I just read a few days ago another article by Greta Christina that I couldn’t help but comment on. It’s another one of those essays that eloquently puts into words a lot of meaty argument that I’m generally not good at expressing myself.
I will make the tacit assumption that you, the reader, are familiar with the typical problems associated with this question: Is sexuality innate (genetic) or environmental (pre-natal conditioning / variation in genetic expression during basic development + how the child is raised)?
I liked this article because it elaborates some basic points that I’ve agreed with for a while now:
The origins of sexuality is an interesting scientific question.
The answer(s) to this question are completely irrelevant to any discussion regarding equality of rights / civil status of queers in society.
Why do these two statements have nothing to do with each other though? Well, because we’re human. And we live in a secular society. It’s really a simple matter of human rights.
However, others beg to differ, and this is where the rub comes in. The reason others differ in this respect is because they are not a-ok with the idea of sexuality other than straight-and-narrow-minded. When queerness is viewed as a problem, rather than an incidental characteristic, then it can’t be viewed as a civil rights issue. If it had such a status, it would imply that such a characteristic were tolerated, or even, *gasp*, valued.
I think this is really where the battle lies. Because, after all, finding out that, say, gay parents are more likely to have gay kids, wouldn’t matter – nobody would care. Nonetheless, studies show that kids seem to turn out gay/straight at the same rate regardless of whether they have gay/straight parents. While an interesting fact, this is a non-issue in politics if queerness is acceptable.
It seems that on a baseline, this issue is not really about fighting religious dogma. It is more about easing the sociologically narrow-minded into the idea of queerness, but only queers that marry as virgins and stay together *forever*, just like straight people. We just happen to like the same gender. After that, ease into the idea of plural marriage. Or polyamory, or sex before marriage. Yep, it’s a moral slip-n-slide. It just takes time. I can understand the resistance of the social conservatives – it would mean they’d actually have to change their values! It seems like the word conservative almost universally means holding stoically to a (possibly ancient) arbitrary code of values. Perhaps not so arbitary sometimes.. after all, the Ten commandments *is* the perfect basis for a legal system… it covers all the bases. (*wink*)
Origins of Sexuality & Moral Stances
I just read a few days ago another article by Greta Christina that I couldn’t help but comment on. It’s another one of those essays that eloquently puts into words a lot of meaty argument that I’m generally not good at expressing myself.
Here it is: Born or Learned? Sexuality, Science, and Party Lines
I will make the tacit assumption that you, the reader, are familiar with the typical problems associated with this question: Is sexuality innate (genetic) or environmental (pre-natal conditioning / variation in genetic expression during basic development + how the child is raised)?
I liked this article because it elaborates some basic points that I’ve agreed with for a while now:
Why do these two statements have nothing to do with each other though? Well, because we’re human. And we live in a secular society. It’s really a simple matter of human rights.
However, others beg to differ, and this is where the rub comes in. The reason others differ in this respect is because they are not a-ok with the idea of sexuality other than straight-and-narrow-minded. When queerness is viewed as a problem, rather than an incidental characteristic, then it can’t be viewed as a civil rights issue. If it had such a status, it would imply that such a characteristic were tolerated, or even, *gasp*, valued.
I think this is really where the battle lies. Because, after all, finding out that, say, gay parents are more likely to have gay kids, wouldn’t matter – nobody would care. Nonetheless, studies show that kids seem to turn out gay/straight at the same rate regardless of whether they have gay/straight parents. While an interesting fact, this is a non-issue in politics if queerness is acceptable.
It seems that on a baseline, this issue is not really about fighting religious dogma. It is more about easing the sociologically narrow-minded into the idea of queerness, but only queers that marry as virgins and stay together *forever*, just like straight people. We just happen to like the same gender. After that, ease into the idea of plural marriage. Or polyamory, or sex before marriage. Yep, it’s a moral slip-n-slide. It just takes time. I can understand the resistance of the social conservatives – it would mean they’d actually have to change their values! It seems like the word conservative almost universally means holding stoically to a (possibly ancient) arbitrary code of values. Perhaps not so arbitary sometimes.. after all, the Ten commandments *is* the perfect basis for a legal system… it covers all the bases. (*wink*)
~ by David on 2008 April 24, Thursday.
Posted in blog/internet meme commentary, personal ruminations