God, Homosexuality, and the Dean perspective
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:56 am
Got an interesting article in my mail today. It is just one man's opinion, but I think it is probably shared by many. (for the record..I am one of them)
Enjoy:
Did God create gay people? (By Ralph Bristow -Libertarian Radio Talk show host)
Howard Dean is trying to win election with the old public relations axiom, "I don't care what they say about me as long they spell my name right." His latest political soundbite of the day is, "If God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
Not only does the quote assure that political pundits will talk about Howard Dean today instead of Richard Gephardt, John (expletive deleted) Kerry, or any of the other eight Democrats running for President, but it reignites a debate that a solid Democratic constituency loves to revisit as often as possible:
· Resolved, homosexuality is a condition, not a choice, and therefore, discrimination against homosexuals is unreasonable.
To the best of my knowledge, that argument had not been settled since we last entertained it, and I'm not sure it ever will be. It's a lot like the argument between creation and evolution. There is evidence, but no undeniable proof on both sides. People who are inclined to believe one side or the other are not swayed by the others' arguments, in part because it's not conclusive and in part because they simply prefer to believe what they believe. The fact that there is no undeniable proof of either thesis allows people to believe what they choose to believe without completely abandoning intellectual honesty.
My personal belief is that homosexuality is a combination of genetics and choice. I believe some people are genetically predisposed (in widely varying degrees) to the deviant from the norm. Some, maybe even most, could choose to overcome the deviation and lead a normal life with little or no discomfort, but they enjoy being deviants, and they enjoy even more being offensive to those with fundamental religious views. I believe others have such a pronounced natural deviation that they simply can't conform, and any attempt to do so is psychologically painful. I suspect that very few "gay activists" belong to the latter group.
The norm, for the purpose of procreation, is of course heterosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes that's a function of God or nature, it is nevertheless the norm.
Being right-handed, for reasons I can't explain, is the norm. Taller men and shorter women is the norm. Those are naturally produced norms for which there are naturally produced exceptions, or deviations.
People who don't kill or steal from other people are the norm. There are exceptions to those norms also, but those exceptions are products of immoral choices, not a natural phenomenon that is uncontrollable by self-discipline.
Part of the process of deciding whether it is reasonable to for society to recognize gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages is the determination of whether homosexuality is a natural or chosen deviation.
That is not the only part of the process. Another part is the determination of whether gay marriages offer the same benefits as heterosexual marriages.
If there were a consensus (which there is not) that homosexuality is a natural deviation, then many would offer gay marriage equal status out of an innate sense of fairness, that one should not discriminate against individuals based on a condition that is beyond the control of the individual. That's why this debate is so important to gay activists.
I have never confined myself to that singular issue. I believe a more important issue, when it comes to the official recognition of marriage by society, is whether that marriage offers provable benefits to society.
There are mounds of research which support the thesis that the marriage of a man and woman have tangible benefits to society in terms of reduced crime, lower usage of expensive entitlements, and so forth. There is no similar body of evidence that gay marriages offer the same societal benefits.
There are of course exceptions to that rule too. Many heterosexual marriages offer no such benefits. And, perhaps it makes sense to more finely tune public policy to withhold official recognition of heterosexual marriages that offer no tangible benefits.
In the meantime, does it make sense for the government to recognize, and thus reward gay marriages as it does traditional marriage? A fair-minded person - me for instance - can easily answer, "no."
Enjoy:
Did God create gay people? (By Ralph Bristow -Libertarian Radio Talk show host)
Howard Dean is trying to win election with the old public relations axiom, "I don't care what they say about me as long they spell my name right." His latest political soundbite of the day is, "If God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
Not only does the quote assure that political pundits will talk about Howard Dean today instead of Richard Gephardt, John (expletive deleted) Kerry, or any of the other eight Democrats running for President, but it reignites a debate that a solid Democratic constituency loves to revisit as often as possible:
· Resolved, homosexuality is a condition, not a choice, and therefore, discrimination against homosexuals is unreasonable.
To the best of my knowledge, that argument had not been settled since we last entertained it, and I'm not sure it ever will be. It's a lot like the argument between creation and evolution. There is evidence, but no undeniable proof on both sides. People who are inclined to believe one side or the other are not swayed by the others' arguments, in part because it's not conclusive and in part because they simply prefer to believe what they believe. The fact that there is no undeniable proof of either thesis allows people to believe what they choose to believe without completely abandoning intellectual honesty.
My personal belief is that homosexuality is a combination of genetics and choice. I believe some people are genetically predisposed (in widely varying degrees) to the deviant from the norm. Some, maybe even most, could choose to overcome the deviation and lead a normal life with little or no discomfort, but they enjoy being deviants, and they enjoy even more being offensive to those with fundamental religious views. I believe others have such a pronounced natural deviation that they simply can't conform, and any attempt to do so is psychologically painful. I suspect that very few "gay activists" belong to the latter group.
The norm, for the purpose of procreation, is of course heterosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes that's a function of God or nature, it is nevertheless the norm.
Being right-handed, for reasons I can't explain, is the norm. Taller men and shorter women is the norm. Those are naturally produced norms for which there are naturally produced exceptions, or deviations.
People who don't kill or steal from other people are the norm. There are exceptions to those norms also, but those exceptions are products of immoral choices, not a natural phenomenon that is uncontrollable by self-discipline.
Part of the process of deciding whether it is reasonable to for society to recognize gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages is the determination of whether homosexuality is a natural or chosen deviation.
That is not the only part of the process. Another part is the determination of whether gay marriages offer the same benefits as heterosexual marriages.
If there were a consensus (which there is not) that homosexuality is a natural deviation, then many would offer gay marriage equal status out of an innate sense of fairness, that one should not discriminate against individuals based on a condition that is beyond the control of the individual. That's why this debate is so important to gay activists.
I have never confined myself to that singular issue. I believe a more important issue, when it comes to the official recognition of marriage by society, is whether that marriage offers provable benefits to society.
There are mounds of research which support the thesis that the marriage of a man and woman have tangible benefits to society in terms of reduced crime, lower usage of expensive entitlements, and so forth. There is no similar body of evidence that gay marriages offer the same societal benefits.
There are of course exceptions to that rule too. Many heterosexual marriages offer no such benefits. And, perhaps it makes sense to more finely tune public policy to withhold official recognition of heterosexual marriages that offer no tangible benefits.
In the meantime, does it make sense for the government to recognize, and thus reward gay marriages as it does traditional marriage? A fair-minded person - me for instance - can easily answer, "no."
