The internal contradictions of homosexual equality
Miller Scott writes:
I very much agree with your comment in the thread on “The next frontier of non-discrimination” that if it is “racist” to refuse to date/marry someone of another race because of his or her race, then it must at some point become “homophobic” to refuse to date someone because of his or her sex.
I’d point out, though, that the liberals are going to have to do some ideological backtracking before they can make that argument stick.
Right now, liberals say that sexual desire (and only sexual desire, I think) is innate, but they pretend race doesn’t even exist. So interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are not perfectly analogous in the liberal’s mind.
But actually, that’s only so because the liberal theory of homosexuality and sexual preference in general is imperfect and illiberal. Ultimately, they’ll have to revise it because (a) it’s illiberal; (b) it’s incoherent; and (c) the homosexuals don’t really like it anyway.
(a) The liberal view of homosexuality is illiberal. You can’t change your race (“whatever that is”), so it’s not supposed to matter in a liberal society. But sexual desire is also supposed to be innate, and yet it does matter in a liberal society: it determines the biological sex of the people you want to sleep with, and, most unjustly, the biological sex of the people who will sleep with you. And it’s illiberal that something we don’t choose should predetermine any aspect of our life. Eventually, we’ll all have to be “liberated” from our discriminatory/homophobic sexual desires.
Of course homosexuals came up with the theory of mutually exclusive/discriminatory sexual identities in the first place. Before that, there were just licit and illicit sex acts. The homosexuals devised their theory so they could justify committing those illicit sex acts.
[LA replies: Yes, a fascinating point. Central to liberalism is the idea that we are creatures of free choice. Nothing about us that matters is imposed on us by any larger forces or entities outside our control, namely by nature (biological inheritance), society (culture), or the transcendent (God). Everything about us that matters is chosen by our free will, or, to use the correct liberal word, by our preference. What then about race, which we don’t choose? Liberals handle that by saying that race isn’t real, or, if it is real, it doesn’t matter. Ok, but what about sexual orientation, which liberals say matters a great deal, and they also say is NOT chosen by us but is innate? Indeed, the latter idea is central to the homosexual rights movement. Many people (including some “conservatives” like David Horowitz) believe that there should be no disapproval of homosexual conduct and no restrictions on the rights of homosexuals, including the right to marry people of their own sex, because they have no choice over their sexual orientation. (The homosexual marriage argument makes no sense, but I’ll let that pass.) So: race isn’t chosen, but it doesn’t matter, a position that is consistent with liberalism, while sexual orientation isn’t chosen, but it does matter, a position that is inconsistent with liberalism.]
(b) The liberal view of homosexuality is incoherent. Liberals have already “deconstructed” gender and rendered it a “social construct.” Some are even saying that one’s genitalia are merely incidental. But they still say sexual desire for men or women as such is innate. This means that liberals think a person is innately attracted to a social construct.
Weird. And obviously improbable.
But that’s good for the homosexuals, because (c) homosexuals don’t really like the liberal theory of homosexuality anyway. Believing in innate sexuality means that the vast majority of the population is forever separated from them across the great hetero-homo divide. By genetic fiat, a mere accident of birth, they are forbidden sexual access to 98 percent of their fellow humans. Oh unjust universe!
But wait, forbidden? By mere accident of birth? Can’t have that. [LA replies: Yes. The very theory of sexual-orientation determinism that liberals use to justify homosexual conduct and homosexual rights strips homosexuals of their liberal right of choice and consigns them forever to “the other team,” inhabitants of a sexual ghetto permanently sealed off sexually from the vast majority of humankind,]
Good thing that the whole concept of “gendered sexuality” is illiberal, incoherent and discriminatory/homophobic! Hateful, bigoted, homophobic America/the West/Christianity, etc..
And so we’ll need to “tear down” the walls of our terrible, homophobic/discriminatory dating preferences. I can already hear the liberals saying it: we must overcome the oppressiveness and injustice of our “gendered sexuality.”
And the ideal couple of the new millennium shall be a homosexual Nordic/African pygmy couple. Or cut out the Europeans altogether. Maybe a liberated Japanese geisha and her lovely Haitian voodoo priestess girlfriend?
The possibilities are endless.
LA replies:
But if sexual orientation is made a matter of free choice, what happens to the liberal argument that we must tolerate/approve of homosexual behavior and support homosexual rights including homosexual “marriage” because homosexuals have no choice over their sexual orientation?
Miller Scott writes:
You wrote:
“But if sexual orientation is made a matter of free choice, what happens to the liberal argument that we must tolerate/approve of homosexual behavior and support homosexual rights including homosexual “marriage” because homosexuals have no choice over their sexual orientation?”
Right. The argument that homosexuals have no choice about their orientation is an illiberal argument and eventually it’ll have to go. Liberals don’t want to have to appeal to some nature they can’t manipulate; they want to do whatever they desire. Period. Eventually, they’ll advance their control over society enough that they will be able force us to accept homosexual behavior not because Nature dictates it but simply because the individual desires it.
LA replies:
Fascinating. Then the question becomes, what will the David Horowitzes of the world do, those self-professed “conservatives” who base their support for same-sex “marriage” entirely on the determinist argument?
My prediction: they will do just as Mr. Scott predicts liberals in general will do. Why do I say this? Because these same “conservatives” have already abandoned so many other conservative (and relatively conservative) positions they once espoused as they have progressively moved leftward. Thus the argument, “Homosexuals can’t help it, it’s wrong for society to discriminate against homosexuality in any way, particularly when it comes to their ability to ‘marry’ each other,” will become, “We’re a country of freedom. In America all people must be free to love and marry whom they want.”
LA continues:
This discussion about the way things keep moving to the left reminds me of Robert Locke’s bet with me that by the year 2020 marriage with a domestic animal will be legal in at least one state of the Union.
David B. writes:
This thread reminded me of how I challenged my ex-friend, Professor F., who is more fervent about homosexual marriage than almost anything.
I asked Professor F., “What will prevent a 50-year old man from marrying his 20-year old daughter once homosexual marriage is legal?” He answered, “Never happen. A marriage like that will not happen.” I told him that ANYTHING will happen once men marry men, and that the march of liberalism never stops. Professor F. claimed that there will be a limit.
By the way, Professor F. sees nothing wrong with a man marrying his dog. I had told him that there were freaks who would marry animals. The professor said that “they aren’t related,” and says that incestuous marriage among humans won’t be permitted “because they are related.”
I’m not making this up.
LA replies:
Interesting. Professor F. says that incestuous marriage will never happen, but that he supports bestiality marriage, because the human and the animal are not related and therefore bestiality is not incestuous. VFR’s leftist commenter Ken Hechtman supports incestuous marriage, but balks at bestiality marriage, because an animal cannot give consent. One leftist makes incest the limit on freedom of marriage. Another leftist makes the lack of consent the limit on freedom of marriage.
David B. writes:
Yes, Professor F. supports bestiality marriage, but not incestuous marriage. My view is that incestuous marriages will eventually happen after homosexual ones are legalized. Liberalism NEVER stops. it just goes on to the next socially destructive cause.
LL writes:
David B.’s scenario of a man marrying his daughter is, sadly, perfectly logical if you extrapolate the nondiscrimination paradigm to its inescapable conclusion. As I remarked to you in an email from last fall regarding Prop. 8, the liberal model that legitimizes gay marriage is bound to do the same not only for polygamy but for incest. At that time I had just viewed a documentary on the topic that focused in part on a German brother and sister who had had a long-term common-law relationship that produced four children. Three had been removed from their home, and they were fighting to keep the fourth on grounds that the state had no cause to bar them from reproducing based on fears of defective offspring (although, in fact, two of the four children did have developmental disabilities of some sort). The fulcrum of their argument was that under existing law nonrelated adults with known risk factors for birth defects, as well as the retarded and other handicapped persons, cannot be prevented from marrying and reproducing; therefore, it is discriminatory to apply this standard only to those in incestuous relationships.
I fear that Mr. Locke will win his bet with you.
Karl D. writes:
Wow. fascinating thread. Taken to its logical conclusion (in the mind of liberals) a straight unmarried male or female could be dragged into court for turning down the advances of a homosexual. Make the homosexual a black Muslim and you have hit the trifecta of Racism, Homophobia and Islamophobia. Granted this all sounds laughable now. But who knows how far down the path of madness we may tread.
Leonard D. writes:
You wrote:
“But if sexual orientation is made a matter of free choice, what happens to the liberal argument that we must tolerate/approve of homosexual behavior and support homosexual rights including homosexual “marriage” because homosexuals have no choice over their sexual orientation?”
It fades away. So what? You pull a ladder up only after you’ve climbed it.
Put in more generous terms: there are plenty of people even now who will make the argument that it shouldn’t matter whether or not homosexuality is innate. What matters is that homosexuals don’t hurt anyone, so their actions should not be criminal. For one example, see libertarian Virginia Postrel’s argument about this, from 10 years ago. I agree with her argument.
But there are also many average Americans who think that the innateness of homosexuality is morally relevant. Most people seem to believe that what is innate should not be a basis of discrimination—no matter how that contradicts their own lived experience including their own actions. (Does anyone not discriminate on the innate in the choice of friends, spouse, or doctor? I hope not.)
The key thing here is what is persuasive to average Americans. Innateness is persuasive, so it is what is used in political contexts. The left, particularly the political left, is certainly not above using anything that works to further their agenda.
Leonard K. writes:
You wrote:
This discussion about the way things keep moving to the left reminds me of Robert Locke’s bet with me that by the year 2020 marriage with a domestic animal will be legal in at least one state of the Union.
Robert Locke was wrong. Why “domestic”? Isn’t it discrimination against wild animals?
LA replies:
He wasn’t taking a side on the issue, he was making a prediction about what would be.
Mark B. writes:
Greetings! Since the Robert Locke bet has resurfaced in the current discussion, I thought I would toss in my thoughts again.
Since liberalism recognizes society and only society as the source of values, there really is no reason for liberals to consider marriage as anything but a legal agreement conferring entitlements to government defined benefits. Homosexual, incestual, polygamous or bestial marriages do not exhaust the amazing power of contracting. What limit to absurdity exists? Want to marry your house so that you can collect social security survivor benefits if it burns down? Stripping out of the meaning of marriage God’s blessing on a natural potentially reproductive pairing transforms the word into something comparable to a mechanics lien.
LA replies:
Well, that’s why I always put homosexual “marriage” in scare quotes. The fundamental issue on our side is not rights, who should have rights, the pros and cons of allowing homosexual “marriage,” but the meaning of marriage, as the union of a man and a woman. Once conservatives give up the position that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, period, the game is lost, and the liberals have an open field.
April 25
Miller Scott writes:
I apologize I did not respond to this in a timely manner. I did follow, however, the thread and the responses to your reply below. This statement particularly I could hear coming from the lips of the Left:
“We’re a country of freedom. In America all people must be free to love and marry whom they want.” [LA replies: It’s not clear from your comment, but I assume you understand that “We’re a country of freedom” was my take-off on what the mainstream conservatives would say as they move left on homosexual rights.]
I wonder if Mr. Hechtmann weighed in on the question you posed to him, and more specifically, if he believes that (a) homophobic/racial dating preferences are wrong, and (b) if so, if he himself is guilty of harboring this kind of latent homophobia/racism? [LA replies: Latent homophobia! A new liberal crime. This points to yet another next stage of liberalism, where it won’t be enough to detect within yourself invidious stereotypes and prejudices against racial and sexual minorities as you go about your daily life and to keep replacing them with correct thoughts; no, you must not have any stereotypes or prejudices to correct.]
Finally, on a more personal note, I’d just like to thank you for the great work you do. It wasn’t very long ago at all that I myself had liberal views on a lot of these issues, which made it hard to take the traditional Christian stance on sexual morality very seriously. Your website, and its first-rate defense of Christian teachings has done a great deal to strengthen my confidence and my faith. Thank you.
LA replies:
Ken Hechtman did reply to a multi-part query directed to him in a related thread, but I don’t think he answered the question you are asking.
Thank you very much. I am happy and moved that VFR has been helpful to you in this way.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 22, 2009 10:00 AM | Send