I also saw "Brokeback Mountain." I liked it. That doesn't change my opinion about Larry H. Miller's right to censor it from his theater. It also didn't change my views on homosexuality.
That being said, since I last wrote about homosexuality, I've asked a number of smart people their feelings on the matter...and have received some good counter-points.
The first criticism was aimed against my line of reasoning in my previous blog. Apparently I simplified the issue from a societal one down to a personal one: basing a lot of my argument on the single point "Who am I to stand in the way of two consenting adults?" But that's wrong. The issue doesn't just impact those adults: it impacts children and it impacts the entire institution of marriage. Whether you agree with the second half of that statement or not doesn't matter: we all must agree that you have to be careful not to oversimplify the problem. Which I was guilty of.
Next, I've done some research and found statistics suggesting that homosexual relationships do not last nearly as long as heterosexual ones. Furthermore, male homosexuals have a good deal more partners than their heterosexual counterparts.
It appears sometimes that this is all a conspiracy by activist groups to restructure the definition of marriage -- not to merely be allowed to marry -- but to change the very nature of what "marriage" and "family" mean in language, law, and society.
So I'm now confused. I've got to look more into it. But not tonight.
8 comments:
you're delving into a complex matrix of rabbit holes here, jared. i'll be very impressed if you can grope your way in and around all of them.
1. "institution of marriage:" keep in mind that the definition of this "insitution varies dramatically across cultures and throughout time. some take many wives. some take many husbands. some have their mates chosen for them. some revere hermaphrodites as shamans. some earn a husband by luring a neighboring villager into their underground huts and praying their mothers will sit on the doorway for three days, thus invoking a union. in the past, matriarchal societies have used men as nothing more than sperm donors, klled them, and watered the fields with their blood for a good harvest.
2. nobody must agree with anyting. somebody must disagree with everything?
3. wrong?
4. statistics regarding homosexual relationships? what are these statistics based on? what are they imposed on? years of repression in the united states, making it, by sheer circumstance, difficult to maintain relationships which, by the way, are in the process of revolutionizing the status quo that has held them back so long?
5. conspiracy to "restructure the definition of marriage?" definitions of sexual/familial unions have, are, and always will be redefined in every age and culture. its inevitable. definitions, connotations, denotations....these are all fluid concepts....not static "givens." its the way the world works, not a conspiracy profulgated by activist groups. even if activist groups are seeking to widen the definition of marriage, conspiracy is a loaded word.
this post is ambiguous. it seems that you're trying to approach the subject with veiled morality. if you're approaching the subject ontologically/culturally, then strip off the judgemnt and pare it down to cultural relivatism. if you're approaching it from a religious/moral standpoint, then out with it. let us know where you are coming from. your writing seems full of the implied judgements that you condemned jon kraukauer for.
so many variables. let's just live.
I agree with your criticism of my "veiled" approach and my hypocrasy (vs. John Krakauer). You're completely right.
As to the rest, I was expecting to hear that from you and had even wondered at some of the same things: such as the validity of statistics, etc. I have something to say about that...I'll get back to you.
quick aside, but perhaps more later:
of course we can't take judgement out of it. subjective judgement is inevitable. however, i do believe we can be clear about what standpoint we're coming from...judgement based on cultural relativity, and judgment based on morality.... yes, we'll all have a degree of both, bet lets just come clean about our points of origins when we make our points.
isn't it the insurance companies that do most of the lobbying against the homosexual corruption of the 'institution of marriage?'
Let me make my 'point of origin' clear. I was born and raised in a conservative household with traditional moral values but was also taught to see two sides to every issue. In church, I was taught that homosexuality was a sin and that gender is intrinsic to spiritual identity. In school, I was taught that homosexuals created gay activist clubs and caused problems. No one was openly homosexual at my school (though a few of my friends came out of the closet at college).
In college I read about a homosexual who committed suicide because he couldn't stand to live in a society where people couldn't truly accept him. I felt really bad for the guy.
I've been close friends with gay people. I've been close friends with people who I thought were probably gay. I've never had a frank conversation with any of them about my political or moral views.
From a logical standpoint I feel that homosexuality is sexual deviance. From a political standpoint, I still don't know how I feel about allowing homosexual marriage. I haven't decided.
I do feel that consenting adults should be able to choose their loved one. I have no qualms with that. But I oversimplified the issue when I based my political view on those two people...because marriage doesn't affect just those two people. It affects children and it affects society.
I know that society is screwed up. I realize that a huge number of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and are no good. But we don't set laws on the lowest common denominator. We set laws based on societal/majority standards. The current laws do not limit a person's right to be with the person he/she wants. If they outlawed homosexuality I would disagree with them. But laws do define what marriage is.
For instance, in parts of the west live polygamist families. They want to be married to multiple wives. The law tells them that they cannot: that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not think that - whatever their moral/religious views are - they have that right.
So marriage is much bigger than a single couple's love. Marriage is a symbol of society and societal standards.
That being said, I was wrong to use statistics when I haven't seen the other side's statistics. I also didn't investigate what standards were used to carry out the statistics given. That doesn't mean they're wrong though.
What's worse is this: EVEN IF these statistics (that I gave) are correct, I now realize that they don't really prove my point at all. EVEN IF homosexual relations are of a shorter duration and EVEN IF gay males are more promiscuous...it doesn't really support either side of the yes/no gay marriage debate, does it? We don't stop people from getting married based on their prospective longevity or faithfulness.
So for THOSE stats given, I apologize. I would strike them from the record, but that's kind of cowardly of me. I can admit I was wrong for giving those statistics. There are other statistics I've seen that show the impact of homosexual marriage on family values in Sweden. If someone could show me good statistics on that: I'd probably not support gay marriage. The stats I saw, however, were kind of tenuous and I didn't know if I bought the guy's argument...so I didn't include them in my blog.
So as you can see: I'm a fence-sitter, but I'm still looking for an answer.
I do think that my first two attempted blogs relied on faulty statistics or faulty logic. So I'm probably going to have to write a "Homosexuality, part III" post.
I'm sure you're all in suspense.
And its a good thing you posted what you REALLY meant in a comment instead of posting a real blog entry.... because EVERYONE reads ALL of the comments. =D Me being "Everyone".
Jared, you are awesome.
And coming from the same background as you, and also having been accused of being gay from time to time *especially that time at the gay bar* I feel what you are saying.
But I must respectfully disagree. Somehow I ended up on the other side of this argument.
I can't believe you saw the "Gay Cowboy Movie"! I for one won't see it, I just don't think it is worth my time. I think the movie was pushed so hard by Hollywood to make the public think it is a good idea to have a homosexual relationship. I am not a "homophobe", I just don't see why many people think it is so attractive and now, thanks to the Brokeback movie, in style.
It's so true that gay marriage push is just a fight to change societal norms. Animals that act by instinct never go gay, same with insects. Stds and HIV am more common among gay men. Mental illness is also more prevalent with them.
Post a Comment