Some thoughts on the gay marriage debate

[Synthesis]

I'm going to try to illustrate what I think are the root causes for the differences between the liberal and conservative take on homosexuality in general. I hope that this will be advantagous to understanding the difficulties that occur in the specific issue right now of gay marriage.

How acceptable a person finds arguments against gay marriage will depend at least somewhat on what he thinks the causes of homosexuality are. The stereotypical liberal point of view is that homosexuality, or more generally "sexual preference," is an intrinsic quality of a human being. The stereotypical conservative point of view is that homosexuality is a "choice." Clearly addressing the possible both of these understandings beg a further examination of what, exactly, we are talking about when we say "homosexuality."

As far as I can see, homosexuality can be defined in two interrelated ways. It can be defined psychologically as a sexual attraction to members of the same sex, perhaps along with the added condition of a lack of sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex. It can also be defined in terms of action--a homosexual can be seen as someone who engages in sexual relations exclusively with members of his or her own gender. While the "action" definition is a good way to empirically decide if someone is a homosexual, I think that the questions relevant to addressing the cause of homosexuality are best framed in terms of the "psychological" definition.

In particular, we are asking, what is the cause of this psychological state? Science commonly accepts two possible answers to such a question: genetics or experience; so this is a "nature vs nurture" question. As with most questions of this type, the answer inevitably becomes: "it seems to be both." That is, there is evidence that both environmental and intrinsic factors play a role in determining someone's sexual orientation. Studies of identical twins seperated at birth show a higher correlation between sexual orientation than a random selection (I don't have a source on this, but I'm almost certain that this has been established). The example of people in jail turning to homosexuality provides a very concrete, though admitted problematic, demonstration of how homosexuality is probably not entirely intrinsic.

Now, why does any of this matter? Well, it is, I believe, true that people have a tendency to believe that the less control people over a certain characteristic of themselves (and an associated behavior), the less justified we are in establishing any sort of moral or ethical code against that behavior. I personally find this reasoning heavily problematic, and I am not convinced that it is a valid, or even coherent, principle, but I find that most liberals and conservatives alike seem to work under this principle almost unconsciously.

The problem in the gay marriage debate is that this unconscious principle obscures what are really two seperate arguments either for or against gay marriage. The conservative tends to see homosexuality as both immoral and voluntary (when I say "voluntary", what I really mean is "not intrinsic"--to discuss whether or not this is seperate from "derived from experience" brings about all sorts of philosophical issues regarding free will, so I will neglect to attempt to resolve this subtlty here) while the liberal tends to see it as morally acceptable and intrinsic. Thus for the liberal, homosexuality is simply another characteristic of a person--much like his race, gender, or hair color. To the conservative, it is more like a bad psychological disorder--an acquired tendency to do something immoral, perhaps comparable to something like cleptomania.

Many of the arguments I see from the liberal side targeted at the conservative side focus only on critcizing the second conservative premise--that homosexuality is voluntary. The negation of this premise creates a heavily problematic situation for the conservative: he is forced with something that may be completely intrinsic and yet immoral. In particular, if he subscribes to the principle mentioned above regarding the relationship between moral judgments and nature vs nurture debates, it makes him look like a hypocrite. Likewise, if the liberal is forced to accept the premise that homosexuality is voluntary, he can no longer say that any law that targets homosexual behavior constitutes "discrimination" (though he can still argue against the value of the law itself, in reference to whether or not homosexuality is actually immoral).

This issue is thus very complicated because moral and epistemological stances become intertwined. When these subtlties are not consciously recognized, debates tend to go in circles, each side believing that the other is completely out of touch with reality.

[Kamika]

1. Hi synthesis

Do you think you can write all your statements/points in one paragraph?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayell]

2. Voluntary or genetic

We don't approve of discrimination based on religion, surely a voluntary choice. There are in fact federal laws against such discrimination against a voluntary "behavior". Why then would you think that if homosexuality turned out to be voluntary* that liberals "can no longer say that any law that targets homosexual behavior constitutes "discrimination" "?

*I have no idea what will turn out to be the case, or if a mix of factors. It really doesn't matter legally if you realize that anti-discrimination laws already cover voluntary choices.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. The "cause" of homosexuality is NOT behind anyone's attacks or hatred

These people just hate and look for an excuse afterwards. And, of course, it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. If I choose to wear dresses every day (I'm a guy), it's my choice, but you may not refuse government benefits because of it. You may not tax me more or throw me out of my housing and you may not deny me a marriage license.

The choice/biology "cause" argument is therefore a red herring. It doesn't matter and it's not the cause of anyone's irrational hatred anyway.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[ludwigb]

4. Interesting point....

I am something of an exception--I happen to be a liberal who feels that homosexuality is more 'voluntary' than 'intrinsic'. I don't believe people are "born gay" while I acknowledge that genetics almost certainly plays a role in determining who is more likely to be/become gay. What's next--are people going to claim they were born criminals or addicts or what have you? Of course people do--but for obvious reasons this shouldn't be a basis for legislation.

Besides, what is wrong with choosing to be gay? Suggesting that you were stuck with being gay at birth reeks of accepting the other side's premise that you'd be better off straight.

That said, I think any law specifically targeting gay behavior is still discrimination. Whether it is 'intrinsic' or 'voluntary', identity is still identity, and since (as you seem to acknowledge) homosexuality is not immoral or infringing on anyone's rights or well-being, it would be discrimatory to legislate against it. Now discrimination, as I define it, is not always bad, but it certainly runs counter to the liberal principles of the Constitution.

So for me the epistemological debate is irrelevant. The debate comes down to whether the corrosive effects of gay marriage on society are bad enough to merit legislation banning it. For me the question is largely one of solidarity--it's hard for me to imagine that I could politically turn my backs and seek to ban the private sexual behavior of my fellow citizens. Still, I have some anti-gay friends and I try to keep an open mind. And to this point I have yet to read a convincing case that gay marriage will have corrosive effects on society.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neomonkey]

7. Religionist hysteria

I am particularly amused by people who say that homosexuality is unnatural, it is a defiance of our urge and (necessity) to procreate - in a word, it will lead to the death of the human race! (or maybe even the downfall of western civilization).

Yet, by all accounts, the most generous estimates say that the percentage of people who are homosexual might be what, 6, 7, 10%? And hasn't this number remained static over time, over the ages? What is there to fear? What on earth scares the homophobes? If every homosexual is allowed to fulfill his/her life to their fullest, we will continue to prosper and breed forth. The world is not coming to standstill. Heteros will always reign, will always continue spewing forth progeny.

Perhaps some of us should worry about the real threats to this planet, like George W. Bush and Bruce Willis.

[TahitiNut]

8. Framing the debate

It is, in the final analysis, irrelevant whether sexual orientation (not "preference") is a free choice or a congenital (pun acknowledged) predisposition ... just as it's irrelevant whether one inherits one's religious beliefs or chooses them freely. To engage in such specious discussion is to permit the debate to be framed in a manner that excludes the question of whether it's in the public's vital interest to be so pruriently concerned about whom someone loves ... in a society where our problems are founded on ignorance and hate.

Even so, I believe it's noteworthy that so very few people claiming it's a choice are able to describe their own personal experience making such a "choice." (I personally recall making no such choice. It seemed pretty obvious to me.)

The nature of a personal and private relationship between consenting, informed adults is of no legitimate or compelling interest to the state. None. Indeed, in even proposing a "marriage amendment" to the Constitution, the opponents of (so-called) "gay marriage" are tacitly acknowledging that there currently exists an natural human right to "marry," independent of whether the state presumes to ignore or acknowledge such de facto relationships. Why? Because the Constitution addresses one thing and one thing only: the legitimate exercise of powers of the Federal Government. There is absolutely no power or 'right' that can be embodied in the Constitution without it first being the power and right of the People themselves from whom the Constitution gains its sole legitimacy.

The Constitution defines the inviolable limits of the legitimate exercise of Federal power over our, the People's, human rights and civil liberties. Any power not granted is reserved to the People or to the States. (States are in a similar condition of illegitimacy where their Constitutions do not explicitly afford them such powers.) Therefore, the question is now admittedly one of historically illegitimate infringement. If, after all, such infringements have taken place without such an amendment, then by proposing one the opponents are acknowledging that infringements heretofore have been undertaken without the authority of the People as embodied in a Constitution. DOMA is, therefore, unconstitutional ... by the admission of the Busholini regime in now proposing such an amendment.

This immediately, then, makes it clear that Congress (and the states) in denying the legal perquisites of de facto marital relationships to some citizens (in the free exercise of their civil liberties and human rights) without either due process or explicit Constitutional authority to do so, have egregiously violated the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution -- far, far more egregiously and extensively than even the co-called Florida recount.

Remember, in proposing the amendment itself, the proponents of such an amendment are tacitly admitting this.

[kayell]

10. Excellent points

[mgarretson]

11. I don't care what the cause is...

I don't care why people are gay... What matters to me is restricting civil rights to a defined group of people... Homosexuality causes no harm to society on the scale that it's practiced and the GLBT community should be free to marry as should any other human being.

But I appreciate the time you put into the definition... I think it explains a lot about the conservative position, at least.

Best,

[nostamj]

12. i will steer clear of the "choice" issue

because I'm likely to go into an extended rant...

but I will add this:

my sexual identity is about who I love, who I fall in love with, more than who I have sex with.

anyone 'can' have "sex" with anyone. but love, love passionately, no.

[HawkerHurricane]

13. Does it matter?

Nature or nurture, Homosexuals neither 'break my leg nor pick my pocket'. And homosexuals marrying don't harm me either. It's a red herring issue, so Bush can solidify his base. He's got to run on something, and every other issue he's either wrong about or incompetent.

[OneBlueSky]

14. interesting points, I suppose, but the real reason . . .

some heterosexuals are so vehemently anti-gay is that they're terrified of the homosexual parts of their own psches . . . human sexuality is very complex, and no one -- and I do mean NO ONE -- is or ever has been completely, totally, unalterably 100% heterosexual or homosexual . . . everyone falls somewhere on the continuun between those two extremes and, while some may be very close to one extreme or the other, we all have elements of both within us . . . people who have been raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong (especially when it's based on religion) become terrified when they see that little part of themselves that is homosexual peek out . . . and then they overcompensate by becoming virulantly anti-gay . . . when people hate some quality in other people, it's usually a quality that they see in themselves and don't wish to acknowledge, and this tendency is particularly evident when it comes to homosexuality . . . homophobia is real, and it's as much a fear of the latent homosexuality in oneself as it is the fear of homosexuality in others . . .

[Moderator]

15. Locking