In considering the future of marriage, Dr. David Blankenhorn chaired three one-day seminars for researchers and family scholars in 2004 to address concerns raised by the prospect of gay marriage. Seminars were held in New York City, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, with a total of 40 people attending, including leading family scholars. Some had spoken out in favor of gay marriage and some against. Serious scholars and leaders wrestled with the issue in an attempt to see both sides.
The results of the discussions confirmed that a movement toward gay marriage would not only affect a small minority but would constitute major social change. It became evident that the decision was not a morally easy one because when important goods conflict, any resolution will carry elements of loss. A diverse range of consequences were listed, both positive and negative.
Positive social consequences of extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples included:
* the improvement of well being and social worth for gays and lesbians,
* increased tolerance under the law,
* and equal treatment under the law.
Extending marriage benefits may:
* encourage gays to choose committed relationships,
* contribute to more stability and longer lasting relationships,
* and lead to less sexual promiscuity.
Negative social consequences that were identified in changing the public meaning of marriage from a social institution to a private relationship between two people included:
* the de-institutionalization of marriage, contributing to a social devaluation of marriage,
* endorsement of the idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father,
* opening the door to other forms of 'marriage', including group marriage and polygamy,
* subsidization of reproductive technologies,
* and fewer children being raised by their own married mother and father.
The religious values of most Americans in regard to appropriate sexual relationships would:
* no longer be legally accepted,
* lead to state imposed restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of expression,
* and lead to U.S. marriages becoming secularized, undermining religious conceptions of marriage.
The public socialization of young people into a marriage culture would be diluted to avoid suggesting that marriage is fundamentally heterosexual. If the decision was reached by the courts, a public loss in confidence in the judicial systems would result.
The total list of consequences identified by the 40 conference attendees included 23 negative, 24 positive and 12 'other' consequences that were considered important to recognize. The participants in this discussion concluded that gay marriage would represent "quite a bit of significant social change, affecting many aspects of society."
QUESTIONS ON GAY REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY 2.
In 1993, Morton A. Kaplan, distinguished service professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago and editor of The World and I magazine, wrestled with the challenges to society being proposed by gay activism. Noting that the issues of gay rights and alternative family forms generated enormous anger and political energy, he concluded that, "As long as the family, as now understood, commands the rational and emotional assent of most people, it is hard for homosexuality to enter the mainstream of American life." Noting that "We cannot, even if we wished, withdraw from these issues" Kaplan concluded, "it is therefore, quite important to think through these issues as objectively as possible."
A series of considerations were raised.
* "Many homosexuals and lesbians are intelligent, honorable, hardworking, and valuable members of society. Many of them are fine parents...They tend to greater promiscuity than heterosexuals, but this may be a product of social and legal factors..."
* "No decent individual would desire to see homosexuals harassed or deprived of dignified career opportunities."
* "Although it is regrettable that a group of people should pay disproportionate social and psychological costs because of their sexuality, the survival of the larger group cannot be put at risk."
* "We legitimate the heterosexual family to preserve the group."
* In extending the concept of normality, "damage may be done to society that may take generations to repair...some degree of damage to limited groups of individuals may be justified for the greater good of society... every set of social norms injures some."
* "Are homosexual and lesbian tendencies genetically governed?...such behavior likely depends on more than genetics."
* "...there were also incestuous or pedophilic families...But where is the line to be drawn, and on what basis? And, if we cannot draw a firm line, will we remain successful in outlawing child pornography if the child consents?"
* Can we tolerate all forms of consensual sexual activity"... Our ability to function rationally depends on taboos and social and legal constraints that maintain character and a sense of appropriateness."
* I suggest prudence, that we do not allow a slippery slope to take us unawares... we need serious discussion rather than the polemics and the heat we are now generating."
CAUTION IS WISDOM
Social movements promoting the normalization of homosexuality in our society have, and will continue to bring about profound challenges and changes in social organization, particularly in regard to social integration, social reproduction, social health, and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values.
Social Integration
The heterosexual family unit has integrated men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal and caring relationships that transcend generations. Countless and consistent family research confirms that the greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit.
Intergenerational Transfer of Cultural Values
The foundation upon which freedom is built rests upon the ability of autonomous family units to preserve and pass down cultural values to the next generation. This process develops a diversity of perspectives, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.
Social Reproduction
As children are taught to accept homosexuality as a normal choice, the intergenerational transfer of cultural and genetic patterns in society becomes jeopardized. The normalization of homosexuality will create new forms of social reproduction. When society changes rapidly it is prudent to inquire, "Who benefits?" The commercialization of reproduction through the buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) will replace the caring and loving union of mother, father, children, grandchildren, and extended relatives. This is a foundation for eugenics with all the questions to be asked in this regard. Whose sperm? Whose egg will be favored?
Social Health
The personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. It is not useful to pretend that the dangers inherent in the homosexual lifestyle will be overcome by condom use, especially a careless distribution of condoms among the young.
Heterosexual family forms have been protected and passed down through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies.
The Slippery Slope
This discussion will leave the reader with questions addressed by Melik Kaylan in his article "The Way We Live Now." 3.
"...Most of the 'slippery slope' warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each -broken homes, addictions, AIDS?...
Already the era of gay parenting is here. It often involves an affluent gay couple adopting poor orphans and improving their material future immeasurably. How long before market forces noisily hold up such families as role models, pillars of style, tolerance, humor, free-thinking? Yet we have no idea how the children will fare emotionally, how anomalous they will feel... Will children, once reared know how to sustain a heterosexual marriage or family, having no inherited sense of its workings?...What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage, then to identify the cause?"
References:
1. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:202-212.
2. Kaplan, Morton A. "Common Sense on Gay Rights." The World and I. 1993:361,403-407.
3. Kaylan, Melik. "TheWay We Live Now." The Wall Street Journal. Friday, August 8, 2003: Opinion Page.
No comments:
Post a Comment