It seems true that people have always been gay, but I'm not aware of any society that has recognized that as a good thing that needs to be encouraged and protected until recently. If you look at ideas like evolution and the survival of the fittest, homosexuality does not look like a good think in animals or humans, since it leads to the elimination of the race rather than its improvement.
The best article I have found on how homosexuality might fit with modern scientific theories of evolution and genetics is the following: "New Ideas about the Evolution of Homosexuality." But I don't find even this article convincing from a scientific point of view. Furthermore, it doesn't address the moral and social aspect of homosexuality, i.e., if it is good for society, society should protect and promote it, as society protects and promotes traditional marriage. You would think that anthropologists would have found some tribe in New Guinea or Brazil that does so, or some ancient civilization that did so. On the contrary, homosexuality seems to be almost universally reviled, although all modern and ancient societies seem to be aware that it exists, e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah in Jewish biblical history.
One exception might be ancient Greece, where relations between males were common, but Wikipedia says the most common relationship was between older men and young boys, a relationship that would not be encouraged in present day America. This type of relationship is not uncommon in America today, although it tends not to be discussed in the current gay-loving environment. Furthermore, older male-young boy relationships may be more common among permissive, dominant bisexuals than homosexuals who want to get married. But because it is an unappealing element of homosexuality that does not get discussed, it is hard to know how prevalent it is, and under what circumstances. There is some indication that Bangkok is a favorite travel destination of gay men because of the availability of young boys.
I think at a minimum there should be more discussion of the social implications of encouraging gay marriage.
Legally, the main emphasis has been on the economic consequences of not allowing gay partners to marry. But by making marriage the test for the economic benefits, the law basically says you have to have homosexual sex, because otherwise you would not have to get married. I think a better solution would be to allow a single person to select someone to be his "best friend," who would be entitled to the economic benefits, would be able to visit him the hospital, etc., without declaring that they want to get married so that they can have sex. Up until recently, homosexuals often portrayed themselves as friends, rather than lovers. I would like that to continue to be an option. It's said that today, if you see two people of the same sex living together, they are assumed to be gay and having sex. I think we need to restore the ability of men to be friends with men and women with women. Separating marriage from the economic benefits would help with this.
Of course this highlights the fact that most of the economic benefits were meant to encourage traditional families and the raising of children. Taking children out of the equation is a very big change. There is not much discussion of the fact that traditional marriage is dying out, with more single women having children outside of traditional families, while gay marriage is increasing exponentially.
No comments:
Post a Comment