Undermining Tradition: The debate for Same-Sex Marriage
The debate surrounding Same-Sex Marriages is a contentious one. It has opinions and justifications running the gamut from: It goes against civil liberties, to: it goes against the natural order of things . Yet within all the rhetoric that gets tossed around back and forth on both sides there is a fundamental statement that is made by those who are opposed to these types of unions. This statement is that Same-Sex Marriage undermines the traditional heterosexual marriage, either through a perversion of the purpose of marriage (that is, to raise a family), or because it flaunts homosexual culture (a culture believed to be debauched) in the face of traditional, heterosexual, marriage. I believe this ‘undermining notion’ to be false, as it seems to imply that marriage is too much for, or out of the realm of control of, homosexual couples; and that is simply not the case. Both the rearing of children, and the management of an ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship are wholly within the abilities of homosexual couples.
First off, what do I mean by ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship? An ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship is one in which two people can love each other and form a monogamous bond based upon trust; responsibility; and the aforementioned, love. This is in response to the claim by those against same-sex marriages that homosexual couples flaunt homosexual culture in the face of heterosexual marriage. How the opponents to same-sex marriage believe this ‘flaunting’ is achieved is that homosexual couples will bring into a marriage certain characteristics of their homosexual life which are perceived as debauched. Andrew Sullivan describes these perceived characteristics in his essay entitled: ‘The Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage’ as: “fleeting emotional commitments; promiscuous sex; disease; social ostracism; and the flaunting of standards of public decency, and self-restraint .” These characteristics do indeed seem detrimental to the family unit, as they often involve a rejection of responsibility, or are causes of woe. Lets assume for the sake of argument that these are, indeed, characteristics of homosexual lifestyle. The question then becomes: Would the welcoming into the realm of marriage lay these characteristics to waste? Sullivan seems to think so. “There are very few social incentives of the kind conservatives like for homosexuals not to be depraved: … no institution to encourage fidelity or monogamy, precious little religious or moral outreach to guide homosexuals into more virtuous living ” [italics his]. An institution such as marriage might be just the thing to encourage a more responsible, less woe-stricken, homosexual life. In other words, if this debauched life is what homosexuals are living in now, free from the union of marriage, won’t a union of marriage be just the right solution? Certainly those debauched characteristics are no more a part of being a homosexual, than the same characteristics are a part of being a wild (heterosexual) bachelor; who can eventually be tamed and settle down into a nice marriage. The ability to adopt the same characteristics of a relationship are no more foreign to homosexuals than they are to heterosexuals, it’s just that they receive no encouragement to do so. It’s sort of a vicious circle: The homosexual lifestyle is debauched only because they don’t have the ability to marry, which may curb their lifestyle (much the same way it does with some of the wildest straight singles); yet they shouldn’t have the option to marry, because their lifestyle is such that it is the antithesis of heterosexual married life. Somewhere the circle must be broken.
The other thought that goes part and parcel with the theory of same-sex marriage undermining traditional marriage is that of child rearing, and the family unit in general. It is not uncommon to hear that one reason behind the existence of marriage is for procreation, and that requires two people of opposite sexes. Therefore, same-sex married couples should not be because they don’t possess the abilities for procreation within their family unit. An obvious counter is that heterosexuals who aren’t able to give birth are not denied marriage so why are homosexuals? Beyond this counter however (which doesn’t necessarily prove that homosexuals have the ability to raise children, just that there are heterosexuals who can’t), there’s the scientific advancements that allow for artificial insemination, and the old-fashioned method of adoption. Both of these methods yield children, whether it’s the creation of children in the former, or the opportunity of a family unit in the latter. While I don’t think that anyone is in denial as to whether same-sex couples have the ability to obtain children, whether they should is another bugbear for the opponents. Many believe that a homosexual relationship is not a stable enough family unit for the development of mentally sound children. As Sullivan says: “The distinction between “families” and “homosexuals” is, to begin with, empirically false ”. The ability to raise mentally healthy children is no further out of the reach of same-sex couples than it is for heterosexual couples. For instance, a loving couple is a loving couple, no matter what sex they are; and for a child to be surrounded by that loving image can only be good. The environment for a child’s development is the most important part of his/her upbringing, and so we should not be asking whether the parents are of the same sex or not, but whether they are good parents with good parenting methods or not. As Andrew Sullivan says at the end of his essay “It’s perfectly possible to combine a celebration of the traditional family with the celebration of a stable homosexual relationship .”
The major contention in the debate between whether homosexual couples should have the right to marry is that the opponents of the idea propose that it may undermine the traditional notion of marriage. This undermining has to do with the thought that homosexuals somehow lack the ability, or talent, to handle something like marriage. The opponents argue that homosexuals flaunt their debauched lifestyle in the face of marriage. This has been refuted, however, by saying that marriage should help to ‘mellow-out’ those debauched characteristics (if indeed they do exist) by giving a structure and encouragement to monogamous, institutionally recognized relations. Another argument against same-sex marriage comes from the age-old interpretation of marriage, and that is: procreation. But even that’s not wholly outside of the abilities of a same-sex couple. Adoption, and artificial insemination make it so that same-sex couples can raise a child as well. What it all comes down to is that homosexuals in general possess no fewer abilities, skills, or desires to handle a marriage than heterosexuals do. If all these notions are proven false, then why do people not give up the fight and just allow same-sex marriage? Why aren’t we seeing sitcoms starring homosexual couples? Why is this essay being written? Is it that the opponents of same-sex marriages are too stubborn in the face of these fallacies? Or is it that there’s another underlying notion? There are other arguments out there that range from religious-based condemnations, to slippery-slope analogies . Is there a common ground for all these concerns? Is it a fear of homosexuality, or a fear that the meddling with the already shaky institution of marriage will cause its collapse? The answers to these questions aren’t forthcoming, and are topics for another discussion; but they are things to think about nonetheless, for when you’re dealing with the liberties of human beings a little thought goes a long way.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Simone de Beauvoir: Existentialate THIS!
In her book The Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir discusses (among other things) how the plight of the woman got to be where it is today; that is: as a second class citizen, a slave-class to males. In discussing this, she brings up the notion of the Self and the Other, and how that relates to the relationship between men and women. Women are categorized as the other, naturally because of their social standing when compared to the Self (the dominant class, in this case males). The Self perceives women as the other because the Self gets to make the rules, and set the social standards. Simply put, if you’re not part of the powerful Self you’re the Other. De Beauvoir’s questioning lies in how this Self/Other, Male/Female relationship came to be.
When looking at an oppressed people, it is often helpful to look at other groups of oppressed people (in de Beauvoir’s case she looked at Black People, Jews, the Proletariat and to a lesser extent, Native Americans). What de Beauvoir found was that in their struggle for recognition as valuable human beings there was a sense of community, and camaraderie; they were linked by a common culture, or language, or past. Women (in general) don’t have that past or sense of culture, or at least don’t have that to the same degree. Simone de Beauvoir suggests that this sense of camaraderie springs from the fact that all these oppressed groups had memory of a time in which they were free, and could always draw upon that, and have the hope for a return to those days fuel their struggles. Women, she says, do not have those memories because they were always oppressed, and marginalized. Simone de Beauvoir says: “They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat.” De Beauvoir suggests that when a Black person, or a Jewish person wants to feel solidarity to something they can feel solidarity to another Black person, or Jewish person; while a white woman will feel solidarity to a while man, and a bourgeois female will feel solidarity to a bourgeois male. It is this lack of history, and culture; and lack of recognition between their fellow women that has held the goals of a woman’s equal recognition back.
My question is this: Is de Beauvoir right in saying that a lack of a definable past in woman’s history is keeping them back from their goals at recognition from the Self? Her comparisons to the various groups she mentioned (Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Proletariat) can be used in support against her claims as well. Sure these groups have received recognition from the Self but this is on paper only. While men may recognize himself in a Black male, or Jewish male, they are still held in lower regard by the Self. This is similar to the case of women, where on paper they are already regarded as equal and valuable citizens (I should mention that by ‘on paper’ I mean in the written word of law. For example, there’s nothing that says a Black person, or Jew, or a woman can’t be the leader of a country, or work the same job as a white-male.), yet in practice this ‘equal-regard’ is another story. Also, I feel that lumping in Black, Jewish, Proletariat, and Native American males in with middle-to-upper-class white-males and labeling them the same group is fallacious. Social practices are more complex, and don’t have the capacities just yet to fully welcome all men as equal.
When looking at an oppressed people, it is often helpful to look at other groups of oppressed people (in de Beauvoir’s case she looked at Black People, Jews, the Proletariat and to a lesser extent, Native Americans). What de Beauvoir found was that in their struggle for recognition as valuable human beings there was a sense of community, and camaraderie; they were linked by a common culture, or language, or past. Women (in general) don’t have that past or sense of culture, or at least don’t have that to the same degree. Simone de Beauvoir suggests that this sense of camaraderie springs from the fact that all these oppressed groups had memory of a time in which they were free, and could always draw upon that, and have the hope for a return to those days fuel their struggles. Women, she says, do not have those memories because they were always oppressed, and marginalized. Simone de Beauvoir says: “They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat.” De Beauvoir suggests that when a Black person, or a Jewish person wants to feel solidarity to something they can feel solidarity to another Black person, or Jewish person; while a white woman will feel solidarity to a while man, and a bourgeois female will feel solidarity to a bourgeois male. It is this lack of history, and culture; and lack of recognition between their fellow women that has held the goals of a woman’s equal recognition back.
My question is this: Is de Beauvoir right in saying that a lack of a definable past in woman’s history is keeping them back from their goals at recognition from the Self? Her comparisons to the various groups she mentioned (Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Proletariat) can be used in support against her claims as well. Sure these groups have received recognition from the Self but this is on paper only. While men may recognize himself in a Black male, or Jewish male, they are still held in lower regard by the Self. This is similar to the case of women, where on paper they are already regarded as equal and valuable citizens (I should mention that by ‘on paper’ I mean in the written word of law. For example, there’s nothing that says a Black person, or Jew, or a woman can’t be the leader of a country, or work the same job as a white-male.), yet in practice this ‘equal-regard’ is another story. Also, I feel that lumping in Black, Jewish, Proletariat, and Native American males in with middle-to-upper-class white-males and labeling them the same group is fallacious. Social practices are more complex, and don’t have the capacities just yet to fully welcome all men as equal.
Thursday, 15 February 2007
I KANT believe he said that!
Kant’s authoritarian views on sexuality are essentially that sex involves the objectification of one by the other, and that this is immoral. This comes from the carnal lust that one feels for another, that removes that lust-object’s humanity, and renders them something akin to a blow-up doll. However, even Kant could see that sex is necessary for the continued existence of humanity so in order to alleviate some of the moral ‘wrongness’ of it all, he suggested that marriage act as a clause. In marrying someone you give yourself to that person in exchange for that person giving themselves to you, and in doing so become one. This should negate the disregard of one person’s humanity by the other (I guess it then becomes an objectification of your own humanity (in a sense), and that is, apparently, alright). My question, then, is why doesn’t something less formal than marriage (such as a pledge of love for one another) suffice in Kant’s book? Why must institutions recognition of a union be essential?
I don’t really have an answer in my head for my hypothetical question to Kant, but what I would like to point out is a startling comparison to what Foucault was talking about in his ‘A History of Sexuality’. Foucault writes about not a repression of sexuality but a proliferation of sexuality through an institution’s control and co-opting of sexuality. It seems as though Kant takes the morality out of the control of the couple, and instead puts it in the hands of an institution; thereby involving the institution in the sexual lives people. This allows the institution (let’s imply that the institutions involved in marriage are the government, and the whatever church is affiliated with the marriage, should it be a religious one) to set boundaries, and norms, that will affect certain aspects of the union. Will this then give the institution(s) allowance to change aspects of the marriage contract at a whim (not even cell phone companies are allowed to do this)? I’d think so.
In short, I believe that a less-formal commitment than marriage should suffice to overcome Kant’s moral bugbears of sexuality (if there are any at all). It could just as easily involve the combination of two persons into one, all the while keeping your sexuality in your hands, not in the hands of shadowy institutions.
I don’t really have an answer in my head for my hypothetical question to Kant, but what I would like to point out is a startling comparison to what Foucault was talking about in his ‘A History of Sexuality’. Foucault writes about not a repression of sexuality but a proliferation of sexuality through an institution’s control and co-opting of sexuality. It seems as though Kant takes the morality out of the control of the couple, and instead puts it in the hands of an institution; thereby involving the institution in the sexual lives people. This allows the institution (let’s imply that the institutions involved in marriage are the government, and the whatever church is affiliated with the marriage, should it be a religious one) to set boundaries, and norms, that will affect certain aspects of the union. Will this then give the institution(s) allowance to change aspects of the marriage contract at a whim (not even cell phone companies are allowed to do this)? I’d think so.
In short, I believe that a less-formal commitment than marriage should suffice to overcome Kant’s moral bugbears of sexuality (if there are any at all). It could just as easily involve the combination of two persons into one, all the while keeping your sexuality in your hands, not in the hands of shadowy institutions.
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Probably the only time you'll see Foucalt and David Suzuki together in writing.
Foucault’s theory of the institutionalization of sex lends itself to the thought that the institutions control the taboos of sex as well. One such case of the medical community taking advantage of the paranoia of the judiciary (in terms of sex) was detailed in Foucault’s The History of Sexuality (on pages 31-32 (49-50 of the numbered pages)). In it, Foucault tells the story of a village man-child who would receive sexual favors from the young girls in the village, as he had seen countless other village urchins do before him. After being pointed out to the authorities by the girls’ parents he was whisked away to a medical asylum where he was studied (in a very draconic way) in order to determine what motivated such a man. They even took measurements of facial structures and brainpans as if they would yield the secrets as to why he resorted to such hedonism (“Of course. His low-hanging brow, and pineapple shaped head clearly make this miscreant stand out as a defiler, and a deviant!”).
This act of locking a man up in a hospital for the rest of his life only proliferated the discourses on sexuality, after all the doctors who studied the poor man published their findings. This is in line with Foucault’s claims of institutions taking control of sexuality. By publishing these superstitious and biased findings they helped mold sexuality into how they think the common person should see it: as a danger that must be controlled within oneself, lest you become a slave to your own compulsions. Without having read any of the findings I can only assume what they might have stirred up in the mainstream western world: a paranoia of sexual predators lurking within ones own village; a further proliferation of the thought of sex, as disturbing, and rigid; the possibilities are almost endless.
David Suzuki once wrote an essay on how our society’s perception of what is ‘dirty’ and how we inform our children of such was preventing our society’s enjoyment of nature. The common vocal concern of parents in regards to children is an aversion to the child playing with dirt, or soil, when in reality the soil is relatively clean, and harmless. This thought gets ingrained in the child’s head that all of nature is hazardous, or filthy, and must be avoided thus creating an overly sterile society. I imagine the same thing happened/is happening with sexuality through these various institutions, and their disdain for us ‘playing in the dirt’.
This act of locking a man up in a hospital for the rest of his life only proliferated the discourses on sexuality, after all the doctors who studied the poor man published their findings. This is in line with Foucault’s claims of institutions taking control of sexuality. By publishing these superstitious and biased findings they helped mold sexuality into how they think the common person should see it: as a danger that must be controlled within oneself, lest you become a slave to your own compulsions. Without having read any of the findings I can only assume what they might have stirred up in the mainstream western world: a paranoia of sexual predators lurking within ones own village; a further proliferation of the thought of sex, as disturbing, and rigid; the possibilities are almost endless.
David Suzuki once wrote an essay on how our society’s perception of what is ‘dirty’ and how we inform our children of such was preventing our society’s enjoyment of nature. The common vocal concern of parents in regards to children is an aversion to the child playing with dirt, or soil, when in reality the soil is relatively clean, and harmless. This thought gets ingrained in the child’s head that all of nature is hazardous, or filthy, and must be avoided thus creating an overly sterile society. I imagine the same thing happened/is happening with sexuality through these various institutions, and their disdain for us ‘playing in the dirt’.
Monday, 12 February 2007
Issues with my mother... I mean Freud. Freud!
In Sigmund Freud’s work, Sexuality and the Psychology of Love he gives his theory for homosexuality in women as a more convoluted form of the Oedipus Complex. From what I can gather there are two main ways (according to Freud) that a woman can become a homosexual: One is through penis envy; and the other comes from the girl “retiring in favor of” leaving men to her mother. I have a hard time believing either of these, though if I had to choose the most plausible I would have to choose the penis envy one (but even that one’s a stretch for me). I will look at both cases somewhat in depth and explain my disbelief afterwards.
Penis envy, it’s exactly what you think it means. According to Freud, penis envy occurs when a young girl first sees a male naked and notices that he has a penis and she does not, this is a traumatic experience for the girl as it makes her feel as though she’s lacking in something. This can then go one of three ways, she can transfer her desire for a penis into an attraction for men, by way of taking her father as a love object and trying to find a man like him; she can renounce sexuality altogether; or she can develop a desire to obtain this penis by taking on the characteristics of being a man, thus becoming a homosexual woman. Freud doesn’t exactly say what causes a woman to choose one of these paths, but they eventually all do, as they seem to cover all the bases. My problem is that this is a very male-centric viewpoint being taken. What’s to say that the girl will see a naked boy and jump to the conclusion that he is her superior? It was brought up by one of the people in my group that the boy does not suffer from ‘breast envy’ when being breastfed, so why should the girl feel penis envy?
The second of Freud’s theories is a bit more complicated to explain, but no less hard to swallow. The little girl goes through a female Oedipus Complex transferring her object of love from her mother to her father, whom she realizes desires to have a male child. The girl then desires to give her father the child but for whatever reason, she comes to the realization that this cannot happen (this is either due to the superego’s (the part of the brain that deals with social norms) awareness in the girls mind, or the fact that her mother has given birth, and not her). So, as a form of disappointment, the girl gives up taking men for her love-object, as she realizes that she cannot compete with her mother. As if that wasn’t strange enough, Freud then claims that the girl becomes a male and goes through a second Oedipal Complex, this time from the perspective of the boy (hating his father and loving his mother), thus she has a sort of androgynous quality about her. This theory seems very convoluted, and seems like Freud had a fairly solid theory with the Oedipal Complex but found no obvious way for it to apply to women. I dare say that he worked backwards with the Oedipal Complex and tried to accommodate it for women. Accommodation does not necessarily render an argument invalid, but Freud’s seems forced.
Freud had some very revolutionary ideas and the simple fact that he was trying to unravel sexuality in his time is worthy of accolade in itself. I am, by no means, claiming that I beat Freud by refuting his claims because when it comes down to it, Freud was a doctor, and a founder of an acclaimed school of psychology, and my claim to fame is being an avid fan of Dune. I do, however, have some qualms about his theories and their applications.
Penis envy, it’s exactly what you think it means. According to Freud, penis envy occurs when a young girl first sees a male naked and notices that he has a penis and she does not, this is a traumatic experience for the girl as it makes her feel as though she’s lacking in something. This can then go one of three ways, she can transfer her desire for a penis into an attraction for men, by way of taking her father as a love object and trying to find a man like him; she can renounce sexuality altogether; or she can develop a desire to obtain this penis by taking on the characteristics of being a man, thus becoming a homosexual woman. Freud doesn’t exactly say what causes a woman to choose one of these paths, but they eventually all do, as they seem to cover all the bases. My problem is that this is a very male-centric viewpoint being taken. What’s to say that the girl will see a naked boy and jump to the conclusion that he is her superior? It was brought up by one of the people in my group that the boy does not suffer from ‘breast envy’ when being breastfed, so why should the girl feel penis envy?
The second of Freud’s theories is a bit more complicated to explain, but no less hard to swallow. The little girl goes through a female Oedipus Complex transferring her object of love from her mother to her father, whom she realizes desires to have a male child. The girl then desires to give her father the child but for whatever reason, she comes to the realization that this cannot happen (this is either due to the superego’s (the part of the brain that deals with social norms) awareness in the girls mind, or the fact that her mother has given birth, and not her). So, as a form of disappointment, the girl gives up taking men for her love-object, as she realizes that she cannot compete with her mother. As if that wasn’t strange enough, Freud then claims that the girl becomes a male and goes through a second Oedipal Complex, this time from the perspective of the boy (hating his father and loving his mother), thus she has a sort of androgynous quality about her. This theory seems very convoluted, and seems like Freud had a fairly solid theory with the Oedipal Complex but found no obvious way for it to apply to women. I dare say that he worked backwards with the Oedipal Complex and tried to accommodate it for women. Accommodation does not necessarily render an argument invalid, but Freud’s seems forced.
Freud had some very revolutionary ideas and the simple fact that he was trying to unravel sexuality in his time is worthy of accolade in itself. I am, by no means, claiming that I beat Freud by refuting his claims because when it comes down to it, Freud was a doctor, and a founder of an acclaimed school of psychology, and my claim to fame is being an avid fan of Dune. I do, however, have some qualms about his theories and their applications.
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
That's what she said!
Hello!
Welcome to my Philosophy 334: Sex, Gender, and Philosophy, blog. This blog will mainly be read by myself, and my professor for the class (Christina Hendricks), but some of the people who read some of the other blogs that I've created (I like to call my other blogs: the illegitimate children of my mind) may read some of this too; thus I extend the welcome to everyone (that and I like to pretend I'm talking to a million people when I type. I even read aloud in my 'old-time radio' voice).
What can you expect on this blog? Thrills! Chills! 250 word written responses to topics covered in my Philosophy class! And maybe celebrity spottings. "But Carmin," your shrill voices ask. "What does one study in a Sex, Gender, and Philosophy class?" Well, if you're new to the English language you're forgiven, but if you are able to hear yourselves talk you would have answered your own question. However, in my infinite generosity, I'll tell you.
Discourses on the roles of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender by Philosophers, Intellectuals, and all-round smart guys like Sigmund "Oedipus Rex" Freud, Michel "Don't touch my Panopticon" Foucault, and Immanuel "No, that wasn't me, that was Nietzsche" Kant to name a few. We'll also talk about what love is, Gay Marriage, Sex Roles in the Ideal Society, and MORALS!
So strap yourselves in, for once I start talking about what I think about Sex, and Gender, it only goes downhill...
-Carmin
Welcome to my Philosophy 334: Sex, Gender, and Philosophy, blog. This blog will mainly be read by myself, and my professor for the class (Christina Hendricks), but some of the people who read some of the other blogs that I've created (I like to call my other blogs: the illegitimate children of my mind) may read some of this too; thus I extend the welcome to everyone (that and I like to pretend I'm talking to a million people when I type. I even read aloud in my 'old-time radio' voice).
What can you expect on this blog? Thrills! Chills! 250 word written responses to topics covered in my Philosophy class! And maybe celebrity spottings. "But Carmin," your shrill voices ask. "What does one study in a Sex, Gender, and Philosophy class?" Well, if you're new to the English language you're forgiven, but if you are able to hear yourselves talk you would have answered your own question. However, in my infinite generosity, I'll tell you.
Discourses on the roles of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender by Philosophers, Intellectuals, and all-round smart guys like Sigmund "Oedipus Rex" Freud, Michel "Don't touch my Panopticon" Foucault, and Immanuel "No, that wasn't me, that was Nietzsche" Kant to name a few. We'll also talk about what love is, Gay Marriage, Sex Roles in the Ideal Society, and MORALS!
So strap yourselves in, for once I start talking about what I think about Sex, and Gender, it only goes downhill...
-Carmin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)