If not ex-gay, then what?
CommentsI have a piece in today’s Jerusalem Post explaining exactly where I stand in the gay-ex-gay continuum. I coin a new term, “Delta,” which is explained in detail in the essay, which I have excerpted below:
I have a suggestion. Instead of gay or ex-gay, those of us who have stopped thinking of ourselves primarily as same-sexers can emphasize the fact that, whether we’re celibate or in opposite-sex relationships, we’re ‘Deliberately Living Traditionally.’ The handy acronym Delta corresponds to a Greek letter representing change; it can be a rival to the use of the letter Lambda to represent all things gay. Delta can serve as a new identity and community for people who are making or have made that tough transition. (Perhaps the Hebrew version will be known as ‘Dalets.’)
The ‘Delta’ idea correctly focuses on how people behave and organize their lives rather than what their sexuality bar codes are. Such an attitude, by the way, is consistent with Torah Judaism. By contrast, the ‘ex-gay’ approach accepts the gay community view that all of us have an innate sexual orientation, merely adding that those orientations can be changed through ‘reparative’ or other therapy….
People who are unhappy with their homosexuality will almost certainly find it much easier to try ‘deliberately living traditionally’ than to somehow transform their inner make-up. After a few years of living celibately, or perhaps in an opposite-sex relationship, such people might find their same-sex attractions have decreased or at least become less important to them. This is parallel to the Jewish concept of ‘Naaseh v’nishma’ ¬ the idea that actions precede what is internal. Also, the Talmud says with regard to King David that the libido is hungry when satiated and satisfied when
restrained.Of course, some gays and lesbians will accuse Deltas of ‘not being true to themselves.’ But who decided that our libidos and hearts represent our true selves, even when they’re in conflict with our minds, consciences, and spirits? Shouldn’t each of us get to decide who we truly are?
Indeed, whereas the gay community celebrates National Coming Out Day, and some ex-gays have commemorated National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day, the Delta community could mark National Choose Sexual Behaviors and Family Structures Consistent With Your Values Day (We can work out the acronym later).
Um, David, sorry but I think Ted Haggard already has this ‘great idea’ in his back pocket.
And what happens to a poor Delta when they decide to jump off the wagon. You know it doesn’t usually take more than a six pack for things to start changing.
NICE TRY THOUGH
Ted Haggard ** Heterosexual with Issues David Benkof ** Homosexual with Issues
DB: “By contrast, the ‘ex-gay’ approach accepts the gay community view that all of us have an innate sexual orientation, merely adding that those orientations can be changed through ‘reparative’ or other therapy….”
No, like I keep pointing out, typically it doesn’t. It _sounds_ like it does, but when one decodes the conservative-Christian-speak, it’s saying pretty much exactly the same as you: that it’s all about living a celibate or opposite-sex lifestyle and not thinking of oneself as “gay”, and after a few years of this, some people _might_ find their same-sex attractions diminishing, but that’s neither promised nor the primary point of the exercise. See e.g., http://www.anotherway.com/menus/faq.html :
“Q. Are there such persons as “ex-gays?” [//] A. Yes! Thousands of people have chosen to move out of a homosexual _lifestyle_ through the power of Jesus Christ.” [MB's emphasis]
“Q. Can I be “gay” one day and straight the next? [//] A. God has worked this miracle in some lives, but it isn’t His usual practice. Homosexuals usually must change their _behavior_ the same way as alcoholics, workaholics, overeaters, and sex addicts do–one day at a time. ” [MB's emphasis]
“Q. So you’re admitting that people just change their behavior–not their orientation?
A. Change goes far deeper than just behavior. But change at a deep level takes longer. There are numerous men and women–formerly gay–who have been out of that behavior for so long that they are not only parents, but grandparents. And their same-sex attractions are totally gone. Others, especially those just beginning the recovery process, continue to have same-sex attractions, but they see them as undesirable and they are working to eliminate them from their lives.”
That said, “Delta” is a big improvement on “ex-gay” because it doesn’t sound like something completely different from what it means. We still think your values (on this subject) are hateful and toxic, and to the extent you advocate them in public we’ll say that in no uncertain terms, but at least we won’t accuse you of misrepresentation.
Mr Benkof.
Seems a useful acronym. We know from the Lauman study that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors.” Those “extraneous” factors are primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself. That “social milieu” is the gay community and the larger environment that encourages sole identification with homosexuality as a cultural, social & political enterprise. Absent this socially prevalent “milieu” homosexuality in the general population is one directional with the most common occurrence being to transition out of homosexuality.
As an example of that how that “social milieu” enforces its dogmatic worldview I can offer the comments above.
“We still think your values (on this subject) are hateful and toxic
“Ted Haggard ** Heterosexual with Issues David Benkof Homosexual with Issues”
This reminds me of what used to be called “the One Drop” rule by southern segregationists. The idea was that under segregation in the south anyone with but “one drop” of black blood was considered “black” for the purposes of segregation. It was a practical rule that made the ideology of racism easier to both enforce socially and legally.
It’s certainly fascinating to see the cultural left that claims sophistication around issues sexual, to attempt through social stigma to enforce such a narrow and didactic view of human sexuality. This is (as was the case with southern segregationists) not an intellectual exercise in the pursuit of truth, but rather a politicized social and legal tool used to marginalize competing discourse.
I believe Mr. Benkof has done a fine job of textual-izing a difficult subject. I’m confident he is aware of the extensive social science and psychological studies that affirm his understanding. Human sexuality is too delicate and complex a phenomena to easily fit within contemporary political camps. His work is a great service in forwarding a more sophisticated hermeneutics.
I appreciate your rejection of “ex-gay,” David. To those who suggest that David has “issues,” but I also don’t think that wanting to live according to one’s religious teachings is indicative of having “issues.” Yet I do share your sentiment that it’s not really possible to change something that’s innate in us.
Anyway, I don’t see how Delta is all that different than the ex-gay movement considering that Exodus International considers change as “attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender.”
At their core, aren’t Delta and ex-gay both about choosing to live heterosexual lives, ignoring homosexual urges, and hoping that these urges eventually fade away?
Maybe you can clarify the differences…
I’m reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: “Whether or not I find someone attractive doesnt depend on what kind of genitals they have”.
Fitz: ‘We know from the Lauman study that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors.”’
The readers should be aware you’re not actually quoting the Laumann study, you’re quoting Satinover of NARTH misrepresenting Laumann. See http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf especially footnote 41. Laumann did find a correlation of identification as homosexual or bisexual with age, but you can’t sensibly draw Satinover’s conclusion from Laumann because it’s not a longitudinal study, it’s a snapshot of a bunch of individuals of different ages. Moreover, it’s a rather uninteresting conclusion because as Laumann _did_ find, identity is not particularly well-correlated with what you should actually want to know about, namely sexual attraction.
Fitz: “This reminds me of what used to be called “the One Drop” rule by southern segregationists. ”
Que??
Fitz: “It’s certainly fascinating to see the cultural left that claims sophistication around issues sexual, to attempt through social stigma to enforce such a narrow and didactic view of human sexuality.”
Err, the idea that for many individuals at least, sexual orientation (defined in terms of attraction) is a fairly stable characteristic is actually mainstream. The _leftist_ position, which you don’t hear much of anymore outside of humanities departments and liberal Christian circles, is, like the leftist position on a lot of things, social constructionist. That’s the default leftist position because that’s the lay of the land for a bunch of other left-right battles, including race, class and gender. Conservatism is ultimately about rationalizing why the rich and powerful deserve everything they have and then some, so genetic or other determinism has always been attractive. And it turns out the leftists were pretty much entirely right on race and class, and mostly right on gender (there is apparently _some_ hard-wired trend to personality differences between men and women, but not remotely as large as was assumed a century ago).
It’s just that, go figure, on sexual orientation, the leftist position is more wrong than right - there are indeed, or at least have been, powerful forces pushing people towards opposite-sex behaviour or very particular manifestations of same-sex behaviour (ephebophilia etc), but for many individuals there have been powerful apparently hard-wired (spontaneous from puberty, stable) same-sex attractions pushing back.
And again, go figure, the centre-right has gravitated to a stereotypically leftist position because they’re stuck defending the presence of a victimless crime on their books, and they’re desperate to believe and convince others that (a) it’s all for a good cause, and (ii) even if you don’t quite believe that, at least they’re not seriously inconveniencing anyone. (By contrast, the hard right position is “Thou Shalt Not, end of discussion”.) But, sorry, no, we don’t believe it’s all for a good cause, it’s just plain hateful. And, sorry, no, the bit about same-sex attractions going away is wishful thinking in enough cases that you _are_ jerking people around.
Marty: ‘I’m reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: “Whether or not I find someone attractive doesnt depend on what kind of genitals they have”.’
I’m curious: you quote a character in a movie, but is that something you could honestly say for yourself for in any of several different senses of attractive? Nice-to-have-as-a-friend attractive? Nice-to-get-in-the-sack-and-get-sexually intimate-with attractive? Nice-to-have-as-a-life-partner attractive?
But, sorry, no, we don’t believe it’s all for a good cause, it’s just plain hateful.
You can’t legislate against hate, though, so what we’re talking about is why we recognise traditional marriage in law and not so-called “gay marriage.” This is the whole point of this blog.
That’s what we’re arguing about.
The main reason traditional marriage has been recognised in law (and not just in church circles or other religions) is because it has been considered to be the best situation for the raising of children.
“Gay marriage” advocates have not shown why we should believe it will not have a detrimental effect on marriage and family life and society in the long term.
Therefore, I can’t see why we should permit “gay marriage.”
Also, David, you have pointed out that you are not against gay adoption and I can see your reasoning, however, I wonder whether the legalisation of gay adoption will just prove itself to lead to “gay marriage” through the back door. I mean, if having married parents is normally better for a child than having non-married parents, then doesn’t the same logic apply to the gay adoptive parents?
David, I really like your term Delta. Not every gay person wants to see themselves solely in terms of their sexual orientation and be defined by it.
BD: “You can’t legislate against hate, though, [...]”
Sure, but then I wasn’t suggesting doing that, I was suggesting treating haters like the jerks they are when they publically advocate hateful stuff.
BD: “[...] so what we’re talking about is why we recognise traditional marriage in law and not so-called “gay marriage.”’
No, actually, we were talking about how to react to David when he beats himself up because of a hateful aspect of his religion.
BD: “This is the whole point of this blog. [//] That’s what we’re arguing about.”
Err, David brought up the ex-gay/Delta thing. If you think he’s off-topic, report him to the owner of the blog.
BD: “The main reason traditional marriage has been recognised in law (and not just in church circles or other religions) is because it has been considered to be the best situation for the raising of children.”
Sure. I don’t doubt that that was the conventional wisdom. For example, it’s reason #1 of 3 in the Book of Common Prayer marriage service:
“First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.”
But although it’s not spelled out, the idea is presumably that marriage was ordained for the _orderly_ procreation of children. Getting people to procreate in the first place is not a problem that ever needed solving - most people are straight and want to have opposite-sex sex and wild horses couldn’t stop them indefinitely. But same-sex couples don’t procreate. So this is a good reason for not _bothering_ to extend marriage same-sex couples, but it’s not a good reason for actively opposing it. So if people are vociferously opposing SSM, you know there’s something else going on. The something else is #2 on the BCP list:
“Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.”
That is, it’s about hatred of sex outside marriage in and of itself, and in particular, hatred of gay sex. Now at least before reliable contraceptives, hatred of opposite-sex sex outside marriage would have had some merit in view of item #1, but hatred of same-sex sex was always just arbitrary. Would-be anti-SSM moderates are normally scrupulous about downplaying the supposed immorality of gay sex and never explicitly making it the premise of an anti-SSM argument. But the arguments they do offer are so lame I’m afraid I don’t believe for a moment that homophobia is not in the driver’s seat, and I’ll go on inviting moderates who do care about the welfare of kids but don’t harbour hate of gay people to disbelieve as well.
Meanwhile the affirmative case for SSM is #3 on the BCP list:
“Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.”
What’s wrong with hatred of gay sex or fornication in general?
If you can show me why the provision of “SSM” is no threat to traditional marriage, then I might consider the propostion of “SSM.”
BD: “What’s wrong with hatred of gay sex or fornication in general?”
What’s wrong with stamp collecting? Surely in a free country the onus should be on the people wanting to ban an activity to explain why it’s harmful.
BD: “If you can show me why the provision of “SSM” is no threat to traditional marriage, then I might consider the propostion of “SSM.””
Ditto.
Mark: All of the above.
What I refuse to accept is this idea that anyone is incapable of loving another person soley because of that persons gender. I don’t accept it when “straight” people say it, nor when gay people say it. I find the very idea to be extremely close-minded and sexist. Personal experience and history has taught me that human beings are far more expansive emotionally than to get hung up on the plumbing.
Mark Barton (writes)
“The readers should be aware you’re not actually quoting the Laumann study, you’re quoting Satinover of NARTH misrepresenting Laumann.”
Well no – that’s a direct quote from the Lauman study. It affirms and reaffirms mine, Satinover, and Benkofs point about the mutability of human sexuality and the importance of environmental factors (the “social milieu”) in affirming and reaffirming the practice.
Indeed even prominent, homosexualist researchers of congenital causation factors for homosexuality have acknowledged:
Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [2003]: 432).
As for the rest of Mark Barton speculation as to nature/nurture argumentation and a (perceived) right/left dichotomy amongst a range of issues – I have to disagree.
The essentialist or “born that way” language is steadily touted by the left as a necessary way to achieve legal protected status. Indeed this is the legal strategy employed in every single court case to date. Along the lines of race, homosexuality is claimed to be an “innate and immutable” trait.
This stands in marked contrast to the leftist insistence that male/female sex roles, universally acknowledged throughout history and popularly recognized even in contemporary society are (somehow?) purely social constructs. At the same time however homosexuality is considered inborn and immutable characteristic even though most contemporary research indicates its mutability and non-genetic correlation.
here is some interesting info from rebeldad dot com
a little gender bending, twist of the social construct.
carry on Fitz
Shrek the Musical Freak Flag Lyrics:
[GINGY (sung):]
They treat you like an outcast. You feel mis-understood,
But your still a real boy, even though your made of wood.
[PINNOCHIO (spoken):]
That doesn´t even make any sense.
[GINGY (sung):]
it´s time to stop the hiding. it´s time to stand up tall.
Sing hey world, I´m different, and here I am splinters and all!
Splinters-ah-whoo-oo-oo-and all-whoo!
[MAMA BEAR (sung):]
Let your freak flag wave.
[PINOCCHIO (spoken):]
My what?
[MAMA BEAR (spoken):]
Let your freak flag fly
[GINGY (spoken):]
that´s what I´m talking about!
[MAMA BEAR (sung):]
Never be ashamed. Never be ashamed.
Raise it way up high! Yeah! Let your freak flag fly! Let it fly, fly, fly!
[WHITE RABBIT (sung):]
it´s hard to be a puppet.
[UGLY DUCKLING (sung):]
So many strings attached. But it´s not the choice you make.
it´s just, how you, were hatched!
[FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Let your freak flag wave, let your freak flag fly. Never take it down, Never take it down,
Wave it way up high! Let your freak flag fly!
[ Find more Lyrics on http://www.mp3lyrics.org/OXCJ ]
[WOLF (sung):]
We got the butt kicks big time! We got the royal hook!
[SHOEMAKERS ELF (sung):]
But it you can put your mind to it, you can rewrite your book!
[SUGARPLUM FAIRY (sung):]
So come on Pinocchio, you should at least take a look!
[FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Let your freak flag wave! Let your freak flag fly! Never take it down never take it down.
When your way up high!
[MALE FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Hey World!
[FEMALE FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Here I am!
[MALE FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Hey world!
[FEMALE FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
Here I am!
[FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
YEAH!
[PINOCCHIO (spoken):]
You guys are right! Who needs shooting stars or Fairy Godmothers?
We can make our own wishes come true!
[Dance segment]
[FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
We are ready! We all have power! Well let’s just say we’re pumped!
All the things that make us special are the things that make us strong!
Let your freak flag wave. Let your freak flag fly!
Never take it down, wave it way up high! YEAH!
Let your freak flag fly! Let it fly! Fly, fly, fly!
[PINNOCHIO (spoken):]
I´m wood and I´m good! Get used to it!
[FAIRY TALE CREATURES (sung):]
FLY!!
Fitz: “Well no – that’s a direct quote from the Lauman study. ”
I think you’ll find you’re mistaken - it’s not in quotes in Satinover and I can’t find it in the text of Laumann.
Fitz: “It affirms and reaffirms mine, Satinover, and Benkofs point about the mutability of human sexuality and the importance of environmental factors (the “social milieu”) in affirming and reaffirming the _practice_.”
Oh, if you’re talking about the _practice_ (of same-sex sex and the like), then there’s no argument. It couldn’t be more obvious that the social milieu influences whether people have same-sex sex. If you hand out prison terms for same-sex sex, which was a very typical part of the social milieu until quite recently, then a lot fewer people are going to have same-sex sex. Duh.
But so what? It’s not relevant to any of the questions that we were discussing, such as whether David’s religion’s denouncing of same-sex sex is mindlessly hateful or not. After all, whether people indulge in stamp-collecting or not is also a function of the social milieu (stamps need to have been invented, prison terms will discourage almost anything) but if Judaism went on a jihad against stamp collectors it would still be mindlessly hateful.
More importantly it’s also not relevant to the “born that way” claim because that claim is not about homosexuality as a practice, it’s about homosexuality as a sexual orientation, i.e., as a stable pattern of more-or-less exclusive same-sex attraction.
Now of course, it’s a possibility to be considered that same-sex attraction itself _could_ depend on the social milieu. After all, an analogous claim is true of smoking. Nobody is _born_ with a desire to dry tobacco leaves, roll them up in paper, set fire to them and smoke them, and nobody spontaneously develops such a desire in the abstract either - they have to be induced to try it. But having tried it, many people develop an overwhelming desire to continue. Satinover and many like him are desperate for such a model to be true. It’s so attractive to people who need to rationalize religious bigotry: it comes with a villain to blame (”My child is a good kid but fell in among bad company”), it lets God off the hook theologically, and it suggests a course of treatment (generic anti-addiction therapy) that gives hopes of cure to the David’s of the world and hopes of profit to the Satinovers. The only problem is that it’s complete bullshit. Same-sex attraction isn’t at all like smoking attraction. A typical experience is the exact opposite: it comes on spontaneously, fully formed and full strength at puberty, it doesn’t depend on having tried gay sex or having met or seen on TV people who have, and it doesn’t fade with time or attempts at treatment. That’s not to say that there aren’t bisexuals who are attracted to both sexes at various times, it’s just that the exclusively homosexual pattern exists as described and is not uncommon.
Fitz: “The essentialist or “born that way” language is steadily touted by the left as a necessary way to achieve legal protected status. Along the lines of race, homosexuality is claimed to be an “innate and immutable” trait.”
As a sexual orientation, defined in terms of same-sex attraction, yes. (Your quote was about behaviour and thus irrelevant to the claim being made.) Note that that’s an observational fact in its own right - despite sloppy talk to the contrary, it doesn’t depend on any speculation about genetics. Because same-sex attraction commonly occurs spontaneously at puberty without any plausible training input, and because it’s resistant to plausible therapies, we have good reason for suspecting that it is genetic, even though it has not yet been credibly tracked down to any particular gene. On the other hand, it could be a vitamin deficiency of the mother causing a permanent change to be impressed in the womb for all we know. Genetic is not always the same as immutable and environmental is not always the same as mutable.
Note also that same-sex attraction being immutable makes the argument stronger but is not essential. After all, Mr Loving of Loving vs Virginia didn’t have to establish that black women were the only sort he was capable of being in love with, it was quite enough that there was one particular black woman he loved for the court to allow that he had a legitimate complaint - the rest of the argument was about whether the state had any defensible reason for putting him to the inconvenience.
Marty: “Mark: All of the above.”
Oh, how interesting! If you’re serious about the “Nice-to-get-in-the-sack-and-get-sexually intimate-with attractive?” bit, then you’re bisexual (in the mainstream, sexual-orientation sense). Well good luck to you, but here’s some news you might not be aware of: not everyone is bisexual. Many people are just plain straight and a rather smaller number of people are just plain gay (again, in the sexual orientation sense). And you can get as angry as you like about it, but you’re just wasting your time. That’s the way most people are wired, there’s no known way of changing it, and you might as well just deal with it. It actually works out quite well because as just mentioned, most people are straight and are only too happy to be having the sort of sex that leads to procreation, and the number of gay men is not too far off the number of lesbians, so nobody need miss out on a compatible partner.
What’s wrong with stamp collecting? Surely in a free country the onus should be on the people wanting to ban an activity to explain why it’s harmful.
Are we talking about banning gay sex or banning SSM? Just need clarification for a moment.
“If you can show me why the provision of “SSM” is no threat to traditional marriage, then I might consider the propostion of “SSM.””
Ditto.
Traditional marriage is how things are and have been for a long time and have served society pretty well (up until no-fault divorce, at any rate). You want to change this. The onus is on you to show why it will not harm children and society.
MB: then you’re bisexual (in the mainstream, sexual-orientation sense).
I certainly don’t consider myself bisexual. I don’t have sex with or sexual thoughts about men. But I could, if I let myself. Why not? Plenty of attractive people out there, in all shapes sizes colors etc. But I dont let myself “attract” to men for the same reason I dont let myself attract to 14 year old girls. It’s certainly not because they arent attractive.
Many people are just plain straight and a rather smaller number of people are just plain gay …That’s the way most people are wired, there’s no known way of changing it, and you might as well just deal with it.
I don’t buy that for a minute. We’ve seen time and again throughout history that men and women are perfectly capable of having sexual attraction for each other, when circumstances and opportunity coalesce. I know enough feminine men and masculine women that for anyone to claim that it’s impossible for them to love someone of a particular gender — because of their gender — they’re simply being sexist bigots. Open your mind, and perhaps your heart will follow.
BD: “Are we talking about banning gay sex or banning SSM? Just need clarification for a moment.”
We hadn’t been talking about either in this thread until you showed up, but the background is more about opposition to gay sex itself - David’s religion (Orthodox Judaism) has forbidden him to have gay sex and while there’s no associated punishment he feels obligated to comply. Moreover, although there’s little chance of it being taken notice of, his religion thinks this is one of the commandments that should be binding on non-Jews as well.
BD: “Traditional marriage is how things are and have been for a long time and have served society pretty well (up until no-fault divorce, at any rate). You want to change this. The onus is on you to show why it will not harm children and society.”
No, the onus is much more symmetrical than that. After all, the only thing you can actually tell from the existence of an institution in the past is that it served the interests of the _powerful_. It could have, and as likely as not did, screw over the powerless but persist anyway because only the powerful mattered. Take slavery for example. Slavery is explicitly authorized in the OT, and the NT brought up the subject but conspicuously walked away from condemning it. It persisted for thousands of years because it worked out _great_ for the powerful, it just really sucked for the slaves and wasn’t too hot for the rest of the working class who were competing with slaves either. In the case of marriage, the powerful class were the men and if you thoughtlessly assume that it necessarily served the interests of anyone else or was the best on balance for society as a whole you’re being really naive. An institution that persists can’t have been so bad that it wiped out an underclass essential to the survival of society as a whole, but that’s about all you can say.
“No, the onus is much more symmetrical than that. After all, the only thing you can actually tell from the existence of an institution in the past is that it served the interests of the _powerful_.”
Wonderful Mark… The Hegelian master/slave dialectic applied in typical fashion to the most pro-woman, pro-child, pro-civil society institution in the world….marriage.
And not just that but a resort to comparisons to slavery.
Leftist drivel applied to foundational social institutions hardly negates philosophical and scientifically verifiable empirical data about optimal family formation.
There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies —- those born out of wedlock —- to enter life disadvantaged.
When you speak of the _powerfull_ perhaps you should turn your gaze towards your own milieu.
Marty: “I certainly don’t consider myself bisexual.”
It doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself bisexual or not - if you’re serious about finding some of both both men and women nice-to-get-sexually-intimate-with attractive then you’re bisexual in the mainstream sense (and the only sense of the word I’ll ever use).
Marty: “I don’t have sex with or sexual thoughts about men. But I could, if I let myself.”
Of course it’s hard to say whether you’re serious because here you hedge like a straight person who _wants_ everyone (including themselves) to be bisexual so they can claim brownie points for not having same-sex thoughts or same-sex sex, but is kidding themselves to imagine they were ever tempted.
Marty: “I don’t buy that for a minute. We’ve seen time and again throughout history that men and women are perfectly capable of having sexual attraction for each other, when circumstances and opportunity coalesce.”
Well if you mean that _some_ men and _some_ women are perfectly capable of of having sexual attraction for each other in same- and opposite-sex combinations, then I totally agree - I don’t doubt the existence of bisexuals even though a good fraction of people who introduce themselves as such to me later turn out to be gay and in denial or straight and morally preening. But you’re not negating my point unless you’re claiming that _all_ men and _all_ women are so capable, and I can’t imagine what about history you could be thinking about that would prove that.
Prisons, Navies, Greece etc have all provided ample evidence that ostensibly “straight” men are perfectly capable of finding sexual satisfaction with their own kind. In more modern times, college culture provides more than enough evidence that women can and do find their sexuality far more fluid than they would have guessed beforehand. Do I mean _all_ people? Yes, in fact I do.
I know white guys who swear they could never be attracted to black women, and I don’t believe them on that count either. I believe they’ve closed their minds and hearts down so hardly, that they’ve created their own reality. Whether it’s racist or sexist, it’s not something you’re born with. Open your mind, and let your heart follow.
Fitz: “Wonderful Mark… The Hegelian master/slave dialectic applied in typical fashion to the most pro-woman, pro-child, pro-civil society institution in the world….marriage.”
Well you _say_ marriage is wonderful, and there might be reasons for thinking that it’s wonderful, or at least good in spots, but it doesn’t negate my point that if you believe that primarily for Belloc’s Daughter’s reason that it’s been that way for a long time and worked out after a fashion, you’re really really stupid.
Fitz: “And not just that but a resort to comparisons to slavery.”
And why not? Are you unaware that a key point in the traditional marriage service is the “giving away of the bride”? It’s a bit hard to imagine now that women have remade marriage in a less misogynist mould, but for a long time that really was conceived of as a transfer of property. In many societies, the groom had to pay a bride price to the father to get the girl in the first place. Similarly, the traditional woman’s vow has her promising to “obey”, whereas the man’s omits that.
Fitz: “There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies —- those born out of wedlock —- to enter life disadvantaged.”
Sure, but you need to be clear about the actual cultural trend at the root of the problem. For example, the out-of-wedlock rate in the AA community is sky high in significant part because there’s a mass shortage of eligible men - an alarming fraction of black men are unemployed or in prison. Would-be AA mothers then not unreasonably conclude that they might as well plan on making a solo project of it from the beginning because even if they could get the father to stick around he wouldn’t be contributing any resources.
Marty: “Prisons, Navies, Greece etc have all provided ample evidence that ostensibly “straight” men are perfectly capable of finding sexual satisfaction with their own kind.”
That’s ample evidence that _some_ men who are _ostensibly_ straight are perfectly capable of finding sexual satisfaction with their own kind. So?
Marty: “In more modern times, college culture provides more than enough evidence that women can and do find their sexuality far more fluid than they would have guessed beforehand.”
Ditto. Note that I don’t doubt the existence of the “political” lesbian. When I looked at the study by Laumann that Fitz was (indirectly) quoting, one thing that leapt out at me was confirmation of something I’d always suspected anecdotally: female-female same-sex activity is highly correlated with a university education. (By contrast however, there’s no analogous bump for male-male activity.) But political lesbians are only a few percent and the fact that they exist is no evidence that there aren’t also “real” lesbians (i.e., more-or-less exclusively same-sex-attracted ones, also apparently a few percent).
No Mark I don’t think marriage is “wonderful”. I think it is a foundational social institution that provides the best protection & provision for society and children as well as the male & female involved.
I also see that you’re about as knowledgeable about the institution as a first year feminist studies major. Bride prices, dowries, the father giving away the bride are no more analogous to slavery than the parent/child relationship is analogous to slavery. Indeed such practices are examples of the deep bond of affection between father and daughter and the social expectation of men to love and regard the daughters well being. Dowries and the like are community property for starting new households.
Your squeamishness about AA families shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. High incarceration rates are an effect of father absence. Not a reason for its occurrence.
Those who are not narrow and ideological are simply defending the institution of marriage for the social goods it promotes. Your quick and thin reliance on warmed over feminism and cause & effect correlation shows a unfamiliarity with the subject and (more importantly) a unwillingness to engage compassionately with the wreckage of family breakdown.
Fitz: “No Mark I don’t think marriage is “wonderful”. I think it is a foundational social institution that provides the best protection & provision for society and children as well as the male & female involved.”
Much of a muchness in the context. And my point stands: if you believe that primarily for Belloc’s Daughter’s reason that it’s been that way for a long time and worked out after a fashion, you’re really really stupid.
Fitz: “Bride prices, dowries, the father giving away the bride are no more analogous to slavery than the parent/child relationship is analogous to slavery. Indeed such practices are examples of the deep bond of affection between father and daughter and the social expectation of men to love and regard the daughters well being. Dowries and the like are community property for starting new households.”
Sure. But then I understand that slaves were fat and happy too, and that they obeyed their earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as they would obey Christ. (cf. Ephesians 6:5)
Yes Mark - the judgment of History and all human civilizations is an important marker. As they say, certain things have “stood the test of time”. Of course: I also have the massive empirical evidence and the social scientific consensus it has generated. So I figure I’m good to go.
Your sheepish analogy of marriage to slavery makes me wonder why you would support the parasitical attempt to establish same-sex “marriage”. That aside your insistence on an analogy to slavery simply reaffirms what so many supporters of marriage already know.
That is: Proponents of same-sex “marriage”, the cultural left and the gay left don’t give a wit about societies marriage culture or the victims that suffer under it degradation.
Fitz: “Your sheepish analogy of marriage to slavery makes me wonder why you would support the parasitical attempt to establish same-sex “marriage”.”
Oh, that’s simple. Marriage was traditionally a much better deal for men than women and as soon as women got a measure of political power they started changing it (and related things) to be less inequitable. I’m comfortable that that process is far enough along and irreversible enough that I can ask for SSM and not have it be seen as a vote for the Dark Ages. (Other gay people feel differently and I accept it’s a judgement call.)
http://www.abc4.com/media/news/5/e/4/5e45c748-e744-4b97-a6a7-50c19c384550/butters_on_gays.mp3
here is some wonder chatter. . .sounds like kindred spirits
“Oh, that’s simple. Marriage was traditionally a much better deal for men than women and as soon as women got a measure of political power they started changing it (and related things) to be less inequitable.”
Mark reveals another “just so” story directly out of the feminsit playbook. Never have woman & children been more likley to live in poverty. Never has domestic abuse been more rampant and never have child outcomes been more disparate.
Women have had a “measure of political power” since the 19th amendment & before. The only change came from leftists in the 1960’s creating no-fault divorce that leaves woman with significantly lower household earnings & children…again, measurably disadvantaged.
The retreat from marriage among the lower classes has generated a “tangle of pathologies” that are to long and grim for the faint hearted.
Marriage has always been and continues to be a “much better deal” for woman, men,, children and society. Far from being a simplistic Hegelian master/slave dialectic that drives Mark toward the zero-sum game of leftist power dynamics.
Following the script laid out by a stream of womyn studies professors is hardly conducive to probing analysis and bears little relation to life as lived.
Fitz: “The only change came from leftists in the 1960’s creating no-fault divorce [...]”
Actually quite a lot of things changed, some of it just due to technological and other advances, but plenty due to political pressure from women (and sympathetic men). These include, lower infant mortality, the right to work, access to contraceptives, better contraceptives, labour-saving devices that meant keeping house was less than a full time job, etc.
Fitz: “[...] that leaves woman with significantly lower household earnings & children…again, measurably disadvantaged.”
You paint a picture of women being thrown out on the street destitute, and undoubtedly that sometimes happens. But in fact two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women, _despite_ the fact that it’s likely to leave them financially rather worse off. Now possibly you want to dismiss that as selfishness, but the fact remains that if they’re voting with their feet in the face of major financial incentives for them to stay, marriage can’t have been as good a deal for them as you want to believe.
Voting with their feet? Well most people remain married. And that’s despite the pervasive anti-marriage trends in the cultural context in which marriages swim or sink.
For example, the nonmarital birth trend that Fitz has often mentioned; unmarried mothers are significantly less likely to ever marry. And unwed fathers are significantly less likely to remain active in of their children.
Marriage keeps people together even when love wanes and commitment erodes. This is the influence of a foundational social institution. Couples who persevere usually, by large margins, report being happier in the medium to longrun. In fact, the way to strengthen the marriage culture is to learn “best pracices” from successful marriages, rather than counting on nonmarital trends as instructive on how to make marriage mean less for society.
CO: “Voting with their feet? Well most people remain married. And that’s despite the pervasive anti-marriage trends in the cultural context in which marriages swim or sink.”
Sure, but then marriage always was in large part just a formalizing of a behaviour that lots of people would have been doing anyway. Most people are straight, and like to be in opposite-sex relationships, and most people (not necessarily exactly the same ones) are broody and like having kids. And it doesn’t always end badly by any means. But sometimes it does, and the coercive aspects of marriage and related arrangements were presumably intended to control problems, as you seem to concede here:
CO: “Marriage keeps people together even when love wanes and commitment erodes. ”
The scenario you mention is a potential problem, and making it difficult to dissolve a marriage was undoubtedly in part an effort to address that problem. However there are at least three different interest groups involved (fathers, mothers and children) and thus three different problems to address. My point to Fitz was that someone who takes for granted that marriage was an optimum balance between the interests of the various stakeholders is an idiot. Rather, one should expect to find that marriage was skewed towards protecting the interests of the group with power, which was the men. Now indeed, _some_ of the time, a man rejects his wife, and the wife is out in the street without support and that’s a big problem for the wife. If you want to make a case for how woman-friendly traditional marriage is you can pound the table about that. But equally, some of the time, men are abusive or otherwise intolerable to live with, and women quite reasonably want to get away. It turns out, go figure, that when you make separation easier, it’s disproportionately the women who request it. That strongly suggests that the traditional status quo wasn’t protecting women from being thrown out by men, it was more about protecting men from women leaving.
Actually, most wife-initiated divorces involve the low-conflict scenarios — the very scenarios through which married couples can work through and come out happier.
I know it may seem odd to some people (not necessariy to you, Mark) that an unhappy wife might actually find greater happiness staying in marriage rather than divorcing. Again, this especially applies to couples with children.
The “working through it”, well, that’s a mutual endeavor between husband and wife — and, yes, kids too. Instead of disaggregating, the family unites. This does not swallow up the wife but empowers her both as a wife and a mother. That said, it is very often a root problem with the husband that needs the most effort from all concerned. All of this is applicable to the modern family perhaps moreso because of the equality of husband and wife.
What mark is doing is placing the wants of adults over the needs of both children and society. In this wanton autonomous world whatever adults “choose” is automatically deemed good simply because they choose it.
It morally bankrupt & intellectually vacuous. It is however rather popular and has been since 1968.
An excellent primer on the intersection of this world view and its detrimental effects on our most vulnerable citizens can be found in the work…
Freedom’s Orphans:
Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children
David L. Tubbs
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8569.html
CO: “Actually, most wife-initiated divorces involve the low-conflict scenarios — the very scenarios through which married couples can work through and come out happier.”
You don’t actually know that. What you know is that the married couples who thought their problems might be resolvable and tried to resolve them were often right. That doesn’t mean the people who thought their problems weren’t resolvable and didn’t try were wrong. I don’t apologise for much less inclined to dismiss their judgement about their own circumstances than you.
CO: “I know it may seem odd to some people (not necessariy to you, Mark) that an unhappy wife might actually find greater happiness staying in marriage rather than divorcing. Again, this especially applies to couples with children.”
I don’t at all find that surprising. Some troubles can be worked through, and some troubles are worth it for a good cause, such as a more stable environment for children. I just want to see a balance, and I don’t think you do. I think you have the circular selective callousness of the moralizing conservative: you might make a show of doing a cost-benefit analysis of your moral principles to show off to yourself or others, but the result is pre-ordained because nothing is ever allowed to count as a cost - people who lose out and complain are written off as immoral and selfish, and not to be sympathized with.
Fitz: “What mark is doing is placing the wants of adults over the needs of both children and society.”
No, what I’m doing is pointing out that when you said earlier that marriage was the “best protection & provision for society and children as well as the male & female involved”, you were kidding yourself and us with the bit about the male and female. The adults in the picture (especially the women) aren’t actually on your radar - any and all expressions of dissatisfaction are pre-defined as selfish and to be ignored.
But Mark, the nuts and bolts of these scenarios are recognizable and couples generally do improve their situations, and their marriages, when they act on the telltale signs. It is not nearly as mysterious as you might have it.
And I said nothing about married people in difficulties being “wrong”.
* * *
You said:
“the circular selective callousness of the moralizing conservative [...] show off [...] people who lose out and complain are written off as immoral and selfish, and not to be sympathized with.”
Well, I guess you told me. Whew.
End of conversation as you stomp out the room.
CO: “But Mark, the nuts and bolts of these scenarios are recognizable and couples generally do improve their situations, and their marriages, when they act on the telltale signs. It is not nearly as mysterious as you might have it.”
But I’m not suggesting it’s mysterious at all. I’m all for couples being educated on potential problems, being encouraged to try and solve them, having ready access to counseling, etc, etc, and I’m sure it works some of the time. I’m just pointing out that you’re talking about the successes to defend disallowing breakups, which is implicitly denying failures and leaving their costs out of the cost-benefit analysis.
CO: “And I said nothing about married people in difficulties being “wrong”.”
Quite so - I was just making a confident bet that it was unlikely you could help yourself for long. It didn’t take long with Fitz.
Your remarks did suggest it was mysterious. But, good, you have corrected yourself.
* * *
I have not defended “disallowing breakups”.
I have talked of the influence of a foundational social institution.
And I’ve talked of the adverse influence of undermining the social institution.
Fitz did not say what you imagined him to have said. Apparently that is your cue to manufacture yet another strawman.
CO: ‘I have not defended “disallowing breakups”. [//] I have talked of the influence of a foundational social institution. [//] And I’ve talked of the adverse influence of undermining the social institution.”
Disallowing breakups used to be the primary mechanism by which “Marriage keeps people together even when love wanes and commitment erodes.”, and it was the context of the exchange with Fitz, so I assumed you were. But now that you mention it, I don’t ever recall you defending for-fault divorce. I suppose I should have considered the possibility that you thought marriage was a magical carrot that worked entirely by vague slogans like “foundational social institution” in that area as well.
“Of course, some gays and lesbians will accuse Deltas of ‘not being true to themselves.’ But who decided that our libidos and hearts represent our true selves, even when they’re in conflict with our minds, consciences, and spirits? Shouldn’t each of us get to decide who we truly are?”
EXCELLENT.
Also, Delta? Poetic. I like it.
I can attest to deliberate living minimizing same-sex attractions. It can fluctuate.