It may seem an odd or even an off-putting question; it could strike some as offensive. That's not my purpose. Pressing some boundaries in the interests of discussion and justice is what I'm after.
Much of the growing support for Marriage Equality rests on an increasingly-held assumption among those in the West that we are as to gender-identity born as we find and largely acknowledge ourselves to be by our late pre-teens or earlier (and, sometimes, later). We say that we are innately gay, straight, or bi-sexual. As I've made clear, I hold with the spreading consensus that we do not choose sexual orientation. It has been a somewhat surprising and good development that Western European and American majorities are more and more comfortable with this understanding and with Marriage Equality.
My question is this:
Were there still, today, among the majority here and in Western Europe, a more than simply lingering conviction that sexual orientation is chosen, wouldn't marriage equality remain one mandate for a just society? We don't tend to, for example, question bi-sexuals' right to marriage when there seems, at least, to be a measure of choice in bi-sexual persons' decisions about whom to marry.
If we rely too strongly on the born-this-way argument for the recognition of marriage rights, if we too strongly or primarily anchor our demand for Equality in that argument, are we not, at least in a small way, suggesting that our gay and bi-sexual friends aren't fully deserving of Equality simply by virtue of the fact that they are, as we are, adult citizens?
I'm for Equality Under Law. It's irrelevant to me and should be to the law whether or not my gay and bi-sexual colleagues in this justice movement, my gay companions and relatives (and yours) ever chose to be who they are.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Poor Woman
Chicken Mãâàn
Dianne Schuch - Lindsey
nerd cred
jmac1949
Deborah Méndez Wilson
Salon.com
Comments
Nonetheless, marriage equality, the demand for it, would be just and right whether gay prople chose who they are or no.
Interesting point. I'm not making fun here, but I can't help but think of the Woody Allen joke, "The best thing about being bi-sexual is you have twice the chance for a date on Saturday night."
And the "date" is the important part, as you point out, not the gender of the date.
That means we're functionally stuck being able to argue this on religious terms, at least to some extent. You'll notice that it is religious people who argue that homosexuality is a choice because then they can portray it as simple sin. Without a choice, the issue becomes more complex because it can be classified as a prejudice.
In North Carolina, the most successful inroads made during the Amendment One fight was with Black clergy, by reframing the debate in civil rights terms. If homosexuality is a choice, that argument goes straight out the window. What makes a civil rights argument stick as an accusation of bigotry is precisely a lack of choice. "I have a dream, that we will be accepted as equal on those days when we choose to be Black." Uh-huh. Though this isn't a completely clean distinction, the law to be equitable has to be about what you do, not who you are.
I, myself, deliberately excised the sentence I had written abt religion, as to this issue in this post, bc i did not even want to go there, to recognize these people with one word of my own. I have written abt their lunacy on many occasions.
How many times have you asked this question about Black people? How many times about Jews or Muslims? How many blind or deaf people have "if they were freakin born that way" discussed?
The implication is that if you are born queer you come out of the womb fully sexually active and start leering at other babies. The alternative is that sometime, in childhood when we are most vulnerable, we choose a life style of being treated like shit, insulted, demeaned and, yes, having our very being questioned.
The fact of the matter is, JUST LIKE YOU, virtually ALL LGB people are asexual until around the age of 9 or later (TG are slightly different brcsuse they usually notice a "wrongness" around 4-5 yo). We develop sexual feeling and notice a gender attraction the same time you did.
Once we start to feel sexual attraction then yes, some of it might be environmental based upon our desires, JUST LIKE YOURS WAS.
Meh.
Let's leave it at, "I CHOOSE to be queer just as much as you choose to be str8 and ask stupid questions about queers".
I am saying that it is not a choice but that even were it a choice thorough and complete marriage equality should be the law.
To be asked that question is offensive. It makes me feel like some kind of freak. It is insulting.
Where in the HELL do str8 people get off discussing whether we were born queer or not? Why not take us at our word? We do you!
You do realize that by even asking that question, you are in fact asking the GREAT majority of us if we were born liars, right?
So if I seemed pissed, it's because I am. I'm going to stay pissed off until I can either freely discuss and freaking VOTE on your sexuality.
If you want to discuss whether queer folk should be allowed to marry and/or be treated like humans with human rights, alright. You SHOULDN'T be able to discuss whether we really exist at all.
Marriage equality should be a right, period...
You really should care what somebody else is or does....
I am, here, writing abt the Law and what Law ought to do: I am sayng whether or not what we know to be true abt sexuality (that we do not choose orientation) we all should enjoy the same marriage rights under law. I am not, in fact, questioning anyone; I know that when a stright or a gay person says what s/he is as to orientation, then that must be heard as you say here that it must be heard.
I am taking the discussion further and saying that even IF it were a choice (and it's not) under our Constitution, marriage equality should be fact and law.
I am not questioning anyone's stamements about their sexual orientation.
Here I offer a piece of that book:
"One day I packed myself into a small box, labeled it HOMOSEXUAL, then sent it off to San Francisco. It was my belief that San Francisco was the only place in the world where I could truly be myself. Unfortunately, I remained inside the box for the next ten years. I was never able to understand how to be myself because I was too busy being a homosexual. Everything I did, everything I believed was therefore done in the shadow of heterosexuality. I was living my entire life as a reaction to an incredibly homophobic American culture. I had convinced myself that being homosexual was at the core of my spirit and being. I was totally unaware that wearing that label and playing the role expected of me was at the core of my self-oppression. Separating myself from the rest of the world because of who I loved was as ridiculous as separating people who love strawberries from people who do not love strawberries. My compliant participation in the separation constituted agreement that I was different and therefore not as good as what was accepted as normal.”
There is no such think as heterosexuality. Therefore, there is no such thing as homosexuality or bi-sexuality. It is an imaginary label put not on preference, but degrees of preference. We all have the capacity to love other human beings. They can have blond hair, darker skin than we do, be tall, short, etc. How many ways can we separate people in love in order to discriminate against their love? When I remember the greatest love of my life, I do not remember choosing him, I remember realizing he was the one!
Getting to the bottom of this issue means realizing that the idea of heterosexuality as a superior way of life is the core of the prejudice and discrimination. The major motivation for homophobia is the artificial need to deny the natural feelings of love and eroticism for the same gender, that live in all of us. I have come to terms with the fact that I have a very small part of my being that could be attracted to women in an erotic way. It is so small, I can truly say I was born with the spirit of what we would call a Gay man, in our world of labels. But in the end, I am a man who loves men more than I could possibly love anyone else! I am attracted to masculinity!
In the realization of all of this, I have come to terms with the fact that it is also impossible for me to participate in the artificial concepts of religion. I am a spiritual man. I do not live my life based on written words or "beliefs." I follow my heart and conscience. If at all, I try to lead by example, not force. In the struggle for survival, I would think I would be seen as someone who has spent a lifetime getting others to leave me alone. Never do I intentionally force my way of life on others or require them to be like me. I just want to be left alone!
1. Maybe the title should have been What If Sexual Orientation WERE a Choice?
2. And the answer, clearly expressed, is: Gay marriage should still be legal.
Amy,
It looks like you read the title without reading the post.
To take it just a bit further - perhaps it's the anxiousness that loss of clarity about sexual roles often seems to produce. I remember back in the day the great indignation on the part of the older generation about men wearing their hair long, and donning bright clothes and necklaces, etc.: Can't tell (at least from the back) whether it's a boy or a girl. And, granted, it IS kind of a foundational thing, since at first glance, and the reproductive situation, that, like, God created them male and female. All those variations, plus gay people who don't follow strict gender roles, are confusing to the orderly and ordering mind that is often the mark of 'conservatives'. But that said, who the eff cares? I never understood the "can't tell if it's a boy or a girl" complaint - like, what's it TO you. (I remember too the resistance to women wearing pants...like, why would you CARE?)
I value Amy's take on all of my posts a great deal even as I wonder what you have abt the title and her response.
From the financial perspective, with over 50% of straight marriages failing and for many single straight women marriage not being an option and the nation in financial chaos, you would think this money conscious society would be all for gay and bi-sexual marriage!
Marriage is a legal contract. A gay or bi sexual couple should be allowed the same legal rights as everyone else in this country. Simple as that.
I do realize, and I had realized, as Kosh says, that "were", as opposed to "is" in my title, makes the title potentially more problematic for some readers (and not just Amy--I send my pieces to a list of old pals via email).
Yet, I opted for a sense of immediacy.
If sexual orientation, that means [to me] mutual attraction between one person and another, regardless of each party's gender or marital status, falls in love with another, IF said parties are adults, both of them should be able to pursue happiness and all that happy-ass shit spewed forth in our constititional amendments. By excluding marriage, we're discriminating against them and we're breaching the terms of the amendments. Say what?
What are your thoughts on one's predisposition to beliefs formulated prior to birth? One can always change. That's what free will really is and it makes perfectly good sense that Don's opinion envelops some reasonableness when a bisexual person decides to come out and claim his/her bisexual preference is oriented upon identity and personality issues.
My take is that homosexuals are varied in how they came to their lifestyle. Trying to define it is a can of worms that won't yield clarity, equity, or solutions. And any decision based on an assumed path is bound to fail some couples.
Marriage is a lifelong social and sexual commitment that's pretty well understood. Whatever the path a couple takes to be ready to make that commitment, we should let them make it.
There's a flip side to every coin, isn't there? And it's the same with mixed race marriages as well as gay or bi-sexual marriages. People's prejudices often cloud the issue. Are we then free?
Here's yet another (albeit strange) question for you, with a preamble:
There is a gay male whose monetary position in society is solid. He is very close friends with a hetero couple and their two children, almost a member of the family. The couple are in a terrible car crash. The wife survives, the husband doesn't. But the wife is so impaired, she cannot cope. Should society condemn the gay male friend for marrying this impaired woman, even if in name only, in order to help support her and her children?
As people marry sometimes for different reasons, and even for convenience, sometimes for serious purposes, must we judge or keep them from doing so?
I believe our rights dictate that it should not matter why they marry or how. Their intentions are their own, not anyone else's.
Just a bit of a brain-teaser to go along with your sterling question.....
R
When the practice of civil ceremonies became a common alternative to the church - and was socially accepted - the various religious orders lost their 'franchise' on the practice of marriage so far as seems correct to me.
Rated for who owns the legal rights to the word marriage?
I am working up another post which is wholly topical to this one, though currently it's in a rough draft state. My point of view is, and always has been since I could reason it out, that, as citizens of a country who's initial foundation is:
We hold these truths to be self evident. That all Men are created Equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
... as such, U.S. Citizens are mandated by these self evident truths to treat all of humanity -- those you like, those you don't, citizens and non-citizens alike -- the same under the law, in contracts, trusts, social mores, morality (a thorny issue, but some human morals transcend cultural, social and financial barriers) and in simple common decency to your fellow humans.
In this light, Marriage Equality is a Human Right underscored and highlighted by the U. S. Constitution and all it's supportive documents. We do, in the US, so much that is repugnant to the ideals set forth in the Constitution that it is hard sometimes to get a reasonable word in edgewise. Any U. S. Citizen should really take the time to get to know their Constitution, the Preamble especially, as well as the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights.
We have to also understand that the powers not specifically vested in the authority of government rests with the people. This is one of those cases where the People must be heard, while at the same time, the People must ensure that we don't engage in the simple "tyranny of the many over the few" in which the current state of Marriage Equality resides.
More when I post my blog on that.
I have to ask myself of everyone else who has any idea of this situation with regard to the facts versus the hyperbole:
Does any of this make any sense to you?
When we serve to deny a segment of the population the rights and benefits of social institutions (and marriage is clearly a well defined and listed social institution) and social mores by dint that we don't like those people for whatever reason, we are guilty of being mass despots to those who are being denied.
There is no simpler answer. Oh, well, I suppose the simplest answer is this: the current state of marriage inequality is just wrong to keep.
--r--
(for those who keep tabs: I am a married male, straightly and devoutly heterosexual who loves his wife. I also have a sense of fairness and justice that prevents me from engaging in this blatant abuse of mass opinion to keep someone else down.)
The slippery slope of sexual orientation, as always, goes to define what is acceptable and what is perverse. No one is suggesting that marriage open to include pedophiles and children, for instance. Yet, people may claim they are born that way (though realistically they were formed that way by their upbringing).
And, even if you weren't born gay, but later realized that was your preference, who am I to tell you who should make your heart sing?
Perhaps, altogether, we need to reconsider what marriage should and shouldn't be about. Right now it is about legal rights, children/family, and inheritance. Since sexual union no longer implies uncontrolled childbirth (for the most part), and divorces are often very easy to come by, the value of marriage overall is diminished. Or just changed altogether, and we haven't figured out yet what it really means anymore.
re SB Amy's: there's NO societal pressure to be queer as there is huge pressure to be straight. Does choosing to be your true self rather than what society demands count as choice? Consider Marcus Bachmann. (Noting that I am more and more coming to the belief that most humans are born liars.)
re: Spirit Man: Just beautifully said. This saved me a lot of typing! Most human behavioral traits happen on a spectrum.
And, in case there's any question, my position is that marriage, or whatever society wants to call it, is a basic right that should be available to everyone with the partner of their own choice if it is available to anyone.
(Now I wonder if Safe Bet's Amy might be available to come and stand guard over my niece and her wife and kids when they come to visit in July and stay at my mother's. Because if that crazy mean old woman decides to go that way, I don't want to be responsible for how I'd respond to her cruelty or even witness what Katie's grandmother's own true self could do to her.)
Simply put, we see it throughout nature- it is evolutionary. That is all.
More to the point, a hunter who loves his hunting partner that much is that much more likely to stand by him when saber teeth are staring them both down ... we all know this to be true, denying it is a joke.
Gatherers faced risks too, attack by animals, other humans, other hominids who would sexually assault them as well. Same situation, one is safer, thus more likely to survive, if she has a girlfriend.
Then, as we all, well those who aren't brainwashed anyway, know: human life is complex, and so we have the full LGBT spectrum. Born that way simply means, and I agree with Baltimore here, that you got that mix in the pecking (haha) order and so here you are now, out and about.
Further, some people simply fall in love and consummate it, so, as usual, we aren't much different from Cro-Magnons, not yet.
In the meantime, let any church who doesn't want to marry loving people whither on the vine, and let the government (horrors!!!) sanction marriages between any 2 people who want to commit.
Redux; Polynesian Mahu have always been accepted, and have saved the Hawaiian Culture nearly by themselves- Thanks Cousins!
Imua (Onward)
I also think we need to determine whether the genetics argument is useful, and I'm not convinced it will be, over the long term, for two opposite reasons. First, genetics isn't as determinative as it once was. We can monkey with it. That's only another generation of therapy. When there's a prenatal test for that genetic marker, there has to be a better response to those who argue that non-heterosexuality is inferior or evil.
On the opposite end, I think DNA (to use the word loosely) is invoked in some distasteful ways we don't want to associate with orientation. "Men have not evolved to be monogamous so cheating is inevitable" is one. (Then don't promise fidelity.) "Native Americans are genetically susceptible to alcoholism so the government should restrict their access to alcohol." "People who have a family history of mental illness should consider not having children." And so on.
I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice; I do believe we have to get past justification. I generally don't like genetics as an apologia; I would prefer that opponents have to convince others of their own right to discriminate against anyone.
It's hard enough to find someone, anyone, to share your life with in this world filled with tweets, Facebook, and iPads---people more engrossed in machines than people. Once you find that one, I do not care if you are the same sex or of the opposite sex, you need to hold on to that--tight--with clenched fists and knuckles white.
When a secular law, or a religious law masquerading as a secular law, is allowed to infringe on that happiness---it's just sad.
and wrong--
There was a time, not so long ago, that we sterilized people with Down Syndrome, and put them and the deaf and the blind in special "schools" which were warehouses for those we did not want to look at or deal with.
Then in the 1980s, activists took up their cause, and now all of the above are "mainstreamed" into their local school system with funding (in the past) from the govt to support their additional needs.
While there may still be school and universities that specialize in students with disabilities, they are no longer "warehoused".
In the '50s it was a "kindness" and "for the good of society" to sterilize those we did not want to reproduce because we would not approve of the "offspring" which we assumed would be deformed.
I still hold hope on this issue for the same type of social "evolution".
This is such an interesting reading ..The most crucial question for me is "wouldn't there be love without sex...? " Cause it all has to do with love and the need of the other..the need to love and be loved...Rated with thank you for making me think!!
rated with love