Why Consent Matters
I was chatting with one of my friends who happens to be gay and he mentioned in passing that he thought Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann were crazy. I defended them both, saying that they were portrayed unfairly in a media that seemed obsessed with personally attacking them in ways that were never used against conservative men. I told him that there were very good reasons to dislike both – their stances on gay marriage were particularly important to him, a middle-aged gay man who had been in a monogamous relationship with his partner for almost as long as I’ve been married. But I felt that the persona the press had made of each woman was a caricature that had more to do with the twisted minds of Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher than it did the reality of each woman.
Neither would ever get his vote, which I think is unfortunate. But when I consider them from his viewpoint, it’s obvious why he’ll never vote for either of them. Being gay is key to his identity, just as being a supporter of Israel is to mine. It’s a non-negotiable for him, just as Israel’s right to exist is for me. He long ago gave up questioning his sexual identity just as long ago I stopped entertaining thoughts of a peaceful Middle East brought about by Israel giving away the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria. When someone suggests that his relationship with his partner isn’t the same as a relationship between a man and a woman, he doesn’t argue anymore – just as I don’t argue with anyone who believes that peace would settle on the Middle East if Israel would just, as Helen Thomas so bluntly put it, went away. I don’t waste my breath with people who think that Israel is an apartheid state just as my friend doesn’t argue with anyone who thinks he should just choose to like women.
That puts me at serious odds with many on the Right, but I don’t mind. Truth be told I’d trade the entire Religious Right for just half of the gay community. I’ve known gay people for most of my life, just as I have known deeply religious people – and I’ve learned that there are insufferable elements in both groups. For every drunken pair of homos humping each other at a gay pride parade there is the Westboro Church, and for every man-hating lesbian there is a preacher promising hellfire and damnation for me because I think the Bible is an interesting historical document, not the word of God.
When I read conservatives attacking gays, I get annoyed. I don’t just think that being gay is a lifestyle choice, I know it isn’t. No one would choose the path that my friends have. They didn’t choose to be kicked out of their families as teenagers. They didn’t choose to be beaten with baseball bats by homophobes crashing their parties. They didn’t choose to live in a society where they can only feel accepted in small neighborhoods in large cities. So when I read an otherwise solid piece questioning an attempt by some psychiatric professionals to “normalize” pedophilia, I get angry when it goes off the rails and equates it with homosexuality. “But, now, there should be no doubt that our culture is poised to begin embracing pedophilia as a lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality.” Just like Homosexuality?
The writer’s viewpoint was that the “normalization” of homosexuality was part of a slippery slope that lead to pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, and other assorted horrors. The basis for his viewpoint was the following equation: two adult men or two adult women is the same thing, morally and spiritually, as a man and a child. I suppose one could argue that from the writer’s perspective, the homosexual – having chosen his “lifestyle” – is actually more responsible for his immorality than a pedophile who was born with (or developed later, it doesn’t matter) the craving for sex with children. This may also reflect the author’s bias that homosexuals support the decriminalization of sex with children, which is a common misconception spread by those who equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
I don’t see homosexuality on the same slope as pedophilia because the former is between two consenting adults; children are incapable of giving consent. So are sheep for that matter (sorry New Zealand). As for polygamy – meh. My brief encounters with it weren’t very enticing. Our camp cook had two wives, and inevitably he would end up upsetting one who would then run to the other and get her support – leading to his being nagged by two women instead of one.
Just as gays donned the civil rights mantle to legitimize their struggle for rights, I do foresee pedophiles attempting to use the success of gays becoming increasingly accepted in society as a tool to increase the legitimacy of sex with children. But the issue of consent props up the slope and prevents the acceptance of gays to become the acceptance of child rapists.
In fact pedophilia has more in common with crimes like rape and murder than homosexuality. Just as there is no consent between a child molester and his victim, there is no consent between a rapist and his victim or a murderer and hers. Consent is key. Are psychiatrists pushing to “normalize” rape and murder? As crazy as psychiatrists are, it’s doubtful. If not why not? Because of consent.
Without it there is pure anarchy. The strong pray upon the weak, civilization crumbles and the various dystopias portrayed in movies like Mad Max become reality. Consent is the bulwark that stops the slide of civilization into the abyss – and you don’t need to throw gays in with child molesters to do it.
Roger:
I think homosxuality is lumped with with pedophilia because they are both sexual perversions. I understand you know a lot of great people who are gay. It doesn’t make it any less a sexual perversion. I like how you mentioned polygamy and then quickly dismissed it. Polygamy would be the EXACT same thing as homosexuality due to consent. But because that renders your point moot, you quickly dismiss it. The reality you continue to hide with lies of getting beaten with baseball bats is the simple fact that a stable family, man and woman, is what is best as a whole for society. Instead of strengthening the family, we continue to let it erode with nonsense of acceptance of something which is clearly not natural. Does that mean all gay couples are terrible? Absolutely not. It only means that when children grow up in a stable home with a mother and father, they’re BETTER off. Not all the time. Just MOST of the time. That’s a reality that people who defend the lifestyle refuse to acknoledge because you don’t like it. But that is the reality. And yeah…I call bullcrap on your “poor me everyone hates me because I’m gay” crap. Being gay in school is a growing fad. You’re much more, MUCH MUCH MORE, likely to get bullied for being a hard-core Christian than you are for being gay. Again, this is the reality I witness every day. Gays, for the most part, love attention and they can’t stand the fact I don’t accept them.
29 August 2011, 1:42 pmScott Kirwin:
Roger
I avoided the polygamy issue for one reason only: I have taken a stand that views marriage as a religious vow, and one that the State has no business in. Religions should be able to marry – or not – according to their customs and laws. The State should not be involved at all.
But what about property inheritance? That’s pretty much the only reason why the State is involved in marriage in the first place. Property should be handled through laws based on those applied to corporations. That means that a man and a woman married in a Southern Baptist church would be recognized as husband and wife by their religion; the state would treat each as separate individuals unless they filed something akin to letters of incorporation that would allow control over their property.
That means that it would be possible for polyamorous to live together and share property as a corporate entity. But nearly all religions would not recognize their arrangement.
I sympathize with your argument that a stable relationship is important to children – I just disagree that it requires a man and a woman to provide it. Like you I have seen the impact of broken homes on children, and I have argued here and elsewhere that divorce is too easy and that people are too quick to throw in the towel instead of working through differences and rough spots in relationships. I just don’t see what excludes gay people from having a family if they so choose.
As for Christians being bullied, I have no doubt – and again I have taken stances in support of religious freedom – particularly when it applies to Judeo-Christian religions which I see as being under siege by elements on the Left. But at the same time I see homosexuals as being discriminated against based on nothing more than religious tradition. It’s a two way street: protecting religion from the Secular and protecting the Secular from the religious.
29 August 2011, 3:10 pmRoger:
You say, “...nearly all religions would not recognize their arrangement.” in regards to polygamy. You are correct. The problem, or perhaps fear of the faithful, is that homosexuals are not only looking for legal acceptance. They are looking for societal acceptance. In other words, when the state recognizes their marriage, they will demand all churches begin to accept it as well. We’ve seen this happen. We’ve seen churches and organizations of all denominations get sued because they refuse to perform services or rent facilities to homosexual couples. And if they are not sued, they are most certainly ridiculed for it. This is not correct either.
Be it religious tradition or not, people have every right to not accept someone who is homosexual like they have every right to accept someone who isis not _____. I don’t fill in the blank because the second I do, I’ll be accused of “comparing homosexulity to ____.” It’s ridiculous. I witness bullying every day. The only thing that is different, is how young people handle it. Gay persons or persons with other sexual dysfunction, like to play the role of victim. They see themselves as martyrs and like it. I think a lot of people see this but it’s not politically correct to say. Personally, while I may not agree with the lifestyle they chooseare born withget brainwashed into, I only see people. I see men, women, children. I don’t see a gay man, a gay woman, or a gay student and I most certainly never refer to my brother as “my gay brother” or “my brother who is gay”. Unfortunately, most go out of their way to SHOW you and get a kick out of seeing your reaction.
30 August 2011, 9:16 amScott Kirwin:
Roger
I understand your concern. 3 years ago I wrote this about a transgender person suing a Catholic hospital. “Then again to force the hospital to perform a procedure that goes against Church teachings is a direct infringement on religious freedom,” and I stand by that assertion. What’s next? Demand Catholic hospitals or doctors perform abortions? Interesting how Christians are targeted in such actions, but not Muslims. Much ado is made about the rights of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, yet not a peep about dearth of churches in Saudi Arabia (or the slaughter of Christians in Egypt for that matter).
The key for me is to enforce the separation of church and state, not weaken it. It’s exactly what I believe organizations such as the ACLU should do – instead of suing to remove creches or crosses from public property. The state needs to stop performing sacred acts, especially marriage.
As for “playing the victim” it is part and parcel of liberal ideology, and I would hope that gays would drop it as they broadened their political views once the “non-negotiable” issue of gay marriage was off the table. If not then honestly, the last thing conservatives and libertarians need are more whiners.
You raise some very important points; thanks for bringing them to my attention.
30 August 2011, 10:26 amJoseph:
Both the post and the comments above were well written. Conservative and libertarians fight for the rights of people. Liberals fight for the rights of peoples. Liberals haven’t advanced freedom at all in the last half a century. They’ve only added new categories of protected minorities. Rather than uphold fundamental rights for all, Liberals will declare that a new group is a people and grant it the associated privileged.
4 September 2011, 10:04 am