Normalization

Last week I lamented the recent decision of the California Supreme Court to strike down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages. The decision declared that sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” I suggested that this will have significant and far-reaching negative social implications. I will expound on that today.

First, it is disingenuous to equate sexual orientation with race or gender. Gender is fixed (gender-change operations notwithstanding), and race is fixed for most people, though to be sure there are many people of blended races, which leaves them some latitude for self-determination in this respect. But sexual orientation is a continuum that ranges from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, with many places (e.g., bisexuality) in between. Societies, by their mores and laws, have channeled this polymorphous human sexuality towards heterosexuality primarily through the institution of marriage (see Dennis Prager, “California Decision Will Radically Change Society,” Townhall.com, 5/20/08). By limiting marriage to one man and one woman, societies have explicitly declared that this was the most desirable and effective mechanism for social cohesion and for the bearing and nurture of children. This, of course, has excluded from participation in the institution of marriage some people with different and less common sexual orientations, including man-man, woman-woman, polygamous, and incestuous relationships (In most western societies, homosexual and lesbian couples may still enter into civil unions). This indeed reflects a preference for heterosexual behavior in these societies.

At this point we need to distinguish between “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “normalization.” A few decades ago, gay advocates urged society to tolerate homosexual behavior. This primarily meant not to attack it or be hateful towards homosexuals. Then society was urged to accept homosexual behavior. This meant primarily not to discriminate on the basis of it. Now society is being urged to normalize it. This means to consider it equal to and equally desirable to heterosexual behavior.

This third step is huge. One can easily envision the following if same-sex marriage is normalized: “Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now. Films that show only man-woman married couples will be regarded as ‘heterosexist’”(Prager, 5/20/08).

People who express these kinds of reservations often are labeled “homophobic,” which is an intellectually lazy charge. I have tremendous empathy for people dealing with same-sex attraction on any part of the sexual continuum. I treat gay people with dignity and kindness. To disagree is not to be phobic. I am particularly dismayed by the conservative church’s general lack of ministry to such people. But I cannot and will not consider this latest development “harmless” or “inevitable.” I will write again on this and talk about what I see as root causes and related issues.