this out for myself, but it seems to me that just because someone advocates drawing the line in a new place, that doesn’t mean they don’t then have the option in the future of then defending that new norm against further attempts to re-draw it. In other words, I’m not convinced by the slippery slope argument, which seems to assume that once people have moved in a certain direction, they have no option but to mindlessly keep going and accepting more and more variations. (You could perhaps even cite the Church as an example of this; the fact that they at one point re-drew the line to allow polygamy certainly hasn’t led to them feeling the need to allow other marital arrangements they consider deviant.)
Also, in weighing the potential (but still theoretical) dangers of allowing more latitude in this area, against the (already real) costs borne by gay people if we don’t move in that direction, I’m inclined to put more weight on the latter.
I hope that makes some sense; I think it’s a fair question, and it’s one I’m still grappling with.
Welcome aboard!
Or does that statement of yours come with the usual caveats?
An elegant little essay, Lynette. Thanks.
Ironically, perhaps, I have more sympathy for the Yes position now than I did before the election. (I’m definitely a No guy.) Before, I think I understood the Yes concerns with the normalization of gay behaviors and their children being taught favorable, or at least not unfavorable, things about gay relationships in schools and so forth. I think I grasped the concerns; I just disagreed with them. But it’s kind of easy for me to disagree; my kids are beyond the early developmental stage, and they are both quite gay friendly already, so it wasn’t a concern that I felt personally threatened by.
Most of the arguments of the Yes camp, such as that the Church would have to marry gays in the temple or would lose its tax exemption, I thought were just plain ridiculous.
But the behavrior of No activists in the wake of their loss has given me pause and substantially more empathy for the Yes position than I had before. The parade of horribles that struck me as so irrational before all of a sudden don’t seem quite so beyond the pale anymore.
So I’m less confident than I use to be that I have a handle on the macro, societal effects of something like Prop. 8. I’m still a No guy, but I have much greater sympathy for the Yes point of view than I did pre-election. It appears to me now that some of their irrational fears weren’t so irrational after all.
djinn, I agree that the involvement of religious arguments makes this a particularly difficult situation. If someone’s position is primarily based on personal religious convictions, it inevitably makes conversation more challenging, simply because such convictions don’t appeal to publicly accessible arguments. As you say, what response is there, really, to an assertion that “God told me to vote this way?” On the one hand, it makes sense to me that if religious believers want to work for laws which reflect those beliefs, in a pluralistic society they need to appeal to arguments beyond religious ones; in other words, they need to explain why this is a good thing even for those who don’t share their religious worldview. But I also have to admit that in the current debate, it’s sometimes seemed that those who support Prop 8 have gotten into more trouble in their attempts to find secular justifications for their position than they would have if they’d just said flat out that they supported it based on religious convictions. But that leaves us at a difficult impasse, and I’m not sure how best to address it.
Thanks, m&m. I agree that the tendency to demonize those who hold different views is a problem. And while it probably won’t surprise you to hear that I have some concerns about aspects of recent Church statements regarding this situation, I genuinely have appreciated the emphasis on civility, and the indications that there is room for individual members to work through these questions and follow their consciences.
I confess, all you dear bloggers who (whom? Outdated grammatical terms are so difficult to deal with, like the other r uleI just violatesd thanks, Mr. Lowth). My position is that there isn’t any reasons, other than religious ones, to ban same-sex marriage. The other reasons, given here and elsewhere (which go by the melliflous term ’slippery slope, more applicable to chindren’s playgrounds that actual people’s lives) simply don’t hold water. Which the young’uns understand. Even the Mormon young’uns. It’s inevitable. Mormons don’t drink coffee, but they don’t feel the need to keep coffee from the rest of society. This is the same. End of rant.
I have been to various Mormon sites, some with very long discussions, clearly between people with legal backgrounds. The word “heteronormity” makes appearance regularly. C’mon. It means “Hate the Gay” and marginalize anyone in such a relationship, such a child with two gay parents. Pretty much everyone under, what? 24, maybe? has already figured tthat this is a totally bogus argument. Good luck in the future.
As I have earlier expressed, pretty much everyone I know is Mormon. I can’t ask them about this issue; i’d rather remain ignorant than be forced to choose my principles (yeah, even people that don’t go to your church in spite of years of ‘good examples,’ and the threat of ostracism) and their beliefs.
Sow the storm, reap the whirlwind.
Oh, and as an aside, m&m, could you explain, with slightly more detail, what you’re talking about?
Among my rather long list of sins includes those of the grammatical variety. Trying again:
I’d rather remain ignorant than be forced to choose between my principles (yeah, even people that don’t go to your church in spite of years of ‘good examples,’ and the threat of ostracism may have one or two) and their sincerely held beliefs.
Oh, and as to the “no on 8″ demonstrations, I haven’t seen examples of Mormons persecuted for their religious beliefs. The demonstrations seem to fall into two camps: demonstrating against individual people who are on the record as giving to “yes on 8″ and demonstrations against the Mormon church in general, who, in spite of its desire to hide behind the coattails of its members, clearly made support of Prop. 8 a matter of moral consideration.
If random Mormons, whose belief is not known are targeted, then I consider that bigotry and hate, and I will make such feelings known.
Natalie’s question back in #8 really is a great question, especially since those who are the strongest proponents of gay marriage and women’s rights often are among the staunchest opponents of legalizing polygamy. That appears to many to be a fundamental inconsistency that they simply can’t reconcile.
I understand the rejection of the “slippery slope” argument in Lynette’s response to Natalie, but that response doesn’t address the core issue inherent in the question. Forget the slippery slope issue; the real concern is how it is fine to uphold gay marriage as a fundamental civil right while denying polygamous marriage the same type of fundamental civil right. After all, each is simply a form of consenting adults expressing their own, personal sexual desires within a union called “marriage”. Why is a gay couple fundamentally entitled to this arrangement, while a polygamous grouping is not? What is the fundamental difference - if there are no issues of underage or incestuous coupling (no other laws being broken)?
How can it even be suggested that a marriage of two individuals is the same as the marriage of more than two? Eugene England wrote an article, “On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage”, suggesting, as I recall, that fidelity is a fiction when multiple partners are invloved. Having plural wives–not husbands–for example sets up basic inequalities between men and women relative to vital qualities and feelings.
we, but how is that a legal argument? Can we really legislate equality in marriage?
I meant to say, “equality of feelings” in marriage.
Ray,
Better to call Kaimi on this, but my understanding is the clear difference between gay right and polygamist legal marriage rights lies in the civil rights law - that gay marriage didn’t meet “strict scrutiny”, which applies to gays due to the history of discrimination against them as a minority class and that being gay isn’t a changeable characteristic.
oops - “that blocking gay marriage”
I understand that argument, cchrissyy, but can you see how stupid and condescending that sounds to a polygamist? “Yeah, so you say you can’t change, but you expect me to change when being a polygamist is part of my core being - part of who I am.” Substitute “homosexual” for “polygamist” and that sounds suspiciously like what gay people say to straight people all the time.
I have a hard time thinking of a pro-gay-marriage argument that can’t be re-worded with little or no effort to be a pro-polygamy argument.
So Ray, I’ve never heard of these “I was just born wanting multiple wives/husbands” or “you see this in animals all the time” type of arguments you seem to suggest exist relative to polygs. Have you? If so, it would be interesting to see when such arguments arose historically over against similar arguments relative to gay history. Often, animals don’t mate and are philanderers :); but then I wouldn’t consider their situation akin to polygamy, where, as I comprhend it, outside sexual activity is verboten.
Or perhaps I misunderstand you. It just doesn’t seem that under the law the slope is very slippery or potentially slippery relative to polygamy overagainst gay marriage to me. Maybe someone will enlighten me as to just how naive I am on that score.
If the reasoning behind state-sanctioned SSM–or rather, interpreting the current marriage laws to include homosexual couples–is that gays have a history of discrimination against them as a minority class and that being gay isn’t a changeable characteristic, then we aren’t apt to see a jump to legalizing polygamy or people marrying their pets or whatever. If the point is to normalize gay relationships, then once homosexuality is fully normalized (a couple generations hence, I imagine) and the mainstream view is that being gay is just another human difference, like race, I think that people will start to wonder why we privilege those families centered around a sexual relationship over other kinds of families.
Not all straight couples have children or or the capability of having children, but this body of law re marriage was created as a response to the fact that heterosexual couplings produce children. Once the institution has been separated from that biological fact, there’s really no reason for the government to continue privileging couples who are sexually involved. I think marriage will always be important to individuals and to certain religious subgroups, but it may not always be important to society at large–not to the extent that government has to privilege the relationship. Or marriage may lose its sexual implications altogether–which I imagine will have the same effect where government involvement is concerned.
But no one cares what I think.
I have to admit that most of the time when reading the arguments, I found myself going with whatever had just been argued against.
Most of the arguments, on both sides, were not very persuasive, and tended to convince me that the other side just had to be right.
Exactly. Perhaps if I were exposed to more “yes” people where I live, I wouldn’t find my thoughts shifting the way they have been.
But I talk with my sister, and she talks about bricks through windows and other assaults on people in her ward. It gives me pause.
Gee, I’ve seen that argumed a lot longer and a lot more. You see it in horse herds for example, or in the behavior of deer, or walruses on the beach or … scores of naturally polygamous animals.
Group marriages? Consider the usual lion pride.
There is even a set rhyme about how the nature of man is to be polygamous and the nature of woman to be monogamous. I even drafted a counter essay once, for amusement.
Anyway …
Group marriages were also normative Hawaiian pre-conquest. For what it’s worth. We humans, a flexible lot.
This is what I’ve read, for what it’s worth. Apparently there’s a correlation among primates between the size differential between males and females and the tendency toward polygyny–for example, gibbons are roughly equal in size and supposedly monogamous (chimpanzees are also about equal in size but extremely promiscuous), while male gorillas are almost twice as large as females and live in “harems.” Given this data, you’d expect humans to be slightly polygnous, which is exactly what you find on a world/historical scale. In addition, there’s a difference between promiscuous animals (males mate with whomever they want but do not contribute to childcare), and polygynous animals (males mate with a particular group of females and do invest in their offspring), and a corresponding difference in the size of the testes–they’re much larger in males of promiscuous species, whose strategy is to mate frequently but not contribute to the welfare of their offspring, so their testes are huge, where in polygynous animals they’re smaller since the males’ strategy is to mate less frequently but invest in their own offspring. Humans fall somewhere in the middle.
So certainly people could construct an evolutionary argument for polygamy. But the issue here, as I understand it, isn’t whether they can but whether they do. I’m pretty sure the polygamists in this country are invoking God rather than evolution, no?
Kiskilili: I predict that the next group desiring an expansion of the definiition of marriage won’t be religious polygamists, but rather “polyamorists.” It’s already a chic trend. Check out various dating web sites (such as http://www.okcupid.com) and look for key words such as “poly”, “polyamory”, or “polyamorous.” It’s also at http://www.wikipedia.org, and several millions of web pages indexed at google. Over 2,000,000 web pages on “polyamory nyc” alone, (as seen in the “look ahead suggestions” as you type the search words, or 11,800,000 shown after you hit enter.
Polyamory is more modern- and sophisticated-sounding than the old fashioned “promiscuous.” And it’s not as constrictive as “serially monogamous.”
IMO, polyamory attempts to take the stigma out of being promiscuous by claiming “but we really do love each other, and who are you to say we don’t?”
I appreciate all the thought-provoking comments. I don’t feel like I know enough about the legal issues involved to say much about the plausibility of the notion that SSM could open the door to polygamy, though I’m reading the discussion with interest. But as I’m trying to sort out my own thoughts on this, I’m realizing that I find something a bit unsettling in the invocation of potential polygamy as a reason to oppose SSM. I’m imagining—what if, during the Civil Rights Movement, people had foreseen that their arguments and rhetoric would be appropriated a few decades later by gays, and had made the case that blacks should be denied civil rights on that basis—not because civil rights for blacks were in and of themselves problematic, but because of where this kind of thinking could lead, the ways in which these arguments might be appropriated by future generations?
In other words, I’m having a hard time with the idea that we as a society should ask a particular group to accept a marginalized status based solely on how other groups perceived to be a social threat might someday make use of their arguments for equality, or the legal precedents set by their movement. Even if such concerns are valid and history proves them to be accurate, I think this particular argument raises some serious ethical questions.
One might also ask—is the possibility of legalized polygamy (and to be honest, that’s a subject on which I’m pretty much agnostic) such a catastrophic one that it’s fair to ask gays and lesbians to accept exclusion from marriage in order to avert it? That particular assertion seems like it would be a strange one for Mormons, of all people, to make.
Madhousewife in #28 starts to go down the path of reasoning that I’ve taken elsewhere, and considers the possible generational effect.
I think the generational effect will only take about 15 more years, because in 15 years, teens from ages 16 to 20 will be coming of sexual age after having spent their entire school career with curricula showing SSM as normative, and without taboo. Mass media, such as network TV, already has started showing homosexuality as being without taboo, and “nothing wrong with it, it’s just who they are.”
A big question is whether those future teens will still accept that the only reason to be gay is if you’re born that way. One of the so-called “proofs” that homosexuality is not chosen is the rejoinder “Who would choose to be homosexual in this homophobic society?”
Ok then, remove homophobia from society (which is what state-sanctioned domestic unions and SSM will pretty much do), and then what? What’s to prevent the adventurous from exploring sexual options?
I don’t mean homophobia in terms of hatred or discrimination, but rather the social taboo that we currently have in addition to the teachings of various religions. I’m not advocating violence or hatred.
If there’s no social reason to avoid homosexuality (ie, no taboo, and no “ick factor”) won’t the more adventurous sort of teens be more apt to experiment? And won’t the easily-led sort of teens be more apt to be led into experimentation? And won’t the confused sort, who are trying to discover their sexuality, and see where they fit in, be more tempted to experiment?
Teens raised without strong moral teachings against pre-marital sex (and that includes most of the population, right?) will have no social barriers against same-sex experimentation, and may see it as a legitimate option on the sexual buffet. Teens have already discovered free internet porn and are “monkey-see-monkey-do”-ing. Even Katy Perry’s “I kissed a girl (and I liked it)”, generates the question of whether life is imitating art, or the other way around.
First sexual encounters, especially those at younger ages, have a significant imprinting effect on people. (That’s one reason why childhood sexual abuse, especially homosexual sexual abuse, really messes people up.) I don’t think I’m alone in believing that if homosexual sexual experimentation among teens dramatically increases in 15 years, then we’ll see a dramatic increase in that generation of the percent of people who self-identify as homosexual.
SSM is major social engineering, and both sides seem to have failed in considering some likely future scenarios.
Growing up I read these same arguments by deCamp ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Sprague_de_Camp ) and others, enough to find them annoying.
The theme seems to continue in the internet age, viz.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=man+is+by+nature+polygamous&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
etc.
de Camp, of course, did not believe in God.
That’s a really interesting point. There might be polygamists out there who have adopted the language of inborn sexual identity to argue for legalized polygamy, but I’ve never actually heard that case being made. From what I’ve seen, the polygamists seem to be arguing their case on very different grounds, invoking religious freedom rather than biological tendencies. That seems to be a pretty major difference between the two groups (polygamists and gays). In terms of how the discussion is currently being framed, at least, I’m not sure to what extent they’re actually fighting comparable battles.
Just for a different perspective:
There now are pockets of our American society where the illegitimacy rate is approaching or has passed 80%. I have worked in some of those areas, and I have seen first-hand the social devastation that has occurred and is occurring. The lack of an active father in the lives of the young men, especially, and the scarcity of potential husbands in the lives of young women, especially, is literally destroying (in very real and powerful ways) an entire generation - and it actually now is working on destroying a second generation. What I have seen disturbs me deeply. It’s hard to explain to those who have not seen it how deeply disturbing it is.
Fwiw, I believe it is this movement (that already exists and is accelerating in the heterosexual community) that troubles the Brethren so deeply. Fundamentally, it is not a “gay” issue; it is a “destruction of marriage and family” issue - already rampant in the heterosexual population. I see the opposition to gay marriage as opposition to what they see as a sub-set of rampant “fornication” and “promiscuity” in general - as a breakdown of what they believe to be the bedrock sexual foundation of stable civilizations. Opposing gay marriage is like the last stand against the total destruction of Bible-based marriage as the ideal.
I know homosexuals and homosexual advocates don’t see it in that same light, but I think it is important to understand that core perspective in order to work for acceptable alternatives to gay marriage. It’s the main reason I favor civil unions for all and marriage for religious ceremonies - so that religions can focus on teaching whatever they view as the ideal while still encouraging monogamy (and even “dedicated polygamy”) and sexual responsibility as widely as possible within society at large. I believe in the religious ideal of marriage, but I also believe in the civil NEED for family fidelity.
As a personal note:
I think this is a powerful concern - especially given what I have seen in my work among populations literally crashing under the weight of promiscuity now. I don’t think this is a homosexual issue, and I have political and legal issues with trying to close the gay door after the straight door has been smashed from its hinges, but I also believe the gay community would be well served to consider this issue and try to address it internally, as well - to try to see the Church’s concern and how it applies to the gay community regardless of marriage debates.
For example, every gay rights advocate with whom I have talked understands the decimation that promiscuity has caused within the gay community, and every one of them understands the need to preach and teach and encourage fidelity and monogamy and safer sex practices within that community. That can’t wait for social acceptance or marriage to be normative; it has to happen regardless of how the community is seen by others. There has to be a widespread rejection of promiscuity that parallels the Church’s stance for heterosexual activity. There are things the Church can learn from the gay community, but there also are things the gay community can learn from the Church. I hope and pray that mutual edification can happen, but it can’t be accomplished through protest and vandalism.
Finally, I really believe the Brethren see this issue as part of that larger issue, and that larger issue has absolutely nothing to do with hate or bigotry. That simply has to be understood if progress is to be made, even if disagreement still exists.
Group marriages were also normative Hawaiian pre-conquest. For what it’s worth. We humans, a flexible lot.
I know homosexuality was generally condoned in traditional Hawaiian society, and polygyny was quite normal at the elite level, although I’m quite unaware of group marriage. What’s your source?
If there’s no social reason to avoid homosexuality (ie, no taboo, and no “ick factor”) won’t the more adventurous sort of teens be more apt to experiment?
Well, then, I guess teen pregnancy wouldn’t be as much of an issue!
Hi, Ray! You make several thoughtful points, to which I’m sympathetic. I wonder, though: are gays really the biggest threat to involved fatherhood? If the Church’s goal is to keep fathers around, why not concentrate resources on making divorces harder to obtain, or at least giving our child support laws some teeth?
If gay promiscuity is the issue, surely the availability of marriage would be one disincentive?
As a side note, you worry that young men are fatherless and young women husbandless. To add to that, I would point out that girls need fathers as much as boys need mothers.
Kiskilili: To your second question, I would proffer this thought: because that wasn’t on the ballot.
E.g. the current practice of not allowing men to have temple recommends if their support is not current and the additions to the recommend interview that focus on those issues?
True! But we also take away men’s temple recommends if they have gay sex.
The gay marriage issue is one on which the Church has taken a stand in the larger society, so I’m trying to come up with parallels in which the Church might similarly play a role not just internally, but in fighting for or against legislation that affects everyone in the area, member and non-member alike.
Ray, in spite of the fact that we have, what, 3% (could be wrong here) of the world’s population, we have 25% of the prison population (of the world.) Many of those people (1/8, i saw a quite detailed analysis) are in there exclusively for Marijuana crimes. Many others have been given punitive sentences due to the different required sentences between crack (harsh, harsh harsh) and cocaine (less harsh) violations. Yet others are in jail for rediculously long periods of time due to the fact that judges are forced, by mandatory minimums, to pass out much longer sentences than they otherwise would. These huge number of men in Jail has hit the black community the very hardest. As far as I can tell, young girls are having children as single mothers because there simply aren’t the men around, and they’ve rather have children, than remain single and childless. So, the problem is complex, and has a great deal to to various “tough on crime” measures passed….
As to Hawaiian Group marriage, I, confess, I am one of the most boring humans on the planet. I spent a number of years (and would continue if I lived somewhere cool like Cambridge where such books were readily available) reading ethnographies; the earlier published after Western encounter the better. I found the reference in one of those. So, It’s quite possible that people who don’t have my patience with such materials (how many spear types need to be documented? –All of them!) which may make up all readers of reasonably accessible materials, haven’t picked up on this. I live in a different state now, and so cannot check my original source material, but it was pretty interesting.
So, as I do not have the reference at hand, feel free to ignore me. Drat. But, bayybeee, we’re pretty flexible.
But, as I am now unable to actually to cite to an actual document, (darn the change in formats between various pc’s) feel free to ignore me.
As to Hawaiian Group marriage, I, confess, I am one of the most boring humans on the planet….
Well… we’re in the same boat in terms of reading ethnographies, and I have access to just about anything. Having read quite a few Hawaiian ethnographies, I would be surprised to hear about group marriages.
Then, it’s possible I got it wrong.
What? How can you say that djinn? This is the Bloggernacle! The number one rule is that you’re not allowed to ever back down. How else can we keep up all the arguing?
(If it’s not completely clear, I’m totally joking. I’ve read and appreciated your comments on many different blogs in the past couple of months.)
Just to clarify a point on the polygamy discussion, my understanding is that unlike the case of gay marrriage, where advocates want it legalized (you go get a license at the courthouse and you are entitled to lots of legal rights under the law), advocates of polygamy simply want it decriminalized, which is a significant difference.
#40 - “are gays really the biggest threat to involved fatherhood?” Most certainly NOT.
I agree with everything in your comment.
#44 - Yep. I agree with everything in your comment, as well.
Ray,
Cchrissyy is right — because the court opinion was based on sexual orientation as a protected characteristic, it would not extend to polygamy (unless polygamous orientation were a characteristic that the court found needed protection — and, as usual, Kiskilili is ahead of us with a simian analogy
).
But you’re right that the conceptual framework is quite similar. For my money, the no-polygamy footnote in Marriage Cases is not particularly strong reasoning.
Simian analogies are the best, aren’t they? Maybe someone–the people Stephen linked to?–should form a polygamous community with a name like Yearning for Gorilla Paradise, and then start beating their chests and chomping on bamboo shoots.
Or not. Maybe it’s best not to take too many of our cues from the animal kingdom.
Kaimi, #51. Once homosexuals have opened the door to “marriage-means-whatever-we-want-it-to”, regardless of the reasoning or application, the polyamory crowd will want to go through that door too.
My guess is that divorce lawyers are for SSM. Because more people getting married means more people getting divorced, hence more business for them.
Aha! That’s it! SSM is a conspiracy put forth by divorce lawyers to drum up business in the wake of declining marriage rates among heterosexuals.
Lynnette, I’m very late in saying so, but I really liked this post. You make a very good point about the weakness of arguments along the lines of “this has no effects on anyone else.” I wonder if these arguments are easy to jump to from more reasonable arguments of the form “this has little effect on anyone else.” This might be an argument in favor of legalizing marijuana, for example. But in the cacophony of a political campaign, it’s easiest for everyone to make their arguments as simple as possible, so “little” becomes “none.”
Bookslinger, jumping back to #34, I’ve read you making this argument before, and I think I can see where you’re coming from. If some people are unsure about their sexuality, the more normal homosexuality is seen as being, the more teens will try it and decide that’s what they are.
But on balance, I tend to think that de-taboo-izing homosexuality is a good thing, for a few reasons.
First, there are clearly people who are homosexual in their orientation, and no amount of social rejection of that is going to change them. Certainly their lives will be generally happier if they don’t learn as teens that their very attractions are too deviant to even speak of but instead that they may be in a minority but are by no means alone.
Second–a related point–although I appreciate your point that you’re not arguing for hatred or discrimination, I think hatred and discrimination and bullying and cruelty and sometimes violence probably inevitably accompany labeling homosexuality as deviant. Sure, we can work on loving people even if we don’t like what they do. But I doubt that message will always get across.
Third, if homosexuality is no longer treated as deviant, the collateral damage caused by homosexuals trying to fit societal standards by entering heterosexual marriages will be drastically reduced. There will be fewer spouses and children to be hurt when such marriages end because fewer will be entered in the first place.
Fourth, even setting these aside and taking your point that if homosexuality is seen as normal, more people will end up self-identifying as homosexual, I guess I just don’t see that as being that bad a thing. Sure, from the perspective of the Church, they’re sinning, but most aren’t even aware of the Church, so they’re at least sinning in ignorance, right? Is it that they’ll be harder to convert? Or that there won’t be a big enough next generation? On that issue, perhaps there will be a bigger next generation if gay couples adopt more troubled kids and give them a better start in life so the next generation has more better off kids.
As you note, the kids in the Church are already getting the “no premarital sex” message, in addition, of course, to the “don’t be gay” message. So it seems likely that teens in the Church will only self-identify as homosexuals if they’re pretty sure about it, and no amount of societal legitimization is likely to change that.
I don’t know–I guess I think we should try to save our taboo labeling for stuff that leads more clearly to harm.
To continue my threadjack at comment #30, Hawaiians did participate in group marriages, most often between brothers and their wives, though other arrangements were also possible. Other south-seas islanders and Australian aborigines did, as well. The practice goes under the term “punalua” and this link is to a hawaiian dictionary explaining the meaning of the term. Use the magic of “Google” to find many more examples.
Here’s an Ethnography from 1877 discussing Hawaiian group marriages.
The internets are truly a wonderful place.
Hey Lynette, could you email me? I have a favor to ask.
Shucks, I coincidentally came back to this post to get in touch with Lynette and saw that djinn responded to some earlier remarks. I hope that he’s still following this thread.
This is part of the problem of relying on 19th century ethnography.
The following comes from the Journal of the Polynesian Society . “Polynesian Family System in Ka’u Hawaii”. 1951, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 186-222. The authors are E.S. Craighill Handy and Mary Kawena Pukui. Pukui is also the composer of the dictionary you site. I know that this comes from the 1950s, but it doesn’t seem that much work has been done on the topic since then. Pages 203-212 addresses the topic directly.
In refutation of the piece you cite the authors explain:
With little knowledge of Hawaiian marital customs, he [Morgan] extracted it from the context of the culture, in which it is a secondary, not to say insignificant, linguistic item, and, having extracted it, elevated it first as a name for presumed but probably never existing principle of consanguinous-collective, or communal-family, sex relations in Polynesia as a whole.
Pages 208-212 includes critique of the evidence Morgan uses to substantiate his claims, and his problematic interpretation of that evidence.
From pages 203-204:
Punalua is a term of reference and appellation which cannot be simply translated into English because it is applied to what for English-speaking people are various categories of relationship or no relationship. In other words, it embodies a cultural concept lacking in the social and personal relationship of English-speaking peoples.
Punalua is a relationship BETWEEN first and secondary mates, not a descriptive term of an appellation for the secondary mate.
In Hawaiian custom in pre-missionary times it was permissible for a man to have several wives or for a woman to have multiple husbands. In such circumstances the two women or the two men were to each other punalua. The punalua had joint responsibility for the children in the family.
Persisting in modern usage, when two men are married to sisters (or cousins), the men are punalua to each other. This is also true of two women who are married to brothers (or cousins).
The younger sister of a man’s wife is conventionally called wahine ‘opio or “younger wife” and the older sister wahine makua or “older wife.” These were merely terms of relationship. These terms are also applied to his female cousins-in-law, the makua or ‘opio term depending on whether they were descended from the older or younger branch in the family genealogy.
The younger brother (or male cousin) of a woman’s husband is her kane ‘opio or “younger husband” and the older brother or cousin is her kane makua or “older husband.” These terms carry no implication of plural marriage relationship.
And then from 204-205:
A further extension is the following: Hana (female) and Kimo (male) establish the “platonic” relationship of wahine ho’owahine and kane ho’okane. There is no sexual relationship between these two: it is a lasting deep friendship only, in English parlance. Hana’s husband Lune accepts Kimo as his punalua and the two men will be like brothers. Kimo will treat the children of Hana by Luna as kindly as he would his own.
Again, this doesn’t serve as evidence of group marriage. I readily concede polygamy and an openness to homosexuality in traditional Hawaiian society, but I see no evidence of group marriage.
I think the actual article can be accessed online: http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/browse.php
The internet truly is a wonderful place.
One other thought on Prop 8:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/halemL2.cfm?nl=187
Thank you, SmallAxe.
Aboriginal Australians. Actual group marriage, for some of them. Other very odd patterns of marriage, most of which seem to involve little choice on the part of the woman. SmallAxe?
Oh , and SmallAxe, I confess to not thoroughly understanding Hawaiian kinship groups but, in my review of the current literature, they seem to had a vastly different idea of whom it was appropriate to sleep with than we do. Basically to have sex in your house with someone other than your mate, bad; but somewhere else, pretty good.
Huge numbers of their practices would land one or both of the practitioners in jail today. Esp. the fact that they saw sex as something to be taught by the older to the younger. They just didn’t care about this whole set of behaviors that we give names to like adultery and much worse ones. They had a whole different set of taboos. So, you might get killed for eating with the wrong person, but you could sleep with them. It seems, the line between “group marriage” and group sleeping with massive numbers of people within your specific social class, seems pretty thin.
If you’re looking for a cultural relativist, you’ve at least found someone quite towards that end of the spectrum. I just prefer to be a cultural relativist that attempts to engage in accurate descriptions of the cultures I study.
I have nothing to say about Australian aborigines, and I’ve never claimed that traditional Hawaiian society did not have a radically different perception of sexuality than some modern Americans do.
I am, however, leery of claims that attempt to use a distant culture as a convenient “other” to support an argument, especially when those engaging in such arguments lack the self-awareness to realize the fictional nature of such a construct. IMO all arguments are fiction to a certain degree, but the good arguments are self-reflectively fictitious and make their observations in a more nuanced way.
[...] backwards as it is to call Proposition 8 “pro-family,” Lynnette explains that it’s disingenuous to pretend that gay marriage has no effect on straight families since [...]
I’ve been lucky enough to observe a real, legal gay wedding and the relationship validated by that wedding: I was an official witness when my ex-fiance married his partner of over a decade at a legal ceremony in Brussels, where they both live. I have nothing but respect and admiration for their relationship and I can say with absolutely certainty that the world is a better place because my ex broke off his relationship with me and married a man instead of me. I loved him very much, and was heartbroken when he called off our wedding, but I know that as much as we loved each other, not only the two of us but the rest of the world are better off because he married a man instead of me.
What I am saying, in other words, Lynette, is that you are right that gay marriage will have an effect on straight marriage. But I am convinced from my own experience that it is a positive effect–painful in the short term, perhaps, but ultimately a real chance for compassionate transformation and growth. I feel lucky to have learned about queer families and to have seen up-close and for myself that at the end of the day, queer families are still families.
If the argument is made that what people do in their private lives affects society as a whole, and we’re going to use that argument to support a ban on same sex marriages, then we should also use it to regulate the viewing of violence on television and in movies; what sorts of things parents teach their children (there are a lot of KKK members out there raising kids, after all); what sorts of toys, etc. parents get their children; the circumstances under which a heterosexual couple are getting married (shotgun wedding?); and a host of other things.
You either give people equal rights or you don’t. But if you don’t, then you need to remain consistent with your message — that means those carrying the message will be significantly less popular and much less likely to achieve their goal of keeping same sex marriage banned. A lot of people apparently think it’s okay if the front door is broken down and 2 people told they can’t get married, but if you did that and said they can’t watch Braveheart and can’t teach their kid about , then this cause would be much less popular.