Nope, still a bigot

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council takes a break from denying what scientists say about climate change in order to deny what scientists say about human sexuality. And what humans say about human sexuality:

Homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in homosexual behavior or not to participate.

The widespread, vocal insistence of this "Just say no" theory of sexual orientation is part of why I find this chemistry.com ad so delightful:

The ad opens with a guy checking out a copy of Playboy. He ponders it a bit before concluding, somewhat cheerfully, "Nope. Still gay."

The joke works because, at first, we don't know the guy is gay. This is, to Perkins, why it's "outrageous" for homosexuals to complain about discrimination -- because if they "choose" to, they can pass themselves off as straight. If they're really good at it, they can even get elected to office as Republicans. African Americans don't have that option, of course, which is, Perkins says, the difference between the discrimination faced by homosexuals and that faced by African Americans:

Homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African American cannot choose to participate in having black skin; they are born with it. [The] suggestion that homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both genders be present.

I suppose this is technically true -- homosexuals do have the right to marry, just not the right to marry someone they actually love. But what's love got to do with it?

It's a bit strange to hear this from someone in Perkins' position. He's the head of an allegedly pro-marriage, pro-family lobbying firm, but here he is calling for more loveless marriages. Let a million Ted Haggards bloom!

Perkins is preaching the gospel according to Burton Quim.

I can't help but wonder if he really believes this, if he really believes that sexual orientation is a "choice." How often, I wonder, does Perkins find himself confronted by this choice? I hope, for Mrs. Perkins' sake, that it is not too often, because I would not wish for her -- or even for him -- the kind of loveless, white-knuckled sham he is advocating for others.

Comments

[JS Bangs]

I hate to rain on your parade, but, um, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual orientation likely is not, but a gay-from-birth guy can always choose to abstain.

But what's love got to do with it?

In most human cultures, not much. For what it's worth, I think that linking marriage to (romantic) love in our culture was a mistake.

[damnedyankee]

In the immortal words of Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it?

Certainly a zealot like Perkins wouldn't let a little thing like real, actual love stand in the way of his vision of man/woman couples promenading down the sidewalk with their 2.4 kids, all scrubbed, pressed, and flossed, on their way to Church on Sunday morning.* Love takes a backseat to propriety. At least publically.

You have to wonder what these guys are like when the cameras are shut off. Surely this sort of obsession with homosexuality isn't normal.

[damnedyankee]

Curses! JS beat me to the quote!

(shakes fist in ineffectual and slightly pathetic manner)

[damnedyankee]

For what it's worth, I think that linking marriage to (romantic) love in our culture was a mistake.

Because arranged marriages work out sooooo well! Gosh, hook me up with a near-total stranger with whom I may or may not have a thing in common! Woo! Party!

[Jeff]

Because arranged marriages work out sooooo well!

From what I've read, the divorse rates for arranged marriages are actually lower than non-arranged. Some of that may e due to traditional disdain for divorse, but I don't think it all is.

Fiddler on the Roof to the contrary.

[Bugmaster]

For what it's worth, one of my former coworkers was an Indian woman (Indian Indian, not American Indian), who was in an arranged marriage and loving every minute of it. She couldn't understand why we Westerners would be willing to miss out on that. I'm not saying this situation is typical or even likely, but, at the very least, happiness in an arranged marriage is possible.

[Jeff]

re Chemistry.com:

The inventor/owner of e-Harmony has stated that there are certain relationships, homosexual among them, where he doesn't have the research to show the strong indicators for compatability. So this guy would be rejected.

But the rest of the ads remind me of the sketches from "Mad TV" called "Lowered Expectations". Folks who wouldn't make it at a "regular" dating service come to "Lowered Expectations" to find someone equally off-putting. So too with Chemistry.com.

[JS Bangs]

I've only ever known one person who had an arranged marriage (she was an exchange student from India), and she was adamant about keeping it. She insisted, loudly, and to anyone who would listen, that "love marriages" do not work. I don't think that the failure rate of arranged marriages is any higher than that of Western marriages. They simply require a different, and IMHO more realistic, set of expectations.

(This despite the fact that I'm in a perfectly happy love marriage.)

[Jesurgislac]

JS Bangs: I hate to rain on your parade, but, um, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual orientation likely is not, but a gay-from-birth guy can always choose to abstain.

Let me know how that lifelong celibacy thing is going for you.

For what it's worth, I think that linking marriage to (romantic) love in our culture was a mistake.

So move to Massachusetts, pick someone of the same gender who agrees with you that marriage shouldn't be linked to romantic love, and get married to them. No one's stopping you. Stand up for your principles! Marry someone with whom you do not want to have sex and for whom you will never feel romantic love!

[treeandleafster]

Maybe the problem is that traditional Christian teaching on teh gay is based on a pre-modern understanding of sexuality - i.e., the concept of sexual orientation wasn't recognised. There were just different sexual acts, some of which were morally acceptable (i.e. procreation with your spouse), and then, on a sliding scale, became increasingly sinful. It was also suggested by some mediaevals that certain relatively minor sexual sins would be more likely to commit 'greater' sins - so a hardened womaniser would be more rather than less likely to have it off with another man.

Of course, the modern model of a more or less absolute sexual orientation doesn't work perfectly either, because very few people are 100% gay or straight - but most people fall clearly into one or another group. It's quite difficult to discuss sexual behaviour sensibly, though, when the people involved in the discussion are operating with incompatible assumptions about the phenomenon.

[Jesurgislac]

(This despite the fact that I'm in a perfectly happy love marriage.)

I posted my :50 comment before I read your :48 comment, or I'd have added in that you need to get divorced before you move to Massachussets in order to stand up for your principles.

[MichaelR]

I hate to rain on your parade, but, um, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual orientation likely is not, but a gay-from-birth guy can always choose to abstain.

I've never really understood how "remain lonely and frustrated your whole life" is supposed be a reasonable solution.

[Bugmaster]

I think that linking the ritual of marriage to purely administrative features such as tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc., was the mistake, not linking marriage to love. Love and taxes don't mix all that well.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: For what it's worth, one of my former coworkers was an Indian woman (Indian Indian, not American Indian), who was in an arranged marriage and loving every minute of it. She couldn't understand why we Westerners would be willing to miss out on that. I'm not saying this situation is typical or even likely, but, at the very least, happiness in an arranged marriage is possible.

Sure. Unless one of you is gay. In which case, the marriage is going to be miserable.

With a cultural expectation that marriage is arranged for you by people who care about you and want to find a good person with whom you're likely to find lifelong happiness, and given parents who live up to those ideals and do look for someone they believe will be compatible, then arranged marriages can be happy.

The low divorce rate, however, likely comes from arranged marriages also tending to be in cultures where women find it legally difficult to initiate divorce and women tend not to be economically independent of their husbands/their birth families. All such cultures tend to have low divorce rates. It says nothing for how happy such marriages are: just that the unhappy wives tend to find it difficult to get out, and if the husband's unhappy, he usually has other outlets.

[Jesurgislac]

I think that linking the ritual of marriage to purely administrative features such as tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc., was the mistake, not linking marriage to love. Love and taxes don't mix all that well.

It shows more love, you think, if a spouse has to sell the marital home in order to pay the taxes due on it when their spouse dies?

Or it shows more love, you think, if a deathly-ill person's parents get to deny their child's spouse the right to see their dying spouse in hospital?

[damnedyankee]

Uh-huh. Usually these arranged marriages come across more as a patriarchal transfer of property, that property usually being the bride.

Pass.

And if you ever met my family, you'd understand why I'd be somewhat less than enthusiastic about the idea of them horse-trading my future away to some stranger.

[JS Bangs]

I agree with Bugmaster. I would just as soon abolish civil marriage, or replace it with a legal partnership program that any two people can get that affords most of the same legal benefits as marriage. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Part of the problem is that the current system doesn't distinguish clearly between the church and state senses of the word "marriage". Religious marriage is supposed to imply civil marriage and vice versa. So when talk of same-sex marriage comes up, religious people get rightly angry at the threat of the government redefining their religious institution, and nonreligious people get rightly angry at the enforcement of a religious rule in state law. Separate the senses of the word "marriage" and there is no more problem.

[Jesurgislac]

JS Bangs: I would just as soon abolish civil marriage, or replace it with a legal partnership program that any two people can get that affords most of the same legal benefits as marriage. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

No. Why abolish civil marriage? What's your freak-out about the word "marriage" being applied to a legal partnership program that any two people can get that provides, uh, the same legal benefits as marriage?

Part of the problem is that the current system doesn't distinguish clearly between the church and state senses of the word "marriage".

Of course it does. That's just silly. Anyone can, if they find a religious person willing to do it, stand up with someone (or multiple someones) and have a religious marriage. That religious marriage will give them none of the legal benefits, rights, and responsibilities of marriage: those are clearly defined and distinguished and only provided to couples who have what the state defines as marriage.

So when talk of same-sex marriage comes up, religious people get rightly angry at the threat of the government redefining their religious institution, and nonreligious people get rightly angry at the enforcement of a religious rule in state law. Separate the senses of the word "marriage" and there is no more problem.

Okay. Let's allow religious people to have what they can call a "blessing" or a "ceremony" or whatever they like, and keep the word marriage for the legal meaning, clearly defined.

[Mike Timonin]

I'm inclined to agree with bugmaster and JS Bangs - the government should not be in the marriage business. Establish a "civil union" type thing that any two (or more) people can enter into for tax and etc purposes. Agree that "marriage" is something that a church does, with only symbolic recognition. You can get married by a priest, but unless you file civil union papers, it has no effect on your taxes, visitation rights, etc.

[Nick Lamb]

I suspect that in principle I more or less agree with Fred here, and that I just have a problem with the argument he's making. That said, I do clearly have a problem.

Tony Perkins doesn't say that "orientation" is a choice, he says behaviour is a choice.

Humans are sexually attracted to lots of things. Is that itself OK? I think ethically the answer ought to be yes, but society gives a very definite thumbs down to some attractions. The white girl who expresses interest in a black work colleague may discover that some of the other workers, regardless of skin colour, can't imagine such a thing. The same for a young man discussing a much older women with his friends. If you tell a neighbour that you found yourself unaccountably sexually attracted to their eight year old daughter, don't expect a sympathetic smile. Indeed, don't tell them about the odd dreams you've been having about their pet dog either.

By my argument, it's acting on the attraction that might be a problem ethically. So it's fair in that context for Tony to argue that some types of sexual behaviour (not orientation) are choices that aren't acceptable, and that we should discourage them, or even forbid them.

But, I said I more or less agree with Fred, didn't I? Well, I think it makes sense to prohibit behaviour where informed consent is impossible or hopelessly unlikely, which would include the eight year old and the dog. But most adult gay relationships are consensual, just like most adult straight relationships, so I don't get to Tony's conclusion when I start from his premise.

Yes, it's probably true that most of the people making this argument are bigots. But that's no kind of answer to the argument itself, and I thought Slacktivist was supposed to be above ad hominem and other fallacies. There is a legitimate argument made that homosexual behaviour, just like voting Republican, is a choice rather than a mere accident of fate, even if it's a choice that some people aren't comfortable without. We need a better argument against discrimination than a (false) equivalence between skin colour and choice of sexual partners.

I mentioned voting for a reason. Presumably in the US it's illegal to discriminate based on who someone votes for?

[Jesurgislac]

Mike: the government should not be in the marriage business. Establish a "civil union" type thing that any two (or more) people can enter into for tax and etc purposes.

We've already got that; it's called marriage. Why change it now?

Nick: There is a legitimate argument made that homosexual behaviour, just like voting Republican, is a choice rather than a mere accident of fate, even if it's a choice that some people aren't comfortable without.

And how is that lifelong celibacy thing working out for you?

[damnedyankee]

If it looks like a bigot, walks like a bigot, and quacks like a bigot, then it's Tony Perkins.

Yes, let us choose to deny our sexuality and then collapse into emotional ruin when (not if) we lapse in our denial and act according to our natures, though we've not harmed a soul in the doing.

Just like Tony (and by extension, Jesus) wants.

Quack, quack.

[X]

Perkins has a kinda, sorta, if-you-look-at-it-sideways kernel of truth in that homosexuality is, unlike race, what Goffman calls a "concealable stigma". It is something that people cannot tell immediately just from looking at you, and presumably this makes it slightly easier to avoid acts of prejudice.

The point where he goes ludicrously, off-the-rails, out-of-his-gourd wrong is when he says "so hey, no problem." Jewishness is in many places a concealable stigma too, and look how well it worked out for them. Or actually just look at the enormous roll of beaten up and murdered gay people.

[Bugmaster]

Poultry aside, recall that, for many Christians, homosexuality is a deadly sin, just like murder or adultery or worshipping anything other than Jesus. As such, it is highly immoral and should be stopped whenever possible. When two homosexuals are married, it does more than damn their own souls; it actively profanes the divine bond of marriage, thus weakening all marriages everywhere simultaneously.

Thus, any arguments about adult consent, lifelong frustration, etc., aren't going to make sense to these sorts of Christians. Homosexuality is a sin, period, just as murder is a sin, period. It's more important than what the individual wants or does not want; it's all about what Jesus wants.

[JS Bangs]

And how is that lifelong celibacy thing working out for you?

You keep saying this as if it's self-evidently impossible, or a fate too horrible to contemplate. You are aware that celibacy is a common spiritual discipline in a wide variety of religions? I once heard about this religion that requires lifelong celibacy of all of its clergy. Strange but true!

[bulbul]

recall that, for many Christians, homosexuality is a deadly sin
And why is it so?

it's all about what Jesus wants
Kewl. Show me where Jesus said "fuck all the gays" or something along those lines.

[X]

The phrase that always makes me wince is "defense of marriage." Is marriage a club that draws its exclusivity from who else is also a member? Am I to understand that if the 2 guys next door stand in front of a designated official and say "I do," then all of a sudden the property value on MY marriage goes down? Because, y'know, if this is the case, there are some straight couples I can think of that need turfing out first, before we ever get to worrying about gays.

[bulbul]

JS,

You keep saying this as if it's self-evidently impossible, or a fate too horrible to contemplate.
No, she isn't. Seriously, do you people need a reading comprehension class or something?

I once heard about this religion that requires lifelong celibacy of all of its clergy.
OK, that's a "yes" for the reading comprehension class and a "yes" for "How to avoid shitty comparisions" class.

[X]

JS,
It's one thing to choose, as a sign of devotion to forgo sex your whole life. It's a far less impressive sacrifice to chose it for someone else.

Bugs:
Great point. And if these good Christians want to not marry others of their same gender then I am delighted to support their religious freedom not to do so.

[JS Bangs]

bulbul, I think you're right. I have no idea what the intent of Jesurgislac's rhetorical(?) question is, if it's not intended to mock the idea that some people could or should be celibate.

[X]

JS: You keep saying this as if it's self-evidently impossible, or a fate too horrible to contemplate.
bulbul: No, she isn't. Seriously, do you people need a reading comprehension class or something?

Actually she is, I think. Her point is very much that railroading people into a life of celibacy is a pretty shitty thing to do. And it is. Where is your problem with this, Bulbul?

[cjmr's husband]

it's all about what Jesus wants

No, it's all about what some uneducated self-proclaimed pastor wants you to think Jesus wants.

/just finished Prothero's book. Which complains at length about uneducated pastors. Now going to read about Doctor Who.

[bulbul]

X,
Her point is very much that railroading people into a life of celibacy is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Of course it is. The way I see it she also pointed out that celibacy is something JS probably wouldn't want to wish on him(?)self, it is therefore hypocritical (aka bad, evil, non-christian whatever) to impose it on others. But she is certainly not saying that celibacy is "self-evidently impossible" or "a fate too horrible to contemplate."
I happen to agree with Jesu most of the time and this is one of the times. So the only problem I have is the one I always have - the obvious lack of reading comprehension on someone's part. This time, it was JS.

[X]

Bulbul,
Ah. I read Jesu the same way as you, but read JS's comments as hyperbole to the effect that "jeez, it's not SO bad." As such it didn't seem like a problem of reading skills, so much as lack of empathy, hypocrisy, and all the other things Jesu was insinuating.

I tend to find myself with very mixed reactions to Jesu. She's super smart and articulate, generally on the side of the angels, but has some pretty intense ideological blinkers other times.

[Nick Lamb]

Jesurgislac seems to be asking a lot of people how celibacy is working out for them. It seems to me that's about as useful as the inevitable "Don't come crying to me when people break into your home and rape you" in a gun control discussion. Still, if someone's stupid enough to ask a rhetorical question that leaves open a slam dunk, don't let me be the one to disappoint.

Jesurgislac, I've been intentionally celibate for my entire adult life. It's not difficult, easier than dieting or sorting out my taxes. No-one seems to be even a tiny bit bothered about it, although it can take some persuading to get health professionals to understand that this is a deliberate and lifelong choice when you're under 40. You'd be surprised how rarely it comes up though. A close friend actually told me recently that someone had asked if I was gay and she'd realised she didn't know the answer.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: Poultry aside, recall that, for many Christians, homosexuality is a deadly sin, just like murder or adultery or worshipping anything other than Jesus. As such, it is highly immoral and should be stopped whenever possible.

We've been through this. So is eating at McDonalds a deadly sin. Let me know next time you see Christians picketing your McDonalds!

JS Bangs: You keep saying this as if it's self-evidently impossible, or a fate too horrible to contemplate.

No, I keep saying this because if you're saying that lifelong celibacy is "just a choice", you are either a lifelong celibate who finds it's worked out really well for you and wasn't in the least difficult, or you are a hypocrite.

You are aware that celibacy is a common spiritual discipline in a wide variety of religions?

And is it one you practice, day in, day out? Or are you just recommending to others what you are unwilling to do yourself?

I once heard about this religion that requires lifelong celibacy of all of its clergy. Strange but true!

You are aware how many of those clergy have given it up, either officially or unofficially? Not strange, but true!

[Joshua]

I once heard about this religion that requires lifelong celibacy of all of its clergy. Strange but true!

Yeah, and that works out so well.

[Jesurgislac]

Nick: Jesurgislac, I've been intentionally celibate for my entire adult life. It's not difficult, easier than dieting or sorting out my taxes. No-one seems to be even a tiny bit bothered about it, although it can take some persuading to get health professionals to understand that this is a deliberate and lifelong choice when you're under 40. You'd be surprised how rarely it comes up though.

I'm not in the least surprised how rarely it comes up. But I will acquit you of being a hypocrite. I do suggest, though, that you have some empathy that most people find refraining from having partner sex a tad more difficult, and furthermore, that - like dieting - there's no good reason why anyone should put themselves through that unless they actually want to.

(Doing your taxes is compulsory, though. Like death.)

[X]

Nick, I would never deign to speak for Jesu, but if you want to talk about rhetoric screaming for a reply, let me just say this: "Aren't you just glad that you got to choose to be celibate, without anyone telling you that you must or must not be?"
And if by some strange miracle, your answer to that is "no, I'm fine with others dictating my sexual behavior", then I'd like to say, "hello, welcome to the wild and wonderful world of FREEDOM, where we don't MAKE people do stuff without a pretty damn good reason. Just because you don't value yours doesn't mean others don't value ours."

[Jesurgislac]

I once heard about this religion that requires lifelong celibacy of all of its clergy. Strange but true!

Except when they don't.

[X]

Jesu,

I'm surprised you're missing the heart of this debate, it's not like you. This doesn't revolve on whether any particular religious order has or has not demanded celibacy from any of its adherents, or even whether a life of celibacy is hard or not. I personally would find it very easy to only ever speak English for the whole rest of my life, but it wouldn't be very just for me to impose this behaviour on everyone else.

[Bugmaster]

Am I to understand that if the 2 guys next door stand in front of a designated official and say "I do," then all of a sudden the property value on MY marriage goes down?

Yes. Marriage is a sacred bond passed down from God; a sort of continuous miracle. By profaning it, you weaken it. At some point, the miracle may stop working altogether. Repent ! Before it's too late !

Kewl. Show me where Jesus said "fuck all the gays" or something along those lines.

I don't think it matters much -- at least, not for the purposes of this discussion -- what the Bible says. What matters is what people believe the Bible says. For example, the Bible doesn't mention Rapture anywhere, but that doesn't stop millions of people from believing in it.

[Bre]

I don't think we should be too quick to cede Perkins' main point.

Heterosexual behavior is not a choice. As a straight guy, heterosexuality has affected my relationships with men and women, my schooling, my job, my hobbies. It permeates every part of my life. It's who I am. Luckily, society thinks that is normal.

If I'm celibate, it's as a straight guy who is not getting any.

[Lauren]

Religion is a choice too, thanks so much for playing. As in, Tony Perkins can choose to believe homosexual acts are sinful, and I can choose to believe that homosexual acts are NOT sinful.

I really think we ought to start calling the "Defense of Marriage" Act the "Homosexual Promiscuity" Act.

[JS Bangs]

Actually, I don't consider celibacy such a bad deal. I managed it from the age of 13 to 22, after all. If my wife were to die, I would seriously consider a monastic vocation. A better example than me, though, is Eve Tushnet, lesbian-turned-celibate-Catholic.

That's neither here nor there, though. I'm not telling Jesurgislac to be celibate, since she's not (AFAIK) a part of my church, nor am I her spiritual director. I've stated that I'm in favor of some sort of civil marriage that's open to everyone, and I don't have much interest in what churches outside of my own decide to bless. I don't see how this amounts to imposing celibacy on anyone.

[85% Duane]

I happen to agree with Jesu most of the time and this is one of the times.

Me too, but I just found out she is an anti-semite AND disagreeable. So obviously, ya know, this changes things.

[M Groesbeck]

I think one of the things about this sort of argument which bugs me the most is that the claim that marriage has been a single, unchanging, continuous and universal institution mostly goes unchallenged. True, few cultures have models of marriage which include two people of the same gender. In a somewhat greater number, two members of what we would call the same sex can be married if their genders are different (and not all of these cases are man/woman marriages, as in some cases more than two genders are in play). Even in cultures where marriages follow a "heterosexual man/woman" model, the number of men and women involved is not constant -- polygyny is more common than polyandry, but both have long histories.

Even if one is to take "our culture" in the narrowest sense -- that is, defined by government rather than lived culture -- marriage has changed as an institution. Include the governmental and legal history (which, for the U.S., traces back through British law), and you have a continual redefinition of marriage from a property exchange in which a man takes legal control over a woman from her family to a legal arrangement between two consenting adult citizens.

The only constant when it comes to marriage is that it's a formal family-making social and legal institution (though this isn't a perfect definition, as this would seem to include adoption...).

[bulbul]

Me too, but I just found out she is an anti-semite AND disagreeable. So obviously, ya know, this changes things.
So we're not inviting her to our pyjama party Friday night? She was supposed to bring all the ice-cream...

[bulbul]

Actually, I don't consider celibacy such a bad deal. I managed it from the age of 13 to 22, after all.
Hm, is there a difference between being celibate and just not getting any?
If not, there should be.

[Victor]

Two wrongs don't make a right even if one of the wrongs are considered right by many in this twenty-first century but then again who decides what is really wrong and what is right nowadays?

I guess all an ordinary simple person can safely do these days is live and let live and try not to create too many waves. The Judgement Day should most likely be the one to worry about all the so called rights certain human animals believe in. I hear ya! What Judgement Day? (LOL!?)