Today on the Louisville public radio station, a regular local commentator really got going with a passionate, emotional diatribe against those who would "keep gays from the loving freedoms we all enjoy." She was speaking, of course, about homosexual marriage. She called responsible marriage advocates ugly, repressive, and implied that they do not know God. She framed her speech not in terms of people defending marriage, but as mean-spirited hypocrites denying gays basic freedoms. She asks repeatedly, "Where is the love in that?"
I have three quick responses.
1) It is not loving to enable people to hurt themselves. The radio personality asked me to prove to her that gays should not marry. I would ask her to prove that homosexual behavior is not a psychological condition in need of counseling. This issue is so contentious and emotional that the very question is disgusting to many people. And yet, it is one issue at the heart of the controversy. Homosexual behavior is not normal. That is to say that it is not normative as a standard for profitable behavior and well-being in life. Psychologists classify something as a "condition" if it interferes with normal living - the carrying out of normative (socially productive) life plans. Normative behavior for humans is to find a life partner of the opposite sex and procreate. Gays are unable to procreate within their proposed unions. Yet they choose to follow a lifestyle that is counterproductive to normative living. This is a disorder for which we can strive to develop mechanisms for positive lifestyle change. Especially as the drive to accept, support, and treat mental illness increases in America, we should understand that to enable and encourage people to make inappropriate life decisions is wrong and harmful to society. Where is the love in that?
2) Homosexual marriage hurts children. Study after study shows that children have greater potential, healthier bodies, and more successful lives when in Father-Mother-Present homes than children from any other family situation. Homosexual marriage advocates would have us intentionally place children in situations that are not optimal (or are even harmful) to their mental and physical development. Where is the love in that?
3) The sorry state of marriage among more normative people is not an argument in favor of homosexual marriage. Our commentator admitted that she lived with a man out of wedlock for six years and then trashed it all in a "lay divorce." She asks, "Why can't homosexuals have that opportunity?" The ridiculousness of this line of reasoning is that all parties agree that irresponsible heterosexual actions are "wrong." The argument with different words is...(a) people who identify themselves as heterosexuals do things that are bad and wrong, (b) therefore people who identify themselves as homosexual should also get to do something that is morally wrong and marry. Heterosexuals who "do bad" are still "bad." Just because people do a thing does not make it normative behavior. Justifying the decisions of gays by equating them with the worst of heterosexual behavior is destructive logic at best and trivializes homosexuals at worst. Where is the love in that?
The Bible has things to say about homosexuality. But one is not constrained by Scripture to make persuasive arguments against redefining a foundational institution of society to please a few people. Sometimes the needs of the majority trump the desires of the minority. Unrestrained sexual license is not the standard of "loving someone." Maybe I am having problems with my wife. Maybe I get off by looking at pictures of small children. What is the most "loving" thing society can do for me? Following the pro-gay arguments I should be allowed to go into my local elementary school and watch the lunchroom security cameras while I masturbate. Why not? Nobody gets hurt and my personal sexual needs are met. Yea! Yet, society recognizes that its greater good is best served by restraining my "natural" impulses and helping me to normalize relations with my wife. Ultimately, helping people realize how to make the best decisions for their lives and safeguarding a society in which those decisions will be productive is the most loving thing we can do.
Nice photo.
Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2004 08:24 AMi thought you were going to take a break from beating on the homosexuality horse?
Posted by: Bob at February 11, 2004 09:41 AMBob - I really did plan to. This post was not in my planned rotation, but was prompted by a specific event.
Even if the lady had made a reasonable attempt at an argument I could have let it go, but I hate to see raw emotionalism pass for reasonable argument.
Unfortunately, our local radio station has a pretty poor website, so I could not write to them or even find out the lady's name. She has a piece every two weeks, so I guess I'll try to remember to catch it then and update this post.
Posted by: Blandus at February 11, 2004 10:24 PM