Saturday, March 06, 2004
pro-homosexual discourse and civil rights -major differences
posted by David Blankenhorn:
Here's another article arguing that preventing SSM is the same as preventing interracial marriage. Actually, it's not the same. The central aim of marriage as a human social institution is to bring together men and women into sexual union. (I know that the demand now is to change that definition, but until we do, that's what it is.) Banning interracial marriage introduces an extraneous and invidious consideration -- race -- in order to prevent men and women from joining together. That is, bans on interracial marriage are an affront to the deep strucuture, meaning, and aim of the institution.
Prohibiting SSM is also consistent with, and arguably necessary to, this very same objective: understanding marriage as an institution that brings togther men and women for sexual union, procreation, and mutual aid. In other words, if I see marriage as an institution that, at its very core, is about bridging the sex divide in the interests of children, it is perfectly consistent to support interracial marriage and oppose SSM.
I realize that this proposition is debatable. One can argue either that marriage is not what I say it is (that would be a hard case to make, I think) or that it shouldn't be. And I also realize that the validity of this analogy should not determine, one way or the other, one's ultimate position on this controversy. But before we read for the zillionth time that opposing SSM is the same as opposing racial integration, I want to register this small dissent.
--------------------
I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.
One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").
I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.
Here's another article arguing that preventing SSM is the same as preventing interracial marriage. Actually, it's not the same. The central aim of marriage as a human social institution is to bring together men and women into sexual union. (I know that the demand now is to change that definition, but until we do, that's what it is.) Banning interracial marriage introduces an extraneous and invidious consideration -- race -- in order to prevent men and women from joining together. That is, bans on interracial marriage are an affront to the deep strucuture, meaning, and aim of the institution.
Prohibiting SSM is also consistent with, and arguably necessary to, this very same objective: understanding marriage as an institution that brings togther men and women for sexual union, procreation, and mutual aid. In other words, if I see marriage as an institution that, at its very core, is about bridging the sex divide in the interests of children, it is perfectly consistent to support interracial marriage and oppose SSM.
I realize that this proposition is debatable. One can argue either that marriage is not what I say it is (that would be a hard case to make, I think) or that it shouldn't be. And I also realize that the validity of this analogy should not determine, one way or the other, one's ultimate position on this controversy. But before we read for the zillionth time that opposing SSM is the same as opposing racial integration, I want to register this small dissent.
--------------------
I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.
One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").
I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.
