good points
Submitted by F.O.D. on March 24 2000 20:23:14
In reply to Re: Good question submitted by Jules on March 24 2000 09:13:42
|
I agree with you Jules. I think you're laying the question in the right direction, seeing the place of homosexual relationships in the broader context of human relationships and society and living together. Questions like, if homosexual relationships were readily accepted, would that make any difference to society as a whole. It comes down to the meaning of gender and masculinity and femininity and what it means to be "created in the image of God, created male and female". In other words, is there something in the mystery of femininity that masculinity cannot do without, such that only a male-female sexual coupling can be "successful", whatever "successful" means (obviously not just "procreative"). That's the way one church friend expressed it to me, why he thinks we shouldn't take part in homosexual relationships. He says there's some part in a man deep inside, that only a woman can reach. I mean, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's one of the only ways the rule against homosexuality can be seen to make any sense. I like to think about these things in terms of what I call "binary relationships". Obviously most binary relationships in any society will have to be male-female, or there will be no procreation and the society will become extinct. (I'm not sure how the potential for genetic engineering and asexual cloning fits in here so let's leave that one to the side). But society is more than a sum of binary relationships, you also have to account for "many-body effects". Namely, what affect does it have on C given that A and B are together? If some of the binary relationships are male-male, does society as a whole suffer? If it does, then the traditional reading of the biblical text is justified. But what if it can be demonstrated that an "optimally healthy society" has predominately male-female couples, but also a certain proportion of male-male (and female-female, for completeness)? Related to the question of the affect A and B has on C is the question of gay parenting. Can it be demonstrated that children raised by gay parents are just as well-balanced as those raised by heterosexual parents, given all other factors equal? I think it would be most interesting and relevant to find or conduct some studies on the state of society, comparing ones where homosexuality is more or less accepted, and ones where it is not. I don't know exactly how "healthy society" could be defined, but sociologists do use that kind of concept, don't they? I know (and have references to) some studies made comparing gay single parents to hetero single parents. The overall finding was that there is no difference in the quality of the child's upbringing, though I can't vouch for validity of the studies. But looking at single parents misses something - a single parent always has a hard time of it and there's going to be stress in the family from mere time constraints. I'm waiting for a study comparing two-parent gay and straight familes. The other thing I wonder about is the place of procreation. In protestant circles it's mostly assumed, I believe, that there's more value to sex than just making babies. But what if the potential to make babies is more important than we let ourselves think? In that case it would be logical to ban homosexuality, although it just shifts the question across to one of "why is the hope of engendering a child essential to a successful binary relationship?", and so we wouldn't really be any further ahead. And besides, wouldn't the ability of gay couples to adopt override this procreation objection? Regards, Fod |
Follow ups: