I recently heard on NPR some people endorse three myths:
Here's where I heard these myths both endorsed and left unchallenged.
First Myth
I recently heard an interview on NPR. Dan Savage and Terry Miller have developed some of their previous work and produced a book called "It Gets Better". Despite my qualms with several of the things Savage and Miller said on the air, and despite that I don't share their values and aims with respect to homosexual life, I want to make it clear that their concern, intention and decision to help children is certainly something to get behind. The book focusses on that childhood experience of bullying and being bullied. Mind you, I've not read the book, only heard this interview on NPR about it. Since the authors are themselves openly homosexual, the book focusses on teens bullied for acting, feeling, talking, walking, etc., in a way consonant with our stereotype of homosexual behavior. I stated that last sentence like that on purpose. The reason I did is that those behaviors consonant with a homosexual lifestyle are neither proven to be nor is it reasonable to think are signs of homoerotic desire. Sensitivity in boys or toughness in girls has no direct link to homoeroticism. That's the first myth. Doll playing boys aren't therefore gay, nor construction cap wearing girls. Those stereotypes and divergence from them are not signs of how nature made us. I think it was Dan Savage (perhaps Miller) who said (and I paraphrase) in the interview, "Ya, my parents should have known I was gay, I mean, I was the kid who liked musicals." Um... okay... and...?
Second Myth
This first myth is based on the second, I think. These two interviewees both said and the interviewer neither questioned nor disagreed that one's sexuality is 'hard-wired'. If you become homosexual, it was in your genes and therefore it was predestined. Certainly they mean homoerotic desire and not homosexual behavior. If they meant to say our genes determine our behavior then they are fatalists and deny the existence of free will. Furthermore, no one is born already making choices. So, I'm quite certain they mean to say that if you have homoerotic desires (yet to be defined) then those homoerotic desires, like the desire for food, are hard wired. But no scientific support props up this commonly voiced assumption. So it's not something to be taken for granted for anyone in any debate about whatever. But let's suppose it's true, just for argument's sake: that having homoerotic desires is something one is born with. We can ask a lot of questions about this idea. Does it mean one is born without hetero-erotic desire? Auto-erotic desire? Are those with child-centric erotic desire born with that? And with desire for non-human animals, inanimate objects?
Interlude on the Philosophy of Sexuality
Here's my take as a philosopher. Human sexual desire is not in the same category as desire for food. Non-human, beastly sexual desire is in the same category as desire for food. There's a difference IN KIND between human and beastly sexual desire.
Human sexual desire is not just an inner drive which must be fulfilled by whatever object. It is a desire for an irreplaceable, non-substitutable person, i.e., one's beloved.
Imagine a weird scenario where a spouse has conjugal relations with someone he thought was his wife. And imagine that she thought he was her husband. Both, suppose, were mistaken. Would their sexual desires be fulfilled? No. But why? The conjugal partner was not whom it was thought to be. What is desired by a human must match what is thought to be desired. Thought enters into it in an essential way. When we desire food, if hungry enough, the type of food makes no difference to fulfilling that urge. But with human sexual desire the fulfillment or fruition must be *this* person whom I love, 'she who is my beloved'. It entails intellectual understanding and emotional cognition.
Non-human sexual desire requires no such mental discrimination. Though, reason, intellect is not required. If you worked on a farm or had a pet or saw that awkward discovery channel show, you know how beasts don't discriminate when 'in heat'. Though we are animals and have beastly sexual desire, it is not yet *human* sexual desire until our whole self, intellect and emotions, are engaged and knowledge of the object of sexual love is discriminated, described, picked out, and made irreplaceable.
So what is a homoerotic desire? If it is a sexual desire then it is not a desire for whomever of the same sex. That's not human sexual desire. Children are born with autoerotic desire. But that is not *human* sexual desire. It is beastly sexual desire. It is not 'wrong', but it is not befitting of a fully developed human life.
I can grant Savage, Miller, and the interviewer the unscientific assertion that 'sexuality' is hard-wired. But then it seems that it can only mean beastly sexuality and not yet *human* sexuality. No one is born with human sexuality because it requires the development and use of our distinctly human faculties of affection and reason.
Third myth.
Repeatedly the interviewees stated that "the religious right" has "waged a campaign" against homosexuals. "The religious right" takes the pulpit in churches across the US, they said, and teach that homosexuals destroy marriage and the family and are bad for children.
Okay. Whoa. Hold on Trigger!
The picture is obviously not completely true. I'm not denying there's a grain of truth. Many individuals in "the religious right" probably do hate homosexuality. Do they hate homosexuals? That's another question. True, many in the "religious right" think homosexual is wrong and morally aberrant. But are homosexuals moral monsters eating children? That's another point. And if there are haters in "the religious right" why paint everyone with such a hate-filled brush, such a broad stereotyping brush? True, "the religious right" thinks that changing the traditional marriage laws, and therefore the traditional institution of marriage (that is, a complex interlocking set of laws and customs surrounding the bringing forth and nurturing of children) will break down society. But that therefore homosexual couples living their lifestyle are the cause...? That's another point. Remember, "the religious right", that is, the majority of people affiliated with that wing, don't think homosexuals should be locked up. They just think traditional marriage should be maintained. There are exceptions, I'm sure some people think homosexuals should be locked up. But it's not fair to say that "the religious right" is like that.
In addition to these fuzzy assertions and at times misleading and misrepresenting statements about the religious right, there is a simple fallacy, here. The religious right, in terms of a political position fairly consistent and predictable on this matter of homosexual rights and traditional marriage, is not out to get homosexual persons. They are concerned to stop "the homosexual agenda". That too is a political wing and it would be equally wrong for someone to think that all homosexuals agree with the policies of that wing. The fallacy is called the fallacy of composition. Just because a basketball team is terrible, does NOT imply each player is terrible. There might be a star player despite the lack of team success.
- Those children who don't conform to the gender patterns of culture are probably gay.
- Those with homoerotic desire must have been born with it just as those with desire for food were born desiring to suckle (it was said on the show like this: "we are hard-wired").
- The religious right teaches that if you're a homosexual then you intentionally destroy the family and marriage (or at least causally contribute to their destruction).
Here's where I heard these myths both endorsed and left unchallenged.
First Myth
I recently heard an interview on NPR. Dan Savage and Terry Miller have developed some of their previous work and produced a book called "It Gets Better". Despite my qualms with several of the things Savage and Miller said on the air, and despite that I don't share their values and aims with respect to homosexual life, I want to make it clear that their concern, intention and decision to help children is certainly something to get behind. The book focusses on that childhood experience of bullying and being bullied. Mind you, I've not read the book, only heard this interview on NPR about it. Since the authors are themselves openly homosexual, the book focusses on teens bullied for acting, feeling, talking, walking, etc., in a way consonant with our stereotype of homosexual behavior. I stated that last sentence like that on purpose. The reason I did is that those behaviors consonant with a homosexual lifestyle are neither proven to be nor is it reasonable to think are signs of homoerotic desire. Sensitivity in boys or toughness in girls has no direct link to homoeroticism. That's the first myth. Doll playing boys aren't therefore gay, nor construction cap wearing girls. Those stereotypes and divergence from them are not signs of how nature made us. I think it was Dan Savage (perhaps Miller) who said (and I paraphrase) in the interview, "Ya, my parents should have known I was gay, I mean, I was the kid who liked musicals." Um... okay... and...?
Second Myth
This first myth is based on the second, I think. These two interviewees both said and the interviewer neither questioned nor disagreed that one's sexuality is 'hard-wired'. If you become homosexual, it was in your genes and therefore it was predestined. Certainly they mean homoerotic desire and not homosexual behavior. If they meant to say our genes determine our behavior then they are fatalists and deny the existence of free will. Furthermore, no one is born already making choices. So, I'm quite certain they mean to say that if you have homoerotic desires (yet to be defined) then those homoerotic desires, like the desire for food, are hard wired. But no scientific support props up this commonly voiced assumption. So it's not something to be taken for granted for anyone in any debate about whatever. But let's suppose it's true, just for argument's sake: that having homoerotic desires is something one is born with. We can ask a lot of questions about this idea. Does it mean one is born without hetero-erotic desire? Auto-erotic desire? Are those with child-centric erotic desire born with that? And with desire for non-human animals, inanimate objects?
Interlude on the Philosophy of Sexuality
Here's my take as a philosopher. Human sexual desire is not in the same category as desire for food. Non-human, beastly sexual desire is in the same category as desire for food. There's a difference IN KIND between human and beastly sexual desire.
Human sexual desire is not just an inner drive which must be fulfilled by whatever object. It is a desire for an irreplaceable, non-substitutable person, i.e., one's beloved.
Imagine a weird scenario where a spouse has conjugal relations with someone he thought was his wife. And imagine that she thought he was her husband. Both, suppose, were mistaken. Would their sexual desires be fulfilled? No. But why? The conjugal partner was not whom it was thought to be. What is desired by a human must match what is thought to be desired. Thought enters into it in an essential way. When we desire food, if hungry enough, the type of food makes no difference to fulfilling that urge. But with human sexual desire the fulfillment or fruition must be *this* person whom I love, 'she who is my beloved'. It entails intellectual understanding and emotional cognition.
Non-human sexual desire requires no such mental discrimination. Though, reason, intellect is not required. If you worked on a farm or had a pet or saw that awkward discovery channel show, you know how beasts don't discriminate when 'in heat'. Though we are animals and have beastly sexual desire, it is not yet *human* sexual desire until our whole self, intellect and emotions, are engaged and knowledge of the object of sexual love is discriminated, described, picked out, and made irreplaceable.
So what is a homoerotic desire? If it is a sexual desire then it is not a desire for whomever of the same sex. That's not human sexual desire. Children are born with autoerotic desire. But that is not *human* sexual desire. It is beastly sexual desire. It is not 'wrong', but it is not befitting of a fully developed human life.
I can grant Savage, Miller, and the interviewer the unscientific assertion that 'sexuality' is hard-wired. But then it seems that it can only mean beastly sexuality and not yet *human* sexuality. No one is born with human sexuality because it requires the development and use of our distinctly human faculties of affection and reason.
Third myth.
Repeatedly the interviewees stated that "the religious right" has "waged a campaign" against homosexuals. "The religious right" takes the pulpit in churches across the US, they said, and teach that homosexuals destroy marriage and the family and are bad for children.
Okay. Whoa. Hold on Trigger!
The picture is obviously not completely true. I'm not denying there's a grain of truth. Many individuals in "the religious right" probably do hate homosexuality. Do they hate homosexuals? That's another question. True, many in the "religious right" think homosexual is wrong and morally aberrant. But are homosexuals moral monsters eating children? That's another point. And if there are haters in "the religious right" why paint everyone with such a hate-filled brush, such a broad stereotyping brush? True, "the religious right" thinks that changing the traditional marriage laws, and therefore the traditional institution of marriage (that is, a complex interlocking set of laws and customs surrounding the bringing forth and nurturing of children) will break down society. But that therefore homosexual couples living their lifestyle are the cause...? That's another point. Remember, "the religious right", that is, the majority of people affiliated with that wing, don't think homosexuals should be locked up. They just think traditional marriage should be maintained. There are exceptions, I'm sure some people think homosexuals should be locked up. But it's not fair to say that "the religious right" is like that.
In addition to these fuzzy assertions and at times misleading and misrepresenting statements about the religious right, there is a simple fallacy, here. The religious right, in terms of a political position fairly consistent and predictable on this matter of homosexual rights and traditional marriage, is not out to get homosexual persons. They are concerned to stop "the homosexual agenda". That too is a political wing and it would be equally wrong for someone to think that all homosexuals agree with the policies of that wing. The fallacy is called the fallacy of composition. Just because a basketball team is terrible, does NOT imply each player is terrible. There might be a star player despite the lack of team success.
No comments:
Post a Comment