As a California resident, these topics are a little more pressing on my mind. In November Californians will have the opportunity to vote for Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment (also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment or California Marriage Protection Act) that would override the Court's decision to permit gay marriage in California.
California like most states has a very divided population: a very liberal urban population and a very conservative rural population. It will be very interesting to see what the turnout for this vote will be. My question is, as a Latter-day Saint, what can I do to better interface with Christians and non-Christians on this topic? I believe there are many sitting on the fence on this issue. It is hard to fight against a wave that claims freedom is its banner, and discrimination and intolerance and bigot are the labels attached to those that oppose it. There is an immense amount of social pressure to live sexually as you wish, regardless if through pornography, homosexuality, fornication, and adultery. Furthermore, I know I have had a tendency to let people live the way they want to, as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I imagine many other people feel this way.
However, as I have grown older, I realize (imagine that!) that I do not live in a vacuum. The popular opinion has a huger sway than we recognize, and even moreso what our educational systems and authority figures teach. This beckons to Michel Foucault, who sought to understand how power relationships create conditions for the production of knowledge. The knowledge that is either opened or closed as a result of these relationships greatly influences our freedom. Indeed, it seems hard to choose to do that which we do not know of. While we may stumble upon experiences by mistake (perhaps I could whistle by blowing air through my mouth without intending to, and then study the experience enough to replicate the action for instance), overall what we can do we have experienced. Faith cometh by hearing. An adjustment in what we hear then changes what we will believe and do.
So what does that have to do with gay marriage? Simply, I wish to show how accepting gay marriage as an outlet for those who wish to become part of it will greatly change the educational structure of this nation. In essence, do I want my children to be taught there is a good chance they are homosexual and that they should participate in it? That gay marriage is a normal and acceptable institution to engage in? This occurred on some level while I was in High School. They took all the Junior High School students on a weekend getaway, and one evening they held a "fireside" on how it was alright to be gay and that many of us probably were. Students were taught that it can be hard, but we should have the strength to act on what we "know." Parents and students were not informed that this was going to occur. Hence, I don't believe it is far-fetched to think that if gay marriage is adopted, state-by-state and perhaps on a national level, that our educational systems will be greatly altered in how they approach the issues in the class rooms, the second generation of text books will promote gay marriage, and even children's books will be altered. You can look at Massachusetts as an example. I've seen recent copies of Goldilocks and the Three Bears get rid of Mama and Papa bear for non-gender terms like Big Bear and Bear.
I don't believe I want my children to be exposed to such cognitive dissonance as they are taught strongly by their educational and social figures that such a lifestyle is good, and their parental and religious figures teaching strongly it is bad. The popularity of opinion is bound to encourage more children to embrace that lifestyle. The teenage years are troubling and filled with emotional angst and existential crises; no reason to take advantage of it. This issue may go beyond the dissonance as well. Reverse discrimination may come in spades. In the recent interview with Elder Oaks, he mentioned "a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful." Now I'm not expecting that to occur in America, but it's a frightening possibility. Will we be able to preach against homosexuality as others preach for it? The most scary possibility (though highly unlikely) is that the marriage rights of the church could be revoked. Adoption agencies have been forced to shut down for not permitting gay couples adoptions. The question then becomes: Can the government refuse a religous organization the right to legally marry people if they refuse to perform marriages for gay couples? While of course the church would continue to perform marriage in the eyes of the Lord, could their right to perform marriage via the laws of the land be revoked? I am not mentioning this to promote some fanatical notion, but to consider the possibilities.
I think these ideas and thoughts need to be considered by those who are Christian, religious, and those not religious but champion or are considerate of heterosexual marriage. We need to encourage others to think, and recognize their vote on this matter counts. Yes, their choice will involve discrimination. But it always does; we form our world. To be a person is to have a stance on an issue, to be faced one way or the other: to have opinions, and to reject other views. A freedom in one area can limit freedoms in another.
We tend to argue against same-gender marriage on historical-traditional grounds (it's always been heterosexual marriage), religious grounds (God has revealed it this way), and definitional grounds (marriage means a lawfully sanctioned relationship between a man and woman). I've heard Kantian ethics also applied: that which is not got for all of us to adopt, none of us should adopt. As homosexuality would lead to the extinction of the race, it is not good. It would provide an evolutionary dead-end. Of course, not only would this logic be faulty in many occasions, but what of bisexuality then? While these arguments may be convincing to conservatives, they seem unconvincing to liberals. Perhaps we need to be greater versed in discourse with those promoting homosexual marriage, even on basic issues. A lot of these will probe questions of philosophy of sex. For instance,
1. What do we mean by saying attraction or gender orientation is genetic? As I would imagine attraction comes via the senses, how can genes determine what I enjoy visually? How can the senses judge between men and women? Obviously, the sexual organs can be, but not any place I live around has them publicly displayed. I know attraction can come via cultural norms, but cultural norms don't seem to be inherited in genes. There are so many differences between cultures and in time on what is attractive: how is that genetic?
I've been to the beach and been attracted to who I thought were women in the water in wetsuits, only to find out they were men. How can gay men (the same applies to lesbians) not say they were attracted to women they thought or look like men? From what I've read, this is more myth with homosexuals. The "ghost stat" that I've heard is that 80% of homosexuals are actually bisexual.
It seems we culturally create archetypal molds or ideas of what is attractive: by why are those gender specific? My questions here need to come to blind people too. Take out the visual element: how do they note gender differences and what is attractive to them? I imagine the sound of the voice, but I could be wrong. There is a large array of pitches of voices that spread across gender lines: how would such attraction be genetic?
Sexual attraction also goes beyond simply gender: it goes into age. Some people enjoy sexual encounters with little children, babies, grandma at the old folk’s home, their own brothers and sisters, dead people. It even moves beyond the human species: with dogs, horses, and so forth. Some are not attracted to anyone, but enjoy masturbation. Gender is not the only sexual orientation. Are such attractions also genetic? How can that possibly be?
2. Is attraction conditioned? And if so, to what extent? Since Locke and particularly Hume, and probably earlier than this, we have recognized the mental experience of association. This means when someone brings up basketball, and I think about the topic, other ideas brought up with it come to my mind: perhaps Michael Jordan or in Jason's case, how the Suns need to win the NBA championship. Pavlov noticed this with his dogs on a behavioral level, and developed the notion of classical conditioning. The bells rang when the food was brought out, and soon enough when the bells rang without the food being brough out, the dogs salivated anyway. Could it be that human attraction is conditioned: ie when we aroused and we see certain behaviors, images, and so forth, and then they become what we aroused by? Could human romantic encounters that we see on television or our society’s pornography largely define what we find to be attractive or that arouses us? Pornography could play an interesting part in sexual orientation: many homosexuals and those engaging in bestiality have been involved in that first. I am sure there are some who have not. Or could it be a mental fascination or curiosity? People tell us so and so is attractive, so and so is interested in us: do we form attraction around opportunities and indoctrination?
3. Is attraction divine? And if so, what does that mean? Are our consciousnesses directed by or connected to some wider field of consciousness that influences our sexual behavior? Or is attraction bestowed from the divine via a naturalistic-genetic path or via conditioning through scripture and revelation? Why does the divine care about sexuality?
4. What is sexuality? By this question I mean, what does it contain? Does sexuality mean expression with one’s sexual organs? Or does it involve procreation and reproduction as well? Can they be separated? Does sexuality necessarily involve a partner? For instance, am I sexual if all I involve myself in is masturbation? Or what if I enjoy a form of pornography, but do not physically engage in it (i.e. am I homosexual/bisexual if I enjoy homosexual pornography but do not and would not engage in it physically)?
5. How can I honor and tolerate all forms of sexual attraction and yet honor fidelity? How can I be “bisexual” and loyal to my partner?
6. Should sexual attractions be curbed or sponsored by society? If so, why?
I have many other questions and topics I would like to talk about on this issue, but feel I should stop as this post is already so long. I would like to hear from other thinking LDS students what they believe/have heard/have thought about on such issues. For me and my state, this topic is pressing, and I would appreciate discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You've asked many questions, and stated many assumptions. My suggestion is that you actually talk to people who are homosexual to find out the answers. We're not all "living the lifestyle", and some of us may be sitting next to you at church.
You mentioned that you had difficulty believing gay people were not ever attracted to the the opposite sex. Attraction happens on many different levels. I am deeply emotionally attracted to my spouse. I have never been physically attracted to him--and yet I remain with him because he brings joy to my life and I want to be with him every day. Do we have a sexual relationship? Yes. Because I want to be connected with him in every way. Is it difficult? Often. Imagine your feelings if you were planning to have sex with your closest guy friend. However, my emotional connection makes it possible for me to bypass the difficulties. This is not, however, possible for all homosexual people. In fact, I would say it is extremely rare.
Someone who would be willing to talk and answer your questions from a gospel perspective is Ty Mansfield. He co-wrote the book In Quiet Desperation, and is one of the most amazing people I've ever met, as well as a wonderful friend. He's currently in the process of writing another book to be published by Deseret Book in the near future. I'm certain he'd love to answer your questions, and he would do so within the bounds of gospel precepts. He can be found at http:/www.tymansfield.com
There are many of us faithfully serving within the church. We're basically invisible because most of the members buy into much of what you posted here on your blog and if we try to help them understand why that's not quite correct, we are usually shot down before we can begin to talk. The church "accepts" us as long as we are silent. Somehow, this doesn't seem helpful or loving, especially when one is in my position as I try to help same-sex attracted youth remain active and faithful. I am appalled by the SSA LDS suicide rates. I am saddened by the number of young men and women who cut or have eating disorders because they have no voice. Someday, perhaps if I keep talking, this will change.
I suppose I do not understand what was so offensive about this post, nor did you respond or answer any of my questions. Of course I stated many assumptions, as did you. Statements rest upon assumptions: they always do. There are no such things as statements without assumptions. While your emotionally charged rhetoric has its draw and appeal, suggesting that I am some how narrowminded for asking the questions I do, I believe your sensitivity on this issue has clouded the discussion. Please participate in the discussion, and listen to what I'm saying, not cookie-cutting your model of what you think a heterosexual LDS male believes and trying to squeeze my conversation into it. I understand the difficulty of the issues, and I have "spoken with homosexuals." They do not provide the answers, but neither do most heterosexuals. It is unfortunate that people somehow that think that because they suffer private grief that suddenly other people are ignorant and bigotted. If you read my attraction questions carefully, they question the origins of heterosexual attraction as much as homosexual attraction. Maybe you could benefit from talking to me about that.
I appreciate the tip to look at Ty Mansfield's book; I hope he'll have some insights into my questions. I hope there is more than emotionally charged rhetoric.
Interesting post Martino. I do think it's interesting how so often if you try to pose a view contrary to many that are pro such stances they are so quick to throw out labels that are disparaging. I know President Packer explored this issue in a conference talk a while back. It's sad that we can't just have civil discussion instead of having to resort to name calling.
Also, I'm glad you mention the idea of "not being in a vacuum." The fact of the matter is, all of humanity has an influence upon each other. Sure, different individuals have different amounts of influence upon society and mankind more than others, but the bottom line is, as the poet John Donne states, "No man is an island entire of itself." We really don't appreciate just how major of an influence we are upon each other. We can't close ourselves from the influences of anyone else, so it's important that we can eschew good, wholesome values as a society and come to a greater good collectively. Of course I know this issue isn't quite as simple as having "good values" taught because it is a real challenge that some have to deal with and frankly I don't know enough about the topic to know how to help facilitate a good resolution for all.
Actually, I wasn't offended by your post--or I would not have commented. I referred you to Ty for the simple reason that he is an unmarried homosexual, a man, and I assumed, as you proved me correct, that anything I said would be received with hostility.
I only comment on posts where it seems the blog author has an authentic curiosity and the possibility of an open mind--where he might be interested in the views of another regardless of whether or not he buys into them.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. Is what I say "emotional rhetoric"? Regardless of whether or not you believe it is, it is also the truth. How many faithful gay members of the church will stand at your pulpit and talk about how the particular challenge of SSA has brought him or her to a greater knowledge of the Atonement? It happens when we gather together--away from judgmental members who "welcome" us as long as we don't talk.
However, as you have taken offense at my comments (and there are no assumptions in my words--I truly am married, I do know Ty, and I have more knowledge about the treatment of people like me than I care to accept), and gracelessly and antagonistically invited me to answer your questions, I will do so--and thank you for your invitation to be heard.
1. Attraction has many levels and is not all about the physical. Women, and some men, can become attracted to one another while chatting online or on the phone. Lesbian women sometimes experience "instabonding" which allows them to feel intimate with a person without ever having met her, and that can last indefinitely. The speculation that it is genetic is studied continuously and, unfortunately, the results are often tainted by political agendas. Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a psychologist whom I've found to be the most unbiased in his research. He is open to hearing perspectives from highly conservative groups (like ex-gay, and NARTH), as well as more liberal groups who promote a homosexual lifestyle. I think, if one is going to find truth, all views must be considered. He does that. Women and men have distinctive traits which go far beyond sex organs and body shapes. Studies show that gay men and straight women find the body odor of men appealing and even sexy, while lesbians and straight men find that same appeal in the body odor of women. Obviously, this could be a developmental trait and not a genetic one. From my perspective, the jury is still out on genetic roots of homosexuality. I do believe that certain people and/or personality types are predisposed to homosexuality, and if the right conditions are in place homosexuality can develop. I have yet to decide if those conditions take place in the womb, or if only the predisposition to such takes place there.
You mentioned an attraction to what you thought was a women, but turned out to be a man. My guess is that was fleeting and you did not pursue it once it became apparent the gender was "wrong". Had you truly been attracted to the person, and continued to feel that after you found out he was a man, I can only imagine your resulting confusion. The point--I don't consider the wetsuit incident more than a hormonal response, and to me, true attraction is deeper than looks or physicality. This may be a point were we agree to disagree. As for the "ghost stat", the studies in which I've been involved, and the ones I've read do not support that--in fact, I would say the statistics swing strongly in the opposite direction. But, as I've already stated, one does not have to feel attraction to have sex with someone. Obviously, even though I have never felt attracted to a member of the opposite sex, the fact that I married and man would put me in the "bisexual" group, in the opinion of many.
2. I believe behavioral response to attraction is conditioned to a large extent, but probably not attraction itself. Pornography certainly shapes a societal image of what is attractive, and yet people continue to date, marry, and copulate with partners who are probably not in line with that image. So perhaps porn doesn't have as great a power over our sexual orientation, but rather is more of an addiction which satisfies needs which might not even be sexual. Most of the men and women I have worked with in addictions groups admit that they don't view porn because they wish to be attracted to someone/something, but rather because they feel stress, lack of control, or emotional need. The high they receive from viewing porn provides a temporary release--one they return to repeatedly until they address the roots of the problems in their lives. Many have viewed pornography of all genres. It might have made them curious, but it has not changed the gender of the people to whom they are attracted. One last thought, I am currently working with two young men and one young woman who have never viewed pornography, never watched rated R movies, and who have been studying the gospel in great depth since they first became aware of their attractions. If they imagine an eternal mate--it is one of the same gender. This is not something they choose, it is simply what feels "right" to them. However, the interesting common thread is that all of them come from active LDS homes where the parents have difficult marriages, or have been divorced. So, as far as conditioning is concerned, there could certainly be an added push for them to seek something different from what they see in their families.
3. Well, it's promised to those of us who feel homosexual attraction, that when we are resurrected we'll no longer encounter that. And also, those who remain faithful in this life are promised spouses and children in the next. Perhaps one can argue that those things are possible without physical attraction (certainly I can), but I think it would be nice to feel physical attraction to my spouse someday. But perhaps the divine truly does not care about sexuality...My speculation, which carries no weight of course, is that sexuality is more than we know, and will definitely play a role in the hereafter.
4. If one looks at this within the context of conference talks, sexuality is the expression of physical love between two people and is forbidden outside the bounds of marriage. Certainly there are broader viewpoints which include all things which bring about sexual excitement and release. I don't necessarily believe one's sexuality, in the context of homo- or hetero- is always defined by one's behavior, as there some who will experiment with both, either out of curiosity or attraction--or some other reason.
5. Sexuality of any orientation does not mean one is globally attracted to all members of a gender or species. I'm attracted to women. That means if I find someone beautiful or sexually exciting, she will be female. My husband feels the same way I do about women. However, it doesn't mean that he is attracted to every woman he encounters, and when he is attracted that can happen in various degrees--usually contingent upon his contentment and validation in marriage. In the same vein, I find many women attractive, but not all--and I have boundaries in place which allow me to recognize what I'm feeling, understand it cannot progress, refocus on my husband and our commitment to each other, and move forward. I assume most committed couples of any orientation (hetero-, homo-. mixed-, or bi-) do the same. As for honor and tolerance, my hope would be that people would reserve judgment and treat all people as spiritual brothers and sisters. My children are aware that I believe the institution of marriage is sacred and should take place between a man and a woman. They also understand that not everyone believes as I do, and that all people are worthy of love. We have friendships with gay and lesbian couples. They are aware of our beliefs. They also know that care about them, and enjoy being with them. The balance can be tricky, but not impossible.
6. I don't know. As a childhood victim of a pedophile (who was acting on his sexual attractions), I suppose my gut says, absolutely! But I also believe there is a difference between protecting children (pedophiles would disagree with me), and interfering in the sexual choices of adults. I'm still mulling this one over.
I appreciate the questions asked by Marty, as they go beyond the usual simplistic ideas about homosexuality. I also really like the responses that Samantha has posted, it's given me something to actually think about in response to Marty's questions. I am, however, slightly amused/concerned at the seeming communication barrier that has popped up.
Knowing Martin well and reading both contributors from a 3rd person standpoint, I find none of the actual posts offensive, emotionally charged or antagonistic. Sadly, it seems that the only antagonistic parts are your responses to each other.
Take a step back, everybody; breathe, and you'll find a fruitful, interesting discussion. Thanks to you both for information about a topic I don't think about nearly enough.
I apologize if I interpreted your comment to hastily. Your comment such as this: "We're basically invisible because most of the members buy into much of what you posted here on your blog and if we try to help them understand why that's not quite correct, we are usually shot down before we can begin to talk." This seems to take a very negative slant to what you have described as an open-minded blog. You've said that my posting, that was essentially a collection of questions and musings, was incorrect and led to silence, instead of dialogue. Perhaps you can understand why I felt your comments were less than supportive.
But let's get over that. I appreciate the time that you spent in responding to my post; I was hoping some like yourself would give it the time of day, and you have. Now I only have to digest it! Perhaps I can experience the receiving end of long posts, and the difficulty or responding quickly. Cheerio! And BTW, thanks for the encouragement, Eric; and the push to cool down.
There is a lot said here and I don't know if I have much to contribute, but there seems to be a question that is glaringly missing here, and that is: why should marriage be about attraction?
While I am attracted to my wife, to say that that is the foundation of our relationship is to violently reduce our relationship to something petty and superficial. That's not to say that people don't tend to marry those they're attracted to; we do. But just because we do doesn't make that the right reason for marrying.
There are millions of reasons to get married; perhaps focusing on attraction is where some of the trouble lies? What do you think?
Hey samantha, some general thoughts and questions regarding your post, though I won't get through with them all here.
1. Instabonding: can you explain this in greater detail? One can feel intimately close with someone without even meeting them? What does this mean? I mean in terms of intimacy: what are you referring to by this term? Emotional closeness, sexual attraction, trust, a bond of friendship? I ask because I googled the term and got 4 results that didn't apply.
Next, does this involve a visual element or not? By this I pose the following scenario: say a lesbian reads a paragraph from a woman named Sarah Jemimah. She instabonds with this writer, feeling an intense "intimate" relationship with her. However, she has seen no picture of her. She meets Sarah Jemimah without realizing it, talks with her, and finds her rather boring. I imagine she would store these experiences as separate individuals. Would she need the visual to have the instabond? Or say she met a woman who she knew was named Sarah Jemimah: would she apply this intimate relationship with someone?
I guess I want to know what makes this instabond different from bonding with the dead or pen pals. By bonding with the dead I mean I have felt great kinship with philosophers I have never met, been moved and respect dead writers. How is the instabond different? Perhaps I have described this all very poorly, I apologize.
2. You have noted, and I whole-heartedly agree, that there are more than sexual organ differences between men and women. I have wanted to understand this better myself. What are the main differences in gender: not necessarily on a physiological level, but on an experiential level. What traits/personalities tend to brought by women as opposed to men, and vis versa? How do women see or experience the world differently from men? While my wife has given me some insights, she studied Human Development, I find myself wanting more.
3. On your genetic discussion, I also believe the body odor to be ambiguous evidence. I imagine that bi-sexuals would be attracted to both odors if we were trying to draw a more direct connection. But of course body odor is not a deterministically leading to attraction, since there are many woman I am not attracted to that I am sure do not differ much in terms of body odor.
You mentioned some persons are more predisposed to homosexuality: why? Are you suggesting a genetic predisposition and what would that be? Would the same be said for all these other genetic orientations I am speaking of? What genetic predispotions could do so? I can definitely see a cultural predisposition for homosexuality, which I find quite unfortunate. It is upsetting to me that society appears to group a set of male traits and label them as homosexual. If I man enjoys poetry, writing music, art, dancing, and so forth, he is often labelled gay. I have a good friend that dresses very well and these labels are unjustly ascribed to him too. It is annoying because such labelling may hinder men from pursuing these arts, as the opinions of others on this issue may sway them to stay away from expressing that part of themselves. Furthermore, with the identity crises that many adolescents face, and the constant affirmation that what they like is gay, they may find the homosexual label tempting, and think maybe that is me. We have such a desire to be categorized to know ourselves: look at Facebook disney princess quizzes, personality type profiles, etc. I'll stop. I think the point has been made.
You also hint at some prenatal theory: care to develop that further?
4. I understand attraction is more than sexual attraction, we all experience different levels: people we love to talk with, play games with, chill with, listen to, etc. I enjoy running around with my nieces and nephews: I wouldn't describe that attraction I have to their spirited personalities as sexual. Rather I am focusing on attraction within the sexual arena. Perhaps the labelling of the post was misleading, I apologize. I should definitely consider, as Joe O. points out, how other attractions play into marriage. For if attraction was broader than the sexual, then attraction would not be seen as "petty and superficial." Especially if this attraction involves choice, management, cultivation, effort, and disappointment.
5. Dang stats. Can't live with them and can't live without them in social science; but it's hard to trust them. I need some more training from my wife on gauging the reliability of samples and how the tests are set up. I am interested in that if there are few bisexuals, why do people tend to prefer the one gender?
6. Of course being attracted to a male through gender misidentification was weird. It happens all the time in a society where there's a lot more men dressing femininely. Gender identification is also funny, though. I only thought it was a man after hearing the "man"'s voice. Who's to say it was actually a man? Maybe it was a woman with a deeper or raspier voice? It seems our senses have a general "feel" for what is male or female? And if so, why wouldn't we be attracted to the same sex at times, if that gender had the "feel" of the opposite. Very interesting stuff.
7. Do you consider yourself "bisexual" because you are attracted to woman but married to a man? I suppose all of this rests on the attraction issue. From saying attraction is purely sexual, from you language it would seem you are not even bisexual, but would be considered lesbian. But if attraction is opened up beyond that, then you fit into a bisexual cateogory. If we take a behavioral stance you are heterosexual. Anyway, just curious on definitions and what people mean by "sexual."
8. Conditioning. Having worked with many porn addicts and recovery groups myself, I have found quite different results from yourself. Addicts instead have spoken of gender confusion, same-sex attraction, beastiality urges, fear of peeing around other men. I also think pornography is addicting, and serves to fill a hole in people's lives: letting go of stress, and so forth as you have described. I expect other drugs that produce highs to do the same thing. My thoughts with pornography are not that people watch it because they want to be attracted to someone/something else, but this occurs as people are exposed to different sexual activities and orientations through pornography. In their highly aroused state while watching pornography and probably masturbating, they run across beastiality, gay porn, etc. Initially it may be revolting (just like when addicts first see oral sex), but soon they enjoy watching it and associate it with excitement. They associate their arousal and pleasure with these other gender or even species orientations. So when they think of doing so in real life, it becomes appealing. Addicts have told me they experience same sex sexual encounters in their dreams, creating situations similar to those they saw in pornography. Similarly, four homosexuals I know I have spoken with said their same sex attractions began with pornography. While I do not think that all homosexual attraction comes from pornography, I do think it is a factor that should be strongly considered among others. Your family systems idea should also have credence, along with societal conditioning for instance. It would be interesting to know why people in the same family systems do not experience this same gender attraction however.
9. I didn't quite follow you on the sexual speculation, and it's eschatological role. I'm intrigued; please spell this out more.
Thank you for your very enlightening post. I will try to share more of my thoughts and hope the exchange will continue. Then I will try to probe Joe O.'s remarks. Thanks for participating. I also want to further consider heterosexual attraction.
I have to agree with Eric--the post and comments are enlightening and provide new insights for me, but it seems like everyone is a little defensive (understandable considering the issue).
I appreciate the comments stating that the conversation has caused you guys to think. Any thoughts on our comments or responses to these questions? Thanks.
I am amused that the script for advertisements of blogger looks if you mention the word gay. Because we mention it, it naturally presupposes we are for it, and therefore places gay ads ("chubby gay love" for instance) on the blog. Gotta love it.
I wonder how Foucault might feel about your referencing his thoughts in this context?
If you're curious as well, you might enjoy this interview with David Halperin:
Foucault, Gay Marriage, and Gay
and Lesbian Studies in the United States
an excerpt ...
Of course, once the question is posed—“Should gay people have the right to marry?”— there could only be one answer, which is, “Yes.” And, in fact, although gay marriage isn’t an issue I care very much about one way or another, I do think it’s notable that no valid argument against gay marriage has ever been put forward. In fact, there is no basis on which to oppose gay marriage except prejudice. This makes the arguments against gay marriage examples, particularly striking examples, of intellectual or moral disgrace on the part of the people who make them. Nonetheless, we don’t have to imagine what Foucault would say about the gay marriage movement, because we know some of the things that he did say. For example, in 1963 over dinner at the home of Jacques Lacan he said, “There will be no civilization as long as marriage between men is not accepted” (Eribon, 1991).
I don't think Foucault would really care at all; perhaps he'd agree with my points (since I haven't said anything conclusively), but he'd probably be pleased with the discussion. However, do not think because I support one of Foucault's points, that I support them all. His social construction theory on homosexuality is a little fishy itself.
Post a Comment