Nation needs an honest, civil discussion on gay rights

In the aftermath of the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, I thought it was a good time to assert something I have believed for a while but have never spoken. America badly needs to have an honest discourse on gay rights, especially on the issue of marriage and child adoption. It needs to be happen, because we have many gays and lesbians living in this country, paying taxes and abiding by the law that currently denies them at least two specific rights, in most states, that heterosexuals take for granted. It needs to happen, because otherwise all the talk of equal protection under the law and equal opportunity is just talk.

Most of all, it needs to happen because it's not happening now. Right now, the only talk is for TV cameras, from marches and protests and proxied across courtrooms by attorneys. And until we are talking to each other and not at each other, we cannot come to a reasonable national consensus that addresses concerns while meeting the needs to protect the rights of all Americans.

In painfully slow steps, this nation, over its 200-plus year history has endeavored to work past the sins that some of its people committed against their fellow humans. A war was fought, American against American, and a final verdict on slavery was rendered. A pity that it took almost another hundred years for descendants of formers slaves to get a right to vote. We finally granted rights to women to vote, though it was 144 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence before it occurred.

Of course, we failed Native Americans completely, baring a shameful record of treaty-breaking that would have made modern con artists swell with pride.

But this isn't meant to be another meandering criticism of America. Despite the ongoing issues regarding those in power and an unwillingness to share that power, at least we are not stuck in an outdated, misogynistic, 12th Century mindset, like some in the world. Social progress has been slow, but at least it has come.

As I said, it is long past time for America to have an honest, open, civil discussion about gay rights. It needs to happen soon. But before I close this post, let me address several possible objections to having such a discussion.

The "Bible Tells Us" argument

I know what other say the Bible says on the issue of homosexuality. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. But perhaps people who condemn gays and lesbians from the perspective of Scripture got it wrong. Not every Christian believes the rest get it right on using the Bible to condemn homosexuality. So, if Christianity is not monolithic on the issue, the issue is open to honest debate, even among the faithful.

I understand the position of the Fundamentalists, but the truth is, this is an issue of public versus private spheres, and the discussion has to take place outside the private realm of the home, church or local community. The question Christians need to answer is whether or not a disdain for gay rights, based on one's Biblical understanding, is truly sufficient to enforce this belief on an entire nation, many who do not believe as the Fundamentalists do? Just because one doesn't want it in one's own neighborhood does not necessarily mean one has a right to refuse it everywhere.

The "Traditional Family" argument

Many who wish to avoid an honest discourse on gay rights do so by touting "traditional nuclear families." The problem is that the "nuclear family" of one man, one woman and their children is not as traditional as some think. Such families are not Biblical. In fact, such families are a very recent phenomenon. Since there are historically many alternative forms of marriage, is it really right for us to find excuses to skirt a discussion on one more?

I understand the position of those who honor what has become the American norm for families. There is much to be said for the stability offered by the ideal of Mom, Dad and the kids... that Ozzie and Harriet vision of white picket fences and problems with 30 minute solutions. But the truth is, that world never really existed. Modern marriage has averaged a 50% failure rate after five years in many areas of the country. To say that an institution that bears such a miserable track record is the only model we can support isn't much of an argument against alternative forms. Statistics seem to show that gay marriages in Massachusetts, after four years, are more stable than their heterosexual counterparts. Stable enough that favoring "traditional" family structures is not enough to reject a reasonable discussion on those alternatives.

The "Raising Kids Gay" argument

One argument that gets a lot of play among conservatives now is the idea that any and all children raised by gay couples will be "encouraged" into gay lifestyles themselves. Not that this is a valid reason for not having a discussion on gay rights in itself, but it may not even be an issue to begin with. In fact, there are a good many gay parent myths that have been refuted, and hence this is not a good reason for ducking a discussion on gay family rights.

I understand the concerns of parents, who, like myself, want to see children raised in a loving, stable environment and raised in ways that ensure a safe and easy launch into adulthood and self-reliance. But statistics show that gay parents aren't any more likely to raise children who grow up gay than straight parents, and such families have proven, in some studies, to be at least as stable as one man-one woman. As such, fears on how children are raised is not a valid reason to avoid having a civil discussion on the matter.

The "It's Not a Civil Rights Issue" argument

OK, I understand this one. Women can be discerned from men physically. Races can be distinguished one from another visually. Or at least that's the commonly-held belief. Nationalities can be distinguished by accents, sometimes. It's true that we cannot tell a gay person from a straight person just by looking at them, thus one would think it is harder to discriminate against gays unless gays make their sexuality an issue. So the argument that we wouldn't know unless we are told is one that is clung too when all other arguments fail (and I believe is the basis for the laughable "Don't ask, don't tell" compromise in the military... I was in the military, and we had several gay men in the unit. Damned good soldiers, too. None of the rest of us minded, despite what the Army seemed to believe).

The problem is, if we deny a person a basic right others enjoy for reasons that cannot be supported by a justifiable social need, then we denying them civil rights. Of course this is a civil rights issue, meaning we can't use the sentiment as a reason to avoid talking about it.

The "Devaluing Marriage" argument

There are those who say allowing gays and lesbians to marry would devalue marriage, and hence won't even engage in discourse on the matter, considering it case closed. But that begs the question about how such unions would "devalue" marriage between men and women. If the issue is dilution, it has already been pointed out above that traditional marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon, and the existence of other forms has neither slowed down nor devalued such marriages yet. Further, what do we mean by "devalue"? Is a conservative Christian really going to look at his/her spouse differently or with less love if gays gained a right to marry? How silly a notion that would be. I suggest that anyone thinking that the marriage of ANY other couple would somehow diminish the value of one's marriage already has issues in their own bonds of matrimony. Plus, a 50% divorce rate, without gay marriage, doesn't seem to indicate that there is much respect for the institution. Certainly not enough respect to wait until a couple is ready for the commitment or are willing to make a marriage work. Such people don't need to erect a straw man to fight... he/she has problems aplenty, as it is.

Further, the contention that gay marriage is somehow comparable to counterfeit money is ludicrous, at best. Counterfeit money is false money. Gays and lesbians are real people. Do not all real people deserve a right to be heard?

The issue of devaluation should be properly couched in terms of exclusivity. Social conservatives, Fundamentalist Christians in particular, want to maintain marriage as a one man-one woman institution, often for puzzling reasons (or at least unsupportable reasons... see the arguments listed in this post). The talk of devaluation of marriage is nothing more than another tactic to avoid a rational discussion on the issue. It truly makes me wonder if social conservatives are afraid of losing the debate without even having one.

The "Slippery Slope" argument

"If we allow gays to get married, then we'll open the floodgates for all kinds of strange arrangements. Like adults marrying children, or group marriages or folks trying to marry their pets..."

We've all heard this one before. And I'm not saying there's no cause for concern at all, because once you open a door, there is no telling who may try to walk through it. But there are reasonable lines that can be drawn for which no one should cross. It begins with the idea of the public good. We all agree that it is not in the public good to allow adults to have sex with children. We can show that there is no public good to be served by allowing "interspecies marriage", because animals cannot voice their concerns or express free will to join a human companion in this manner. As for communal arrangements, that already occurs in parts of the world, to no ill affect on the American nuclear family. And yes, I have seen the drop in overall marriage statistics from countries that allow gay and lesbian marriages. Yet, cohabitation is on the rise in this country, without gay marriage in the equation. As I said earlier, there is ample evidence that 'traditional' marriage already suffers from a lack of proper respect and honor. Refusing gays and lesbians isn't likely to change that.

The "Majority Rules" argument

Probably the final argument thrown out is, "Well, the majority of voters in CA (and other states) say they don't want it, so that's that."

Not exactly.

See, there was a time when the majority of men didn't want women voting, owning property or working outside a home. There was a time in the American south when the majority of whites didn't want those of African ancestry voting. There was a time when the majority of whites thought it was perfectly OK to take land from indigenous tribes, even if every tribal member had to die to get that land. And there was a time when the majority of company owners thought it was OK to work their employees nearly to death for long hours and miserly wages, while lining their fat pockets on the broken backs and sweat of those workers.

I understand the basic principles of democracy and applaud those who champion them, but let us not forget that democracy isn't a cheap ploy one can use to avoid a difficult social discussion. Just because the majority wants a situation to play out a certain way doesn't mean the majority is right. We have plenty of examples in the past and around the world where the majority was and is wrong. Democracies don't work unless the minority is protected from majority bias. Majority rule doesn't mean the minority gets shafted.

So, there you have it. We need a discussion on gay and lesbian rights to marry and raise children. It needs to be honest and civil, and it ought to take place soon. I'm not saying we ought to make gay marriages and child adoption happen, but we need a damned better argument against allowing it than we've seen. And if we can't find a better one, we need to step out of the way and let it happen.

After all, sooner or later, we ought to do a thing because it's right, not because we had to have a revolution to do the right thing.

**************************************************************

How to convert your home to use greener energy. Find out not only how to save money, but maybe even make some. Click Here for more information!

Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy, not a science

I am continuously astounded by the ongoing controversy surrounding the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It's not that I have an issue with Christians wanting to be heard on the matter or that I think they have no right to speak on it. But I do have a problem with anyone trying to peddle bad science just because they disagree with the accepted theories in a field. And the idea that Christians are being shut out of the science classroom by some monolithic science cabal is laughable: (a) scientists welcome new ideas, if they represent good science and (b) science has no problem with those who challenge currently held ideas, for that's the only way a science improves.

As for ID, religion has no place in the science classroom. This is not a debatable issue: science and religion are two different species of human endeavor and while there may be some overlap, it is a thin one. And regardless of the semantic quibbling that some proponents of ID have made, it is most certainly religiously based, which means by Supreme Court edict that it cannot be taught in the science classroom.

Let me explain what ID is not by explaining what science is. Natural science is built upon theory, based on observation and experimentation. Science does not pretend to be an arbiter of truth, but rather an arena of fact and logic. There is a distinction.

No real science pretends to be complete and final. Theory is not "truth". Science relies on a theory only as long as something does not come along that defines a better model. But a model is not deemed better simply because it is preferred by some. To be a better model than what is accepted at the time, a theory has to do a better job explaining phenomena in the field of study. That is, a new theory has to describe the processes and mechanics of what is studied in a way that is predictable and falsifiable and do it better than previous theories have done. "Predictable" most understand.

"Falsifiability" is where ID fails as a science.

See, falsifiability is a notion hearkening back to philosopher Karl Popper, a former pro-Communist advocate. He ended up denouncing Marx's philosophy, as a science, for the tendency of its proponents to tweak the "theory" in ad hoc fashion when the theory failed, rather than insist on a better model. Communism, in Popper's mind was on its way to becoming a tautology as a result of never-ending tweaks, and no real science (in his mind) does that.

Consequently, we conduct experiments, based on well-defined hypotheses, or make careful observations, not merely to support our positions, but to provide a basis for disproving them. As long as the experimental results continue to support the model, by not failing, we continue to accept the current model as the best candidate for explaining the universe... or rather the portion that the theory covers. The theory is not "truth" nor the final word on the matter and no real scientist would ever pretend it is.

This is why evolution is the only fit model we currently have for explaining the development, rise and continuation of living things and why the theory serves as a basis for all biological sciences. Evolution does not say there is no "designer", but because such a designer would by necessity be supernatural, such a designer could not be part of any natural model (i.e., a supernatural 'designer' is not necessary for explaining the processes and mechanics of the rise and change in living things). There is room for an alternate or competing theory, but only if such a theory can withstand the same scrutiny and maintain the same standards of predictability and falsifiability that evolution has endured. ID does not meet the standard.

ID does not provide a framework for valid experiments. ID assumes a final, immutable truth on living things. ID has no room for improvement and no way to challenge assumptions made in the theory. ID has no way to "measure" or physically factor in a "designer" and cannot provide a means for how the designer fits the model. In fact, ID cannot survive without the notion of an unseen, unknown and immeasurable "designer", even though such a designer cannot be part of the physical model.

Therefore, ID is no science, but rather a philosophy. And as such, belongs in the humanities.

****************************************************

Want to know how to get over 3000 worldwide TV channels on your PC? Want to know how to get the best streaming video? Click Here for more information!