The last thing I'd have expected from the people defending Prop. 8 was for them to be post-gay; but they seem to have at least one attorney who's there.
On Friday, Howard Nielson cross examined Prof. Gregory Herek extensively about the scientific literature that shows "erotic plasticity" and the idea that "the very concept of sexual orientation may be misguided." To my mind, this was the most rigorous cross-examination the defense has offered, and the most intellectually honest.
There is scientific evidence, some of it offered by our own witnesses, showing that some people's sexual orientation is, indeed, fluid. It's not like this should come as any surprise, since the "B" in "LGBT" is now quite taken for granted.
But Nielson was going further with this. He was trying to blast open the entire notion that homosexuality even exists as a category. That, of course, is what the post-gays have argued -- that we should move past this insistence on categorizing ourselves based on sexual orientation. Some ex-gays, too, have found it more convenient to latch onto this term.
Nielson's insistent drumbeat of questions to Prof. Herek suggested very strongly that this will be offered, somehow, to support Prop. 8's rationality. My guess is that the argument would go something like this: The post-gays are right. It's a waste of our time to try and divide ourselves up based on a factor that (the literature shows) is so indeterminate. The marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals because even homosexuals can't figure out for certain who counts as one of them. How can you discriminate against a group you can't define?
Well, it's hard to define race, too, in a pluralistic society that doesn't mandate racial uniformity through marriage laws, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as racism.
But even at its strongest, I'm not sure this argument takes Nielson where he wants to go. If homosexuality doesn't exist as a category, then neither does heterosexuality. As Prof. Herek repeatedly noted in his testimony, though, Nielson was focusing a bit obsessively on the margins. Most people do, in fact, know and identify themselves with one of the two primary sexual orientations.
And that's for a very good, and solidly practical reason. It's easy enough to decline to state a sexual orientation when you're single - though there's certainly no shortage of people willing to declare a major. But when it comes time to commit, and specifically to marry, you can only pick one of the two available options. That returns us back to the original question: should the government be steering people into one of those options and away from the other through the force of law? If so, why? It's not enough simply to say the government is not discriminating against a group of people because we don't know if some of those people really are "those people." The government is, in fact, discriminating against every individual who is willing to declare him or herself, not only a member of that group, but a publicly identifiable member. It's hard to be a closeted homosexual after you've obtained the marriage license with someone whose gender looks suspiciously like your own.
Just because the law isn't discriminating against every conceivable member of a group doesn't mean it isn't discriminating against the group, and (particularly when it comes to marriage) the individuals in the group. Marriage, unique among most civil rights issues, involves two people who must individually agree that this is the course for both of them. If the government chooses to recognize such relationships, can it prefer the relationships that heterosexuals wish to enter to the relationships homosexuals wish to enter?
Nielson's argument seems to be trying to recreate the closet in plain sight. As in days gone by, there are no gay people in it, and no straight people either - just people who get married to members of the opposite sex or don't get married at all. That's not a justification for the status quo, it's just a reiteration of it.
15 Comments for “The Right Goes Post-Gay”
posted by TS on
the dedichotomization of sexuality is the *world’s weakest argument* against gay marriage. marriage, as it is, assumes the existence of the ultimate grand dichotomy between male who loves female forever and female who loves male forever. if open minded investigation shows, as it usually does, that reality is more varied and this dichotomy, while it describes a prominent pattern, is neither exclusive nor particularly overwhelming, than the policy arrangements should be more flexible, not less. thus, as i have been saying, that marriage should only be retained as a traditional concept, bestowed with meaning only by the intentions of its celebrants (thus gays could get married in an episcopal church or secular house of marriage, while they wouldn’t be welcome in a more conservative church), while the government should offer a mall of flexible civil union options.
posted by Eric on
Mr. Link, you wrote: âshould the government be steering people into one of those options and away from the other through the force of law? If so, why?â I would like to suggest an answer.
Letâs concede, for the moment, to this concept of fluid eroticism. If the state is going to effectively subsidize a married relationship, through legal immunities, tax benefits and other privileges, isnât it reasonable for the state to expect a sort of return on its investment? Since the procreative *potential* of an opposite-sex couple is greater than that of a same-sex couple, even if voluntary adoption is taken into account, wouldnât it make more sense to give preference to the opposite-sex couple? Unless you are going to argue that same-sex couples will adopt at the same rate opposite-sex couples both procreate *and* adopt, then it seems clear from the stateâs point of view that its investment in same-sex couples as a group will always under-perform as compared to opposite-sex couples.
It seems to me that this argument offers a plausible rationale for encouraging people to one option over the other. It may be that this argument makes little sense in a state like California, where many of these privileges are available through domestic partnerships, but it is important to remember that the case here is federal and, if successful, would override the policies of those states that have not made such privileges available to same-sex couples. I would think that this answer might need to be addressed in some fashion.
posted by Bobby on
“Since the procreative *potential* of an opposite-sex couple is greater than that of a same-sex couple, even if voluntary adoption is taken into account, wouldnât it make more sense to give preference to the opposite-sex couple?”
—Eric, you’re kidding, right? You mean to tell me that breeders need any incentive to procreate? These people breed like rabbits, even when they know about condoms they still get pregnant!
You think a nation of 300 million really needs more people? Now, as a libertarian, I don’t believe the government should be encouraging private choices in any way. You want to have 10 kids, fine, go ahead, but don’t expect to get 10 tax deductions.
The government has no business getting involved in people’s life. After all, I don’t see Uncle Sam helping me meet a boyfriend, do I? Nor do I think Uncle Sam is gonna help me pay for a premium membership at gay.com instead of the free membership that just isn’t as good.
In Georgia, there was a woman who had gotten pregnant a bunch of times, and this is the kind of slut that likes doing drugs while pregnant. The state was going to send her to prison but they made a deal with her, no prison if you let us get your tube tied. Isn’t that smart? Georgia not only respect individual choice but save society from a disgusting baby machine.
So Eric, I disagree with you. If anything, gays are good for the environment, thank God we rarely breed. Adoption is a different matter because you’re picking up the mistakes other people made.
Either way, let’s stop romanticizing breeders, there’s nothing romantic about poor people having children they neither want nor can afford.
posted by Eric on
Bobby,
In the first place, itâs hard for me to take seriously the idea that the population growth of the United States needs to be reduced when the CIA currently estimates our Total Fertility Rate to be 2.05. (1) Thatâs barely above replacement level and may, in fact, be under it, accounting for infant mortality. Whatever the real growth of the American population is, itâs clear this perception that the âbreedersâ are âbreeding like rabbitsâ and that this will result in an overpopulation that will threaten the environment seems to have no basis in reality.
Further, any sovereign nation that wishes to remain so has a vested interest in a stable or growing population. As we are seeing now with the aging Baby Boom generation, having a population of elderly that exceeds the young and able-bodied places an unnecessary financial burden on the younger generation and negatively impacts the nationâs economy, even without Social Security. There is a further question of military preparedness to respond to a foreign threat if the pool of potential soldiers begins to shrink. For these and other reasons, itâs clear, at least to me, that both the State and the society it governs has a vested interest in âbreedersâ getting pregnant.
Lastly, I hasten to add that there is nothing particularly âromanticâ about this. These are merely pragmatic rationales that the government might offer as justification for preferring opposite-sex pairings to same-sex pairings. Where is the equivalent good that same-sex couples would provide in exchange for what amounts to government subsidy?
(1) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
posted by BobN on
Uh, Eric, who is subsidizing whom? I have not reproduced. I’m not going to reproduce. My contributions, tax- and otherwise, go to support the children of couples who do reproduce.
And I don’t have a problem with that.
Now explain to us how society is better off if my partner and I don’t take care of each other into old age.
posted by Debrah on
Eric provides a most excellent argument.
One that is quite logical, if, indeed, perpetuation of the planet is the goal.
And more specifically, how can the U. S. continue to defend itself if everyone were to stop procreating? The trick is to discourage those who are not equipped to be good parents from being the ones who pop out kids incessantly.
Eric explains why opposite-sex marriage is, and should be, preferred by governments for totally pragmatic reasons. Or in my view, why only opposite-sex marriage should carry the appellation of “marriage” to begin with.
This makes same-sex “marriage” mere vanity.
The link above: World Factbook on fertility rate.
Info-specific for the United States.
posted by esurience on
With the advent of sperm banks, the procreative potential of a lesbian couple is higher than that of a heterosexual couple. So, going by what Eric and Debrah think the role of the government should be, the government should encourage lesbian relationships, and encourage lesbians to use sperm banks in order to procreate.
We can outlaw heterosexual marriage, and gay male marriage, and then super-subsidize lesbian marriage — so that the lesbians raising all those babies that they are popping out of their two wombs will have the financial resources to take care of their kids (without having to work).
There was that study in England showing that lesbian couples were actually better at child-raising than heterosexual couples… so it seems this would work great.
We can do all those things, if procreation is really the ultimate goal — and we care not one bit about the personal happiness and liberty of individuals. Hell, why not _forced_ lesbian marriages, and _forced_ artificial insemination?
posted by french62 on
Eric and Debra,
You both need to take refresher courses on Theory and Logic. The two of you espouse the most assinine arguments for the prohibition against equal marriage rights. To follow your logic to it’s necessary end, we have no alternative then to argue against esurience’s facetious and absurd conclusion: “We can do all those things, if procreation is really the ultimate goal — and we care not one bit about the personal happiness and liberty of individuals. Hell, why not _forced_ lesbian marriages, and _forced_ artificial insemination?”
Essentially, Debra’s and Eric’s case for continued discrimination is neither conservative nor liberal: It is simply Fascist. The State is the entity with all-knowing power and all-assuming rights. Individual rights, liberties, and responsibilities be damned. Let the STATE control everything.
Eric and Debra, STOP supporting STATIST FASCISM in the name of the children. It does your arguments no good. Good day:-)
posted by Lori Heine on
I can almost hear the Soviet anthem playing in the background while the social benefits of letting married heteros loot single people — gay and straight — are touted.
This is socialism, plain and simple. It is an attempt by certain exalted, enlightened, self-proclaimed superiors to arrogate for themselves the right to take the hard-earned money of some to give to others for the purpose of social engineering. In this case, it’s a highly dubious one, as these frauds now inform us we must subsidize something that functioned perfectly well without artificial subsidy for thousands of years.
Amazing. Now those who posture as conservatives have gone so hopelessly socialist they are actually incapable of rational thought.
There is NO evidence — none whatsoever — that allowing married heterosexuals to steal from singles has resulted in a lower divorce rate, in emotionally healthier children or in any benefit to said heterosexuals whatsoever. None. There’s no “there” there.
I don’t know what’s more pathetic. That the people who advocate this thievery may be too stupid to know they’re advocating socialism, or that they’re too cowardly to admit it.
posted by Bobby on
“In the first place, itâs hard for me to take seriously the idea that the population growth of the United States needs to be reduced when the CIA currently estimates our Total Fertility Rate to be 2.05.”
—Does the CIA count immigration? Hispanics tend to have more than 2.05 children. Not to mention other legal and illegal aliens. I got friends in Omaha, Nebraska, they told me how they’ve seen the hispanic population grow there.
I also live in Miami which gets the triple whammy of immigrants, yankees, and snowbirds. You have no idea what a nightmare it is to drive in this f-cking town.
“overpopulation that will threaten the environment seems to have no basis in reality.”
—I hate to agree with the tree huggers, but overpulation does threaten the environments. As suburbia sprawls and farms become real estate developments, not only are we encroaching into the natural wildlife but adding more pollution, more overcrowding, more traffic jamps, more hell. I have one word for you: California.
“Further, any sovereign nation that wishes to remain so has a vested interest in a stable or growing population.”
—You ever been to India? Ever seen documentaries about India? Everyone talks about their progress yet nobody seems to mention of the children that follow you around begging for money or of the people that die in the streets and nobody notices.
“As we are seeing now with the aging Baby Boom generation, having a population of elderly that exceeds the young and able-bodied places an unnecessary financial burden on the younger generation and negatively impacts the nationâs economy, even without Social Security.”
—What are you talking about? Baby boomers are an economy into themselves, ask anyone who sells cruises. These people have disposable income, they travel, they go into nursing homes, they buy cars, they have investments, and they generate jobs. Just because others don’t see their potential doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
“There is a further question of military preparedness to respond to a foreign threat if the pool of potential soldiers begins to shrink.”
—It’s not how many soldiers you have, it’s how prepared they are. The US Armed Forces are doing just fine without the draft, recruitment level varies, but as technology improves you’ll see more efficient wars with less soldiers fighting them. Besides, most soldiers come from the south, their the sons and daughters of born-again christians, farmers, and the type of people that tend to have lots of kids. So don’t worry, the military has lots of boys (and I hope girls in the future as well) to recruit.
“For these and other reasons, itâs clear, at least to me, that both the State and the society it governs has a vested interest in âbreedersâ getting pregnant.”
—It doesn’t because breeders already do what comes natural to them, they don’t need further encouragement. In fact, it saddens me that some women feel unfulfilled if they haven’t had a baby. It is this kind of mentality we need to fight against. There is nothing wrong with not breeding.
“Lastly, I hasten to add that there is nothing particularly âromanticâ about this. These are merely pragmatic rationales that the government might offer as justification for preferring opposite-sex pairings to same-sex pairings.’
—It is “romantic” because it’s idealistic, no different then the federal government telling you to abstain from sex until marriage. When the government stops being realistic and pursues dangerous idealism, all hell breaks lose.
“Where is the equivalent good that same-sex couples would provide in exchange for what amounts to government subsidy?”
—Let’s see, we raise property values because instead of spending our money in baby crap we spend it remodelling our homes, cutting the grass, etc. We have more money for tourism, movies, eating out, technology, fashion and lots of other important industries. In marketing we are known as DINKS, “Double Income No Kids.” Even when gays have dogs they are joining into a pet economy worth in the billions.
It amazes me what traditionalist views you have. Do you realize how America has changed? Have you looked at how late people are getting married? Did you know for example that so many men over 20 still play video games that the industry has mades a bunch of mature games for them?
Overpopulation is just like supply and demand. As you increase the supply of people looking for work you decrease the wages for such jobs. That’s already starting to happen with MBA’s, the more common they become the less value they have. While is true that a large population means a bigger number of customers, there are other negative effects. New York City has already experienced this, the previously cheap neighborhoods of Chelsea and SoHo have become to expensive for the young, so now gentrification is started to invade Brooklin and other places.
I’m not against it but what do you think happens when salaries stagnate and the cost of living keeps climbing? As you can see, overpopulation is destroying us from within.
posted by Chairm on
David Link is mistaken to believe that the social institution of marriage organizes society by sexual orientation.
There is no eligibility criterion for heterosexuality; no ineligiblity criterion for homosexuality.
There is a man-woman criterion. The marriage relationship is sex-integrative and it provides for responsible procreation. Indeed, it makes normative the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood — and that is the relatively noncoercive principle purpose of marriage. It happens to also be the principle societal significance of the social institution. It is the special reason for the special status of marriage in our laws and customs.
Responsible procreation is not any and all procreation. Obviously, the marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced. Its societal meaning: the man and the woman who create a child are, as a duo, responsible for her well-being and her education and the formation of her moral character. That is, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. The husband is presumed the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. The sexual basis of this presumption arises from the two-sexed basis of humankind, the opposite-sexed basis of human procreation; and the both-sexed basis of human community.
The sexual basis of the marital presumption of paternity makes of marriage a public and a sexual type of relationship.
But that sexual basis cannot apply the one-sexed arrangement — whether or not that arrangement is sexualized. This sexual basis is the same for consummation, annulment provisions, adultery-divorce, and so forth.
The societal significance of that sexual basis — which is opposite-sexed — does not apply to “sexual orientation” nor to same-sex sexual behavior.
So, to return to David’s thoughts that marriage organizes society based on sexual orientation, his fundamental error is in assuming that there is a sexual basis for SSM.
In the law, wherever SSM is enacted or imposed, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior nor for same-sex sexual attraction nor for self-identification as a member of the gay identity.
The SSM law would not mandate that all same-sex sexual behavior occur only where the people have a license to SSM. Such a license does not license homosexuality nor gayness nor same-sex sexual romance.
So, just showing up for a license to SSM does not a declaration of sexual orientation make.
Eligibility to SSM would not be justified on a sexual basis; and neither would the lines for ineligiblity.
Whatever SSM is, at its core, does not appear in the SSM laws — and the SSM supporters propose no such thing anyway.
Marriage is a sexual relationship type. SSM is not.
This is made more emphatic by the SSM arguments that not only the law but also the culture should consider the core of marriage — the integration of the sexes combined with responsible procreation — to be beyond the pale. That this core should be abolished both in the law and in the culture.
Okay, so this core does not fit SSM. And SSM does not have a core of its own. It does not have a sexual basis. It cannot regulate sexual orientation.
posted by ROBERT on
859-361-1775 CALL ME
posted by DragonScorpion on
I don’t know about this âpost-gayâ business. Sure, I can understand that some folks, maybe even quite a few are rather fluid in their romantic/sexual attraction. But I don’t think that really fits most people.
Maybe under the most ideal of conditions 90% of the population could have an attraction or even relationship with a member of the sex which they are usually never attracted to. But practically speaking, I think most of us fall in the category of exclusive or near-exclusive attraction to the opposite or same sex.
I don’t know really what these people are trying to get at with all this, frankly, it kind of sounds like post-modern psychobabble to me.
The argument that some of these ‘post-gay’ folks seems to be making is that if we just get rid of notions of gender and sexual orientation this will eliminate the gender and sexual discrimination taking place. They’re not wrong in this. But this would have been like arguing during the Black Civil Rights movement that if we just eliminate racial distinctions then all our issues with racism, segregation, etc. go away.
Of course, such a thing isn’t really possible. We can pretend all we want, and while race has become increasingly blurred (thanks to the end of anti-miscegenation laws), racial distinctions still exist and will for some time to come.
To me, we didn’t need to eliminate racial differences, we simply needed to remove racial discrimination from the law and try to phase it our of our society as well.
I would say the same for homosexual discrimination and the presumptions of heteronormative superiority.
Certainly gender and sexuality are more androgynous and ambiguous than they were previously, but I think for most of us there are rather clear distinctions. And I don’t think that’s a negative thing. I, for one, really have no qualms about being in the male, exclusively homosexual category.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Just as there was, prior to 1967, in states with anti-miscegenation laws no ineligibility criterion for people with a certain racial classification. There was only a criterion that the two partners were the same racial classification…
The Loving v. Virginia case rendered such criterion, which excluded marriage to couples of differing racial classifications, unconstitutional and moot. I do believe the argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that the criterion of man-woman should be removed just as the criterion for like-race was.
I notice that much of Chairm’s rationale here is based on a presumption that procreation is and must be an essential component of marriage, both from the perspective of society and the law.
Chairm’s fundamental flaw here is that procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage. There is no eligibility criterion based on procreation nor an ineligibility criterion for those who do not or cannot procreate.
At least Chairm is honest enough to admit that marriage is, at least in 45 states, a special right exclusive only to opposite-sex couples. Most same-sex marriage opponents won’t admit that. In fact, the old argument was that homosexuals were demanding ‘special rights’.
Neither is there a legal requirement for conventional marriage opposite-sex sexual behavior nor for opposite-sex sexual attraction nor for self-identification as a member of the heterosexual community…
A rather obvious and seemingly pointless statement. Conversely, conventional marriage law does not mandate that all opposite-sex sexual behavior occur only where the people have a license to marriage. Such a license does not license heterosexuality nor straightness nor opposite-sex sexual romance.
So, just showing up for a license to conventional marriage does not a declaration of sexual orientation make.
I recall reading about a heterosexual couple who married well into their 80’s. I’m not sure whether or not their relationship is sexual, though it might be safe to assume it isn’t. Of course, there is no legal demand that they must have a sexual relationship and there are certainly no sex police going around enforcing such an expectation.
Meanwhile, I think it is fair to assume that most same-sex couples who are or would be married if they could, are sexually active together. Again, there is no law requiring this and no sex police making sure. But then that’s consistent with conventional marriage…
As far as I’m concerned, both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage are inherently romantic/sexual relationships.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here to suggest that if I were married to my same-sex partner and I introduced him to someone as my spouse there would be an automatic presumption that we are sexually active together. We don’t have to be opposite genders or trot our children out there to suggest a sexual relationship to others.
Now if Chairm wants to insist that marriage MUST include procreation, then he/she must be prepared to apply that consistently. Or, if Chairm wants to argue that marriage MUST include sexual relations then that’s fine, if he/she can think of a practical way of enforcing this. Good luck getting people to tolerate such an invasion of privacy.
And yet again it must be pointed out that this would need to be applied consistently, or else we’re venturing off into the territory of selectively applying the law and certain conditions only to same-sex couples. And that is, afterall, the constitutional quandary we are already facing.
posted by IVF Clinic India on
Great Post…..
I found your site on stumbleupon and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Thanks for sharing….