Jeniffer Roback Morse email newsletter | Jennifer Roback Morse | September 24, 2007
Last week I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego’s name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.
Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.
The advocates of same sex marriage hope that “marriage” will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father’s rights to his child.
In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.
Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.
These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.
1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.
2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.
3. There will no longer be “natural parents,” only “legal parents.” In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from “mother” and “father” to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from “natural mother” and “natural father” to “legal parent A” and “legal parent B.”
4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don’t really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.
Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another’s rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist’s nightmare.
We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom’s house to her mom’s former partner’s house, to her dad’s, to her dad’s former partner’s. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.
I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.
1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.
2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.
Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.
That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Note 100: Do you not think that “doing” and “being” are deeply interwoven? To reduce actions to their mere mechanics is really a materialist tendency, anyhow, isn’t it? Attending a church doesn’t simply consist of driving to a pretty building with lots of incense and nice music. No, one attends because of deep-seated beliefs: they “go” because these beliefs help comprise something they would believe to be part of their essence. They do not arise out of some impulse foreign to their nature.
You write: “I have noticed an quite strong desire in myself to indulge in anger when someone cuts me off in traffic. Why can’t I identify myself with “road rage”?
Well, perhaps you should. This impulse isn’t initiated by some guy down the street. It arises from the depths of your own soul. I’m quite sure you are far more complex than just this one thing (and they include good as well as negative), but it’s part of you nonetheless.
In terms of our relationships, would most of us here not admit that our relationships with those closest to us form a significant part of how we view ourselves?
note 101:
I agree. So, would you say that because my anger (as well as my greed, lust, , and a host of other deep aspects of my being) is real, and a part of me, that is should not be recognized, and justified, by others through the legal system? In a just society, I should be able to express my anger (two consenting adults being involved) through a sort of jousting contest between me and the other driver no? Given this logic, what could NOT be justified by it being a part of my being? (hint: these are all trick questions 😉
Jim, James, and Phil
Please answer this question:
note 103:
Answer: because it’s not between to freely choosing, consenting adults – thus it’s a power play, and inherently harmful.
Well, I would suggest that not all elements of one’s identity or personhood should be permitted within society. Some should always be legally tolerated but never sanctioned, while others should be neither. In determining what those criteria are, we need to weigh the various claims to individual freedom against the claims of society in terms of what will allow it to thrive. Reasonable people will disagree here as we try to form these constructs, and unfortunately, I don’t think there are easy answers. Does the use of alcohol have any real, tangible benefit to society? I would suggest that it probably does not (other than being an occasionally useful sedative at social gatherings). I would not suggest bringing back Prohibition, however, and I would vote against any attempts at doing so … at least now. Perhaps were things to become out of control, I might reconsider. When would that be? When 48.2% of the population struggles with alcohol? 55%? When the number of alcohol-related accidents reaches a certain proportion? I wish I could tell you.
There are many sporting activities that are injurious to life and limb. The goal of boxing is to knock your opponent unconscious (albeit in a controlled setting and for money). What possible benefit to society is there in that? How many former boxers struggle with medical issues due to the injuries they’ve obtained throughout their careers. Should such activities be banned, though? I’m not convinced.
****
In terms of this issue, though, I have been unimpressed with the claims that granting civil benefits to same-gender couples is injurious to society as a whole. I’ve read persuasive arguments as to why it may actually benefit some people.
****
Perhaps you think such reasoning is based on a faulty (materialist) worldview based on my various criteria for determining what the public good is. In that case, then, how does one go about creating legislation around these issues? Do we always find in favor of the moral good? Must we?
I’m not sure if I fell into the trap with these answers. Perhaps.
I’m not sure if I fell into the trap with these answers. Perhaps.
I am afraid you did 🙂 It’s not a harmful trap however. Notice how you see a problem (when you start out saying “I would suggest that not all elements of one’s identity or personhood should be permitted within society…”) and immediately go into reasoning about the specifics, reasoning from an unidentified set of principles. You do this for several sentences making up the first 3 paragraphs.
You seem to be conscious that you have a set of principles, a “transcendent” source of what the ancients would call “The Good”, when you say:
Since you are posting at a site called “OrthodoxyToday”, you would be correct in assuming that Traditional Christians would not really be interested in what your reasoning, your logic from point C to D, to E when assuming point F, etc. The details of, the inner workings of, a non-Orthodox world view would not normally of themselves be all that interesting to an Orthodox person, or be all that helpful – unless we were trying to understand a specific point to point conflict.
When it comes to most issues, like homosexualism, abortion, social policy about this or that, where the disagreement, as well as possible points of agreement lie is in the principals, what you call “various criteria” for determining the public and private Good.
So, what ARE your “various criteria”? What is your philosophy of Man, the Polis, life, the universe, and everything?
Note 107: Even if we agree on what the common good is, Christopher (and I think we will agree on things), I don’t believe that civil legislation must necessarily reflect that. Do you? Scriptures say (as have you) that the poor are “blessed”, and you have even stated that living in poverty should increase, not decrease, one’s sense of ethics when Dean S asserted that poverty might increase the likelihood of despair and depression (leading to crime). If what you said is true, why not help people into the Kingdom by forcing them into poverty through government action? Well, because we value the freedom to not be poor, even if being wealthy means one has a less likely chance of getting into Heaven, yes?
This is why I can never quite figure out the “correct” Orthodox political stance, even if the moral precepts it upholds are clear to me. Yes, I understand that “blessed are the poor”, that lifelong monogamy is a worthy endeavor and that homosexual conduct is contrary to what will ultimately fulfill man. What I do not get is why the Church is completely uninterested in imposing one value through civil means, only semi-interested in enforcing the other and adament that the other must be vigilantly guarded against through every legal opportunity available. Is one type of ethics more or less important than the other?
Note 107:
Again, notice what you did here:
assertion A):
Even if we agree on what the common good is, Christopher (and I think we will agree on things)
assertion B), (with a tie in to assertion A)):
I don’t believe that civil legislation must necessarily reflect that.
assertion C):
Scriptures say (as have you) that the poor are “blessed”
assertion D) (which is not quite how I put or Scripture by the way):
and you have even stated that living in poverty should increase, not decrease, one’s sense of ethics when Dean S asserted that poverty might increase the likelihood of despair and depression (leading to crime).
assertion E & F):
and you have even stated that living in poverty should increase, not decrease, one’s sense of ethics when Dean S asserted that poverty might increase the likelihood of despair and depression (leading to crime).
So we have A through F, after which you say:
This is why I can never quite figure out the “correct” Orthodox political stance
Which I can’t help but be amused at. Don’t take this the wrong way, but what you can’t figure out is your OWN thinking, not Orthodoxy, mine, or anyone else’s thinking. Again, you start down the road of logical assertions without identifying your own principles, but you clearly have some (for example when you say “I don’t believe that civil legislation must necessarily reflect that.”) which you in an almost ad hoc fashion graft onto what you (sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly) perceive to be an Orthodox belief or praxis (for example, assertions E & F).
Unless you understand the ground you stand on, how can you look over at the other guys little island and say anything at all useful about his, since you can’t even measure your own piece of real estate and your standing right on it?
How can anyone respond to a criticism (at least I think it is a criticism) that is an ad hoc collection of assertions from two differing philosophies, when one of the philosophies is “hidden” in the sense that no one has any idea as to your philosophy as to what “the Good” is, what Man is, what his duties are before others and/or his God, how society should be organized to best reflect the Good, etc.
James, at times you sound almost like a crude Rawlsian/Kantian. Other times, you seem to argue for a radical individualism. Other times, the transcendent individual disappears in a flat world of materialism. In this thread, you seem to want to say that the individual is a nietzschean will to power , his being is as you put it: “Do you not think that “doing” and “being” are deeply interwoven?” In other words, your all over the place.
You want to claim Traditional Christianity is internally inconsistent. But before you do that, you have to be consistent yourself – how could you ever recognize consistency unless you have a consistent set of principles?
So, perhaps you could do us a favor, even if it is obvious to you (which I don’t believe it is) and lay it out for us:
What do you believe Man is? What are your “various criteria”?
The male of the human species? 🙂
Kidding aside, I don’t think this is a question about which one can be very specific. I like to think that humans are, among the animals of the earth, the sole species capable of reason and love.
note 109:
I don’t think this is a question about which one can be very specific.
That is an interesting philosophical position, because most philosophies or world views, and certainly all religions, have very specific answers to the question “what is man”. Whenever I talk to a Buddhist, or Jew, or Muslim, I am aware that their religion provides quite specific answers, and of course morality that is concurrent and consistent with their anthropology. When I talk to a Aristotelian, Cartesian, Kantian, or a Marxist, or a materialist (one that is aware of the implications of his own position anyways) they all have very specific answers to “what is man”, and a morality usually only slightly less developed than the religionists.
Of course, there are many many folks who are not really capable of verbalizing their anthropological commitments and beliefs, but even they are usually “consistent” in that they have an instinctive understanding if nothing else, and of course are aware when the meet someone who does not share their views. These folks usually don’t engage in “debates” with others on these matters if they have any shame at all 😉
James, of all the regulars here, seems to be the least aware of his commitments, in that at various times he comes at the question from competing and (usually) conflicting perspectives. This I believe is the source of his confusion. He ends up measuring something outside his world view (in this case Traditional Christianity) using a measuring stick that itself is defective, in that the units of measurement on his yard stick are not consistent.
In your case Phil, to be frank, I think your answer is a cop out. If you did not have very specific ideas about what man is, you certainly could not have specific ideas about the legal/cultural implications of a certain Icon in a Louisiana courthouse. That’s sort of like being an expert in calculus yet claiming you can’t solve a 3rd grade algebra problem…
Tom C asks: “So should we drop societal norms because obviously it is natural for all these guys [mentioned in the example] to think thus. Why should we frustrate their deepest desires?”
For the young men in your example, it’s simply a matter of timing. They can’t have what they want at the moment, but they will eventually have that plus much more — love, marriage, children, the whole package.
For the homosexual it’s not a matter of timing. What is offered to them in this venue is never. What is offered to them is a life of absolute and permanent celibacy. No first kiss, no dating, no romantic holding of hands, no hope of sexual intimacy, no hope of marriage, no hope of children.
To that generous offer, some here would add
1) a Constitutional amendment permanently banning same-sex marriage
2) state laws banning same-sex adoption or fostering
3) state laws criminalizing same-sex sexual activity, in the event the good people of the state in question choose to make that illegal.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I simply do not see a valid comparison between fellows who simply, with hope in their hearts, have to wait a few years before all is theirs, with people who are denied hope, denied all, permitted nothing, now and forever.
If this whole thing of sex is simply a matter controlling urges, why do so few Christians follow St. Paul’s recommendation that they remain unmarried? I mean, if is so simple that every homosexual in the country is expected to be celibate, then why isn’t it just that simple for Christians?
Tom C: “No one has ever explained to me why a desire to do something confers existential status on homosexuals only (it’s who I am).”
I think it’s not an existential status, but an identity. People with similar life experiences form communities; they identify with those communities, with the shared experience.
Tom C: “Why can’t someone who engages in pederasty use the it’s who I am line and get away with it?”
Because the act in question is a predatory act against an immature person who cannot possibly “consent,” in any meaningful sense of the term. It is very damaging to the child. I suppose Hannibal Lecter could make the same argument. It is an unfortunate thing that certain people are predators, and society has to be protected against them.
Michael writes: “Once again we are faced with question those who disagree with Orthodox thought on this blog refuse to answer explicitly: who is man?”
I can’t speak for others, but here’s my take on the question. Orthodoxy has an all-encompassing worldview, with all the parts self-supporting and interlocking. It is a systematic belief, supported by an appeal to authority. It functions, not on the basis of propositional truth (as in fundamentalism) but more on the basis of existential truth. (Although to the extent that the Orthodox position hardens into a dogmatic authoritarianism, it begins to resemble fundamentalism. But this is not, in my reading, a necessary feature of Orthodoxy. In fact, I would say that it is the minority position.)
By contrast, in modernism people rely not on authority but on expert opinion. The conflict between authority and expert opinion is, I think, the basis of many of the disagreements here. These disagreements are often (mis)understood as instances of “materialism” vs. divinity, or science vs. faith.
For those who proceed from a position of authority, expert opinion will always seem vague and wishy-washy. Authority lives in the world of “this is the way it is.” Expert opinion lives in the world of “on the one hand,” and “on the other hand.” The appeal to authority eliminates doubt; expert opinion includes doubt. Authority provides final answers. Expert opinion provides provisional and contingent answers. Authority provides emotionally satisfying answers. Expert opinion provides emotionally unsatisfying answers.
For someone proceeding from a position of authority, the question “what is man” is a simple question calling for a clear and direct answer. For someone operating from a position of expert opinion, the question will never be simple, and the answer will never satisfy the Orthodox believer.
But Orthodox believers are also creatures of modernity. They also, in many areas of life, seek out and trust expert opinion. In other areas, where expert opinion challenges authority, they simply reject expert opinion. When then that happens and they are challenged, they often become emotional and resort to personal attacks and name-calling. We see that here all the time, sometimes on a daily basis. It’s not that Orthodox believers are “bad” or “rude,” but rather it is a manifestation of frustration that the self-supporting and interlocking worldview is being challenged to provide answers that it was never designed to provide.
Are we so sure we know what science teaches about homosexual conduct
Please review this article for a summary of some of the latest research and also a critique of several studies that are uncritically cited in support of the gay agenda.
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/108/1/
Please note that people who considered themselves 100% lesbian–attracted only to women— in one year, later changed that self-description. So much for homosexual “orientation” being fixed.
Befuddled,
I think what you meant to say was that some of the women who considered themselves 100% lesbian changed that self-description in a year.
If you read the study, you’ll find it doesn’t correspond exactly with the way that Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan summarized it. Yes, many of the women changed identities, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate that they changed sexual orientation; it could indicate that they changed what they perceive sexual orientation to be.
For example, at the end of eight years, six of the original 79 respondents labeled themselves “heterosexual.” The greatest shift that the study found was not women who shifted from “lesbian” to “heterosexual,” it was women shifting from “lesbian” and “bisexual” to “unlabeled.”
Certainly, it’s food for thought. But I think it’s a little premature to cite Lisa Diamond’s study as conclusive proof that there isn’t a genetic component to human sexual orientation.
It’s also difficult to extrapolate data from women to men, since sexuality appears to be so different between genders.
But, let’s be honest, Befuddled: why are you bringing up data and studies in the first place? Is your opinion about human sexual orientation actually contingent upon evidence? If enough credible studies contradicted your views on homosexuality, would you change your mind? Or are you simply masquerading as someone who gives a fig about statistical evidence?
And if so, why do you bring it up as if it matters? Isn’t that more than a little dishonest?
(The Diamond study can be found in the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly, June 2005. If you don’t have access to the journal, I can mail you a copy of the article.)
That’s a provocative statement to make, Christopher. Doesn’t it follow from what you’re saying that most philosophies and world views, and certainly most religions, are wrong?
That’s not sour grapes. But if you’re talking about conflicting descriptions of the world, then the more specific they are, the more likely they are to contradict each other. If two worldviews contradict about something, it stands to reason that at least one of them is wrong.
Having talked to Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, I can tell you confidently that some of their world views contradict each other. At least some of them, then, are wrong about some very important matters. This is not news to you. As an Orthodox Christian, you have obviously decided that the Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish world views are incorrect when it comes to key elements of their beliefs. If you believed that Muslims were absolutely correct in their beliefs, you would either be a Muslim, or a relativist: in either case, you wouldn’t be an Orthodox Christian.
I’m familiar with people who believe that it is better to adhere to an existing set of beliefs that may be wholly wrong than it is to express uncertainty about the nature of the universe, but I’m not sure I agree with that.
I can state with certainty that I believe man is an animal capable of reason and love, and this makes her unique among the animals of the earth. If I learned that other animals shared these qualities, I might not consider them “men,” but I might extend similar respect to them. As it is, I don’t eat dolphin, just in case.
Perhaps you could provide your personal answer to the question “Who is a man?” With a template, the rest of us might be able to provide a better response.
Phil writes: “For example, at the end of eight years, six of the original 79 respondents labeled themselves “heterosexual.” The greatest shift that the study found was not women who shifted from “lesbian” to “heterosexual,” it was women shifting from “lesbian” and “bisexual” to “unlabeled.””
Also, 12 percent of the sample participants could not be located after 8 years. So with fairly small percentage changes, it’s hard to know what those mean with a significant percentage missing.
Phil: “But, let’s be honest, Befuddled: why are you bringing up data and studies in the first place?”
Yeah, after over 100 posts with the home team virtually indifferent to research, all of a sudden — poof! — research appears. But wait — isn’t research just “materialism?”
Phil: “I’m familiar with people who believe that it is better to adhere to an existing set of beliefs that may be wholly wrong than it is to express uncertainty about the nature of the universe, but I’m not sure I agree with that.”
Also, it’s part of the nature of religions and ideologies to provide comprehensive worldviews. The Orthodox worldview has been in development and discussion for 2,000 years. Someone approaching issues outside of a formal religion or ideology is simply not going to be carrying a fully developed, comprehensive worldview in his back pocket. If challenged to produce my theory of life, the universe, and everything, well, I don’t have one. Why would I? Give me a couple thousand years and I’ll come up with one.
Note 115. Jim writes:
Jim, please. Your “research” is hardly conclusive (it can’t and won’t be for at least a generation), cannot function predictively (sociological research is correlational only), and highly susceptible to ideological and political bias.
Here is some contrary data about the nature of homosexuality:
Archives of General Psychiatry Article Asks, Could Homosexuality be a “Developmental Error”?.
Befuddles, there are many more stories of people who have found reparative therapy to be not only ineffective but on occasions even traumatic. You might find this former fundamentalist’s story interesting.
note 114:
That’s a provocative statement to make
That’s a strange thing to day Phil. Most people would use the word “mundane” to describe what I said, sort of like saying “the sky is blue”. Yes, most religions and philosophies have many particular and coherent things to say about “what is man”. They would have to, because so much rests on your anthropology.
Doesn’t it follow from what you’re saying that most philosophies and world views, and certainly most religions, are wrong?
Yep, to a greater or lesser extent (most, as St. Paul noted in his own way, have something of truth “written on the heart”). Again, a mundane observation. Most philosophies, somewhere, have “differences that go all the way down” as C.S. Lewis put it.
I’m familiar with people who believe that it is better to adhere to an existing set of beliefs that may be wholly wrong than it is to express uncertainty about the nature of the universe, but I’m not sure I agree with that.
This is a species often reported in the wild, but when actually searched for in a systematic way, rarely seen (maybe even as rare as BigFoot). To modernists of a certain stripe (Jim is a good example, as well as Carl Sagan) it is part of their internal narrative used to explain why others don’t think like they do.
I can state with certainty that I believe man is an animal capable of reason and love, and this makes her unique among the animals of the earth. If I learned that other animals shared these qualities, I might not consider them “men,” but I might extend similar respect to them. As it is, I don’t eat dolphin, just in case.
A list of qualities is a start, but you will have to formulate how they interact (a hierarchy if it is part of your philosophy), what is essential and what is secondary, etc. From there, any moral proposition (say about abortion, or some common legal question) will flow quite “naturally”
Perhaps you could provide your personal answer to the question “Who is a man?” With a template, the rest of us might be able to provide a better response.
Nope, not going to do the work for you. YOU are the non-Christian coming to an explicitly Christian site, “debating” with Christians whose template is out there for all to see and understand with just a little effort. YOUR job is to present a consistent and thought out counter-philosophy (something other than unexamined assumptions) – have something to say and contribute besides being a Troll.
Normally, you do ok (it’s the other regulars who are sorely lacking in this regard)…
If challenged to produce my theory of life, the universe, and everything, well, I don’t have one.
Liar. You’re dimwitted, but not THAT dimwitted. You Troll here all the time – THAT requires all sorts of commitments on life, the universe, and everything.
P.S. Hint: lately, you have been channeling Carl Sagan. Now go get one of your prophets books and see if you can’t come up with a paragraph or two on life, the universe, and everything…
#111
Yes, perhaps you are missing something. The question is why the desire to be wildly promiscuous cannot be thought of as an identity, then encouraged, then celebrated, and then protected by law. After all, it’s only ancient religious prejudice that discourages this behavior. Plus, all studies have shown that wildly promiscuous men are no different than the general population. In fact, it is often correlated with highly successful people – two presidents of the US in recent memory and scores of actors, CEOs, etc.
If you come up with a coherent answer let me know.
Robert Spitzer is the psychiatrist who was instumental in getting the APA to de-classify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973. He later did a study that showed therapy could be effective in changing homosexual to heterosexual identity. One of the reasons he speculated about for the low success rate of these therapies is that virtually no one in the mental health field will do it. To offer such services makes one the target of protests and intimidation. Also, studies are hard to do on the topic because most people who have made the change are rather embarrassed about it and don’t want it rehearsed or widely known.
His efforts led to the same sort of political intimidation that characterizes global warming research. At first no one would publish the paper. He was routinely denounced by various organizations. When a journal finally published his work, the editor resigned.
If you Google Spitzer, which I’m sure the partisans here already have, you will see that the “debunking” web sites loved by the left have sprung up to smear him.
I have no doubt the “research” in this area is characterized by the same group think and political indoctrination we see in other politicized fields.
Tom C: Why don’t you listen to Robert Spitzer’s words directly and tell me what you think.
Oops, it appears I put in a bad link. Here it is. It is an interview with Robert Spitzer where he clarifies the results of the study he refers to. He also states that he believes there has been a deliberate effort on the part of some “pro-family” groups in presenting misleading conclusions about his studies.
Christopher asks: “What is man”
Well, I’m going to be overly simplistic simply due to time constraints, but here goes (keep in mind that I live as if this were true, although I may not always feel it to be true):
-A divine transcendant being created and cares for the world
-He created man with the ability to freely choose to respond back to Him and to share in this manner of being by caring for the rest of creation in a similar manner as He does
-Though much of humanity instinctly admires the good, it often finds itself incapable of doing it or, at the very least, finds doing it to be difficult and laborious
-The surrendering of this sense of “self” can become more natural and more instinctual through lifelong and deliberate choice
-The only true and lasting happiness that can exist is in surrendering to the divine will
–Thus, despite his imperfections, man is still a reflection of the divine image that brought the universe into existence.
This probably sounds too “New Agey” to you, but there’s a Christian ethos that underlies it. I have a hard time imagining a Deity who must be placated by killing animals on an altar or who requires spilled blood in order to tame His never-ending wrath. I also have a hard time imagining a Being who requires an endless repetition of prayers or who is picky in terms of what type of incense is burned at His altar. These all sound too much like the projections of an unenlightened mind to me.
As they say, men often make God in their own image.
#122 James K
I can’t watch you-tube at work.
It does not surprise me that some groups would exaggerate his findings. Do you feel that I mis-represented anything?
Here is some more relevant information:
So, how easy is it to do research on a topic like this when you will end up concerned for the well-being of your family and be attacked by your professional colleagues in this manner?
Tom C writes: “Yes, perhaps you are missing something. The question is why the desire to be wildly promiscuous cannot be thought of as an identity,” & etc.
The two main issues being discussed so far are same-sex parenting and coupling. If anything these are things that are inconsistent with a promiscuous lifestyle.
But I really would like to get back to another issue I raised earlier. As far as I know, the only option that the Orthodox would offer to the homosexual is total, life-long celibacy. I’ve never heard any other recommendation.
Question: is that a reasonable expectation? Perhaps so. Perhaps there are other examples of large-scale, life-long celibacy right in our midst to which we could look.
The most obvious place to look for that is in the Christian community. The Apostle Paul specifically recommends that Christians not marry. His position is that it is not wrong to marry, but the better path is not to marry. There is a spiritual reason for this:
There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
For Paul, the “bottom line” is all about believers being able to “attend upon the Lord without distraction.”
In addition to this, there is the example of Jesus himself, who the Gospel records was unmarried. Jesus himself stressed the importance of the spiritual life over family:
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Presumably one example of “leaving wife or children” would be living a celibate life, that would be rewarded “manifold more” throughout eternity.
So Christians have a tremendous incentive, really, an eternal incentive, to remain celibate. But in my observation and experience, extremely few Christians follow that path. In fact, of the many Christians I have known, I can’t think of a single one who willingly did, though there are a handful who, regretfully, ended up “disappointed in love.”
So I look for this huge number of Christians who have chosen the higher path of lifelong celibacy . . . but I can’t find them.
This makes me question how reasonable it is to expect homosexuals to live lives of total celibacy, I mean, if the Christians won’t do it, why should anyone expect homosexuals to do it?
Regarding Note 124, Some of the most intolerant, biased, bigoted and hypocritical individuals in our society are the same ones that on Monday claim that every point of view, no matter how outrageous and wrong it is should and must be heard (even embraced, subsidized by gov’t programs, and added to curriculums and taught in schools and universities). Then on Tuesday those very same individuals turn around and viciously and savagely attack, demonize and attempt to silence anyone who dares to disagree with their ideologies and dogmas. Often even a minute departure from the “party line” will not be tolerated, regardless of the amount of common sense, logic, and empirical data used to support it. The totalitarian impulses and tactics of the radical left is truly the epitome of hypocrisy.
Note 125. Jim writes:
The exegesis is flawed (the primary social unit is the family — Adam and Eve; Orthodox anthropology values family and celibacy alike, different roads but the same goal), but it still has no bearing on novel ideas like homosexual marriage and child-rearing.
As for homosexual celibacy, it falls under the moral stricture that sex outside of marriage is forbidden — clearly disregarded in our society but once held (even as it was difficult for some to practice) as an ideal. It’s a wise prohibition both in terms of the health of the soul and the body, as the STD epidemic proves.
The normalizing of homosexuality could not take place apart from a breakdown in heterosexual morality. That normalization is simply a deeper manifestation of the same breakdown. Parentless children, abortion, STD epidemics, etc. is the fruit of it all. The children pay the price for the irresponsibility of adults.
Note 128, JimH, why does society have a duty to solve the homosexual’s dilemna
Even if one were to deal with this issue as a totally secular issue; society does not have a duty to solve the dilemna of those who prefer, for whatever reason, to engage in homosexual conduct rather than to remain celibate or to marry.
Society is charged with making the best policy for society as a whole, it is not charged with coming up with a plan producing happiness for every citizen on their own preferred terms.
Most criminologists and psychologists agree that there is no treatment for certain types of confirmed pedophiles. Those people must remain celibate (as they are not attracted to adults) or go to jail. This is a difficult position to find oneself in but there it is.
Many people are widowed every year and not all of them find a subsequent spouse, if Christian, these people may be celibate, either for a long time or for the rest of their lives. I haven’t experienced this and I hope that I do not but it is a possibility. Hopefully I will have built enough genuine love into my life so that I will be able to survive the loss of my spouse, if God forbid, that would occur.
Tom C writes: “It does not surprise me that some groups would exaggerate his findings”
Exaggerate is a kind word. The word “dishonesty” comes to mind. Given that, what level of confidence can we have in assertions made by groups like FOTF? As George Bush once said: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice … you can’t fool me again.”
The article you linked to is from a Catholic news source. not from an AP source. I did a Google search and could find no other references to Spitzer’s position arising out of pressure from his academic peers or to the threats he allegedly received (though I’m not saying it’s impossible it occurred). Is there another reference? There are kooks on both sides of the religious and political spectrum. Some Christian whack-jobs threatened J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame for her promotion of “witchcraft”. What’s your point?
In any rate, did you watch the video tape? He didn’t come across as a man who was being held at gun point.
#125 Jim Holman
You are really evading the question, which is: if I have an urge to do some sort of sexual behavior, why does that give me an identity that society must honor?
I brought up the example of pederasty and you spoke very disapprovingly of it. But there is an organization called NAMBLA which is active on college campuses and seeks to normalize relations between men and teenage boys. They borrow the same language of identity that other homosexual groups do and claim that societal norms are based on out-moded religious concepts.
How about incest? Who better to teach a young boy about sex than his grandmother? Do you have a problem with that? Maybe you just have religious hangups. Studies show that boys who learn about sex with their grandmothers, et. etc.
The second part of your post in 125 is, frankly, bizarre. As far as I can tell, Christianity is the only philosophy, in the West at least, that has honored celibacy and has built societal structures around it to accomodate the many who practice it. I’m not sure if you have ever heard of a nun, or a monk. There used to be huge monasteries all over Europe and Russia.
Monasticism is not as common at this point in history, but it is most definitely still alive. I have known many monks and nuns. I have also known many persons who stayed single and devoted themselves to their community, church, extended family, etc. rather than marry.
You say that the Church only offers celibacy for homosexuals. That is not true. It offers healing and wholeness. If, for some reason, our current culture cannot fathom such a thing, that is the culture’s problem, not the church’s problem.
#129 James K
I will try to watch the video tonight.
So, you think that homosexuality is a genetic trait and that it is not possible to alter one’s behavior. Please explain bisexuality for me. Is there a “gene” that makes one heterosexual, another that makes one homosexual, and then a frame shift mutation that makes one bisexual?
The lesson from Spitzer’s work was that it is possible to change. Do you dispute that?
Tom, I believe it’s partially genetic, but I think the influential factors will vary from person to person.
Don’t misinterpret Spitzer’s studies. He was very clear: for the most highly motivated persons who desire to change not their behavior but their orientation, there’s a miniscule chance of success. The odds are not promising. In fact, the word he used was “rare”. In these rare cases, who knows what the origins of that person’s orientation really were, if they are honest about their “success” or if the results are long term.
Based on this, you don’t submit minors to reparative therapy and force them to undergo bizarre treatments. You don’t make false claims about the types of change possible. Even specialist Warren Throckmorton has rejected reparative therapy and has instead focused on enabling people to be able to learn how to modify their conduct to better match up with their professed values.
Jim, I am really disappointed in your continuing assertion that “because Christians have trouble with celibacy, it isn’t a good idea for anyone”. That is nothing more than the adolescent lament “everybody else is doing it!!!!!” As Fr. Hans points out, celibacy is not the issue. IMO homosexuality isn’t even the issue. Sexual license and its consequences are the issue.
To list a few of the consequences of sexual license: abortion, family disintegration, increased economic hardship for women and children, increased physical and sexual abuse against women and children, increased incidence and virulence of sexually transmitted disease, sexualization of children, increased incidence of cervical cancer, etc., etc.
However, one of the worst consequences is the trivializing of humanity. Instead of creatures, created in the image and likeness of God who can say, because God loves me, I am. We have come to: “I lust, therefore I am.” What desecration!
Phil, I have a question about your anthropological statement that we are reasoning, loving animals. There is a documented case of a golden retriever whose owner was a single, elderly man. One morning, the man could not get up or move or speak. Over the next week, the dog kept his owner hydrated by dipping a t-shirt in the toilet bowl and taking the wet shirt to his owner to suck on. Finally, help arrived, and his owner survived.
By your standard the dog is human. Can you explain to me why you would not consider the dog human?
Tom C, Re #130. You have to realize that Jim often is still reacting to his protestant background when he says “Christianity” despite the fact that he is acquainted with Orthodox literature and practice. Unfortunately, abstinence and celibacy are not honored as much as they should be within the Church or any other Christian group.
More on the Spitzer study: Yet Another Attempt To Discredit The Spitzer Study Fails.
Michael, I’m having a little trouble finding a credible account of that story (or any account, actually.) I don’t suppose you can point me toward one?
Generally speaking, animals are capable of some pretty amazing behavior, but it tends to fit into a category of either instinctive behavior, or a conditioned response to a stimulus.
Do you think the behavior that the dog exhibited was love?
From the link Jacobse posted:
I’m happy to concede that it is possible for someone to report change in their sexual orientation.
Tom C writes: “You are really evading the question, which is: if I have an urge to do some sort of sexual behavior, why does that give me an identity that society must honor?”
I think you and others are doing a kind of reductionism here, proposing a kind of synecdoche of the person, in which homosexuality consists of nothing more than “having sex.” But we know that’s not true. For example, heterosexual, predatory men in prison have sex with other men, sometimes through rape. But they are in no way homosexual. What your view leaves out is everything having to do with affection, attraction, intimacy, love, commitment. It basically leaves out the person. It is certainly true that homosexuals can leave all of those behind in the search for “having sex” — just the way the heterosexuals can.
Also, a person’s identity consists of many components, not just one. I don’t
doubt that you are heterosexual, but does that one fact encapsulate “who you are?” I hope not. Neither does homosexual orientation. But the homosexual orientation comes to the fore, because that’s what is controversial.
Tom C: “They [NAMBLA] borrow the same language of identity that other
homosexual groups do and claim that societal norms are based on out-moded religious concepts.”
Anyone can claim anything. NAMBLA is wrong. Pedophilia causes harm, sometimes devastating and permanent harm, to the victims.
Tom C: “How about incest? Who better to teach a young boy about sex than his grandmother? Do you have a problem with that? Maybe you just have religious hangups. Studies show that boys who learn about sex with their grandmothers, et. etc.”
Tom, I know what you’re doing. You’re attempting a standard reductio ad
absurdum argument. The problem is that there simply is no comparison between committed adult same-sex relationships and pedophilia and and grandma screwing grandson.
Tom C: “As far as I can tell, Christianity is the only philosophy, in the West
at least, that has honored celibacy and has built societal structures around it to accomodate the many who practice it. . . . Monasticism is not as common at this point in history, but it is most definitely still alive. I have known many monks and nuns. I have also known many persons who stayed single and devoted themselves to their community, church, extended family, etc. rather than marry.”
Yes, I’m glad you brought that up. Rather than talking about Christians who pass on the celibacy option, let’s talk about those who embrace that option, even outside of a monastic community.
A Christian who chooses celibacy will have the resource of a two thousand year old tradition to draw from. There will be the support of a religious community in which celibacy is understood and valued. There will be pastoral support. In short, Christian celibacy is a kind of spiritual discipline that exists within the context of a religious community, whether monastic or otherwise.
To insist that all homosexuals lead celibate lives or else be considered immoral, is essentially to require them to adhere to a spiritual discipline but without all the support offered by the religious community. That just makes to sense to me.
Tom C: “You say that the Church only offers celibacy for homosexuals. That is not true. It offers healing and wholeness. If, for some reason, our current
culture cannot fathom such a thing, that is the culture’s problem, not the
church’s problem.”
Sure, every church offers people the opportunity to “become one of us.” But we’re talking social policy and public morality here, whether or not the person in question is a Christian.
Michael writes: “Jim, I am really disappointed in your continuing assertion that “because Christians have trouble with celibacy, it isn’t a good idea for anyone”. That is nothing more than the adolescent lament “everybody else is doing it!!!!!”
The main issue is whether it is realistic for Christians to expect all homosexuals to live lives of total celibacy. Certainly in that context, the willingness of Christians themselves to be celibate is relevant. As I mentioned earlier, a Christian commitment to personal celibacy occurs within the context of a religious tradition and supportive community. It also is the manner of life recommended by the Apostle Paul and exemplified by Jesus. Now given all of that — if Christians “have trouble” with celibacy, how realistic is it to expect homosexuals living outside the support of a religious community to be celibate?
In other words, homosexuals — even those in long-term committed relationships — are judged to be immoral for failing to adhere to a discipline that the vast majority of Christians cannot follow — even though it should be much easier for Christians to adhere to that discipline.
Michael: “As Fr. Hans points out, celibacy is not the issue. IMO homosexuality isn’t even the issue. Sexual license and its consequences are the issue.”
Most of the consequences you then list have nothing to do with homosexuals and everything to do with heterosexuals. Homosexuals aren’t having abortions, causing cervical cancer, or bringing children into the world that they can’t support.
Phil writes: “I’m happy to concede that it is possible for someone to report change in their sexual orientation.”
Yes, according to Spitzer it was possible in rare cases that highly motivated individuals could change.
Phil, I saw the account on TV many years ago that included an interview with the man who was saved. I think it was on Animal Planet.
Yes, in my experience animals do exhibit behavior that I can only categorize as love and compassion and I don’t think I am anthropomorphizing here. Many animals use tools. The use of tools requires reasoning.
For the moment, I’d like to ask you to expand on what you consider love.
Michael,
We could probably start writing today about the definition of love, and write for the rest of our lives.
I’d say a working definition for human might be composed of two parts: 1) a profound selfless concern for the well-being of another and 2) an awareness of what you are doing.
I think dogs exhibit concern for others, but I’m not really certain that they’re aware of what they’re doing.
What’s your answer to the question of “Who is a man?” Since you’re parsing mine so carefully, would I be correct to assume that yours involves only provable concepts? *grin*
Here’s another very interesting article on the mutability of same-sex attraction (.pdf file from the Narth.com website): Can You Change Your Sexual Orientation? By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D..
Phil, there are no provable concepts, at least not in an empirical sense, that involve human beings.
Several elements of humanity that are critical:
Kenotic love
Created with a divine spark at the core of our being, His likeness
Person, which is a reflection of the divine image
Called to be in communion with God–an interrelationship with Him and our fellows
Male and Female
Microcosm: The state of the rest of creation is a reflection of our communion with God
Free to choose, which also entails consequences
Creative: the ability to build and pass on knowledge, experience and values.
Contingent: we are radically contingent on God for all that we are that is good.
Fallen and Sinful
Mysterion
It seems to me that 90% of the conversations here focus on the fallen sinfulness of man as the non-Christians, at least tacitly, deny the reality of sin and our falleness. Not surprising since the desacralized, naturalistic mind of the world eqiups people for no other understanding of man than that he is a rational animal (at least you include love, a step in the right direction).
But love, laughter and all that go with them make no sense in a naturalistic universe.
BTW, because interpretation is integral to anthropological discussions, I am just trying to make sure I understand better what you mean.
An interesting aspect of studying sexual orientation is that it is, indeed difficult to define. For example, a celebrity like Clay Aiken might “report” that he is heterosexual, and yet I’d bet large sums of money that he, in fact, is not.
(Forgive me if that sounds gossipy; I realize that we’re all humans, but I feel that when a public figure becomes well-known enough, writing about them “behind their back,” as it were, is comparable to talking about an historical figure, for all intents and purposes. Then, too, I don’t consider being gay to be a bad thing, so I don’t feel I’m casting aspersions.)
That said, as I mentioned, I’m willing to concede that it is possible for someone to report a change in their sexual orientation. Beyond that, I’m also willing to concede that there may be a small number of individuals (particularly women) who identify as gay or bisexual but who, in fact, are trying to suppress erotic feelings toward members of the opposite sex. And I’m quite confident that there are a significant number of individuals who identify as heterosexual but who, in fact, are trying to suppress erotic feelings toward members of the same sex.
The problem, and I’ll admit that it’s a problem that faces researchers of all political stripes, regardless of their ultimate conclusions, is that there isn’t a foolproof test to determine what a person’s actual sexuality is at a given moment, and as such, there isn’t a way to know with certainty what their sexuality was prior to conversion–or after conversion.
The vast majority of gay men that I know identified as “straight” at one point. They didn’t all have sexual relations with women–though some did, but they went through a time when they didn’t identify as gay. That doesn’t mean they were straight, it just means that, even in this day and age, as you achieve sexual maturity in this country, you worry a great deal about what your friends and family will think of you if they knew you were gay. My brother, for example, had girlfriends in high school, had girlfriends in college, and after he moved away from home, began dating men. Neither he, nor I, think he changed his orientation. He simply stopped trying to hide it. I’m curious what a researcher would conclude, though, were he interviewed at point A and then point B.
I read that and think, isn’t that a sad thing to say. And yet, the fact that I believe in a naturalistic universe probably seems like a sad thing to you, doesn’t it? (Consigned to a world where love and laughter make no sense…)
Since you believe that animals are capable of reason and love, I’m curious if you’re a vegetarian, Michael.
More research is needed, obviously, into the psychopathology of same-sex attraction. One interesting point that articles on the Narth site examine is if the attraction to the same sex is symptomatic of unmet emotional needs during adolescence and later, primarily with the same sex parent.
Phil, Yes, I do think maintaining a nauturalistic philosophy is sad, you miss so much.
I’m not a vegetarian. Animals are not human. The rest of the created world is for our responsible use and we are commanded to use it responsibly. Scripturally, God has given us meat to eat. As Orthodox however, we are instructed to abstain from meat and dairy about half the time. The Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year plus the Advent and Lenten Fasts, the Dormition Fast and the Apostles Fast. However, it is the union with Christ that saves, not the eating or the abstaining.
Note 139. Jim writes:
Well, sure, but isn’t it the homosexual lobby that elevates same-sex desire as the primary identifier? It’s called identity politics. They (and you) want to redefine the moral tradition and cultural structures around this understanding of sexualized self-identity, all the while claiming that this self-identity is irrelevant. Well, which is it?
You can’t argue that we should redefine marriage and family to fit a homosexual sociological paradigm on the one hand, and then argue homosexuality should not be controversial on the other. If you don’t want the controversy, don’t make the demands. If you make the demands, expect homosexual orientation to come to the fore because the self-identification as homosexual is what informs the collective identity that homosexuals are an aggrieved class.
Fr. Hans writes: “They (and you) want to redefine the moral tradition and structures around precisely this understanding of sexualized self-identity, all the while claiming that this self-identity is irrelevant. Well, which is it?”
For “outside” groups seeking to be integrated into the larger culture, self-identity is important inasmuch as the larger society makes it important and uses that identity to deny the group full participation in society. As the group becomes increasingly integrated into the society, the identity decreases in relevance.
Not many years ago gays and lesbians had to conceal their identities. A single instance of homosexual sex could land them in prison with a lengthy sentence normally reserved for rapists and kidnappers. Today, gays and lesbians live relatively open lives. Where I work there are a number of gays and lesbians, but no one cares. No one talks about it. Being gay or lesbian is simply one of many facts about the person, and not a very important fact. For a year I sat next to a gay man and worked with him every day on the same project. We went out to lunch all the time. The fact of his orientation never came up in conversation. In that context, his identity as a gay man was completely irrelevant, both to him and to me.
Fr. Hans: “You can’t argue that we should redefine marriage and family to fit a homosexual sociological paradigm on one hand, and then argue homosexuality should not be controversial on the other.”
It is becoming less controversial all the time, especially for the younger generation, but even for us “older” folks. Recently, when you said that individual states should be allowed to criminalize homosexual behavior, that comment struck me as . . . well, quaint. Not outrageous, not immoral, really, not even wrong. Just quaint. Kind of like when your 94 year old grandfather uses the “N” word in casual conversation to refer to a black person — “the best blacksmith I ever knew was a n—– who lived out on Smith Road. Or was it Foster Road? No, Smith Road . . .” We don’t rebuke grandpa. We just know that the world has moved on.
The world moves on in other areas too, and not everything in the Bronze Age moral tradition survives. What will happen is that eventually, all the well-crafted arguments against homosexuality will simply be left behind. The opponents of homosexuality will never “lose” the argument. Their position will never be “defeated.” Their view will remain “unassailable.” It’s just that no one will pay attention any more. Fifty years from now, arguing against homosexual adoption will be like arguing that blacks in the military have to be led by white officers because blacks have no leadership potential. No matter how great the argument it won’t matter, because no one will be listening. They will have moved on.
Note 149. A couple of points. Jim writes:
Well, sure, but all you describe here is a cultural dynamic with no distinctions either about the cultural efficacy of certain groups, or the moral demands they place on the larger culture (for good or ill).
Take the Shakers for example. They eventually died out. Take the Blacks. The injustices perpretated toward them caused a change in the culture. (More precisely, early Black leadership caused the culture to draw more deeply from the moral tradition and right an eggregious wrong. Call it a cultural renewal.) Take White Supremacists or the KKK. Their attempts toward cultural integration need to be resisted, their self-justifications notwithstanding.
So the question about integrating “‘outside groups'” can’t be reduced to just a description about cultural dynamics alone. Moral considerations come into play. That’s why the Shakers were left to live as they chose to live, much like the Amish. (This freedom is one of the great things about America.). The Blacks challenged America to essentially be more American, that is, reflect on the moral tradition that informed and shaped American culture and conform thinking and behavior more closely to it (see: Gay Marriage Far Removed From Civil Rights Movement). White Supremacists and the KKK are criminals (when they break the law) and are compelled to pay the consequences, also a moral judgement.
Mine is a legal, not moral, argument. I don’t think criminalizing sodomy serves any useful purpose except as an indicator of moral norms. Having said that, the outlawing of sodomy by the Supreme Court has less to do with sodomy as such (the homosexual lobby notwithstanding) as judicial overreaching. The enforcement of moral norms has a certain and appropriate (but not absolute) fluidity. Some states for example, allow drinking at 18, others at 21. It has always been the province of the states to decide their own affairs in these matters.
Your comment that this view is “quaint” shows you don’t really know or understand the significance of these ideas and the debate it has generated in legal circles.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of people (they intutively understand there is a world of difference between homosexual cultural claims and the Civil Rights Movement); their internal discomfort with the normalization of homosexuality, a discord that no amount of reductive sophistry will extinguish; and you misconstrue their silence as consent, rather than caused by intimidation. Notice when people have a voice, as they do when gay marriage is put on the ballot, they are not as compliant as you take them to be. (Been living in Oregon too long Jim. Too many retired hippies there.)
No, this issue reaches deeper than what you are willing to allow.
One other point. Your entire treatise defines the homosexual as partner in an “outside group”, that is, identity politics completely shapes your notion of cultural change. What if society gets identity politics fatigue? You can shout the gay rights mantra from the housetops but people will say “enough already!”. I think this is already starting.