| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by James N. Markels Just when
you thought it was safe for a Republican to go off the cuff
again—after the whole Trent Lott debacle had subsided into distant
memory—along comes Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) to stir the pot once
more. In an
interview with the Associated Press, Santorum said, “I have no problem
with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would
with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of
traditional heterosexual relationships.” When asked, “[I]f somebody
is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?”
Santorum responded, “[I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the
right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to
bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest,
you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does
that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”
Further, he argued, “[S]ociety is based on one thing: that society is
based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children.
Monogamous relationships,” meaning a “healthy, stable, traditional
family.” The logic
there, typically embraced by conservatism, is that the health of our
society depends on children being born and then raised in a way that
maximizes their ability to contribute to society as adults and make more
children to continue society. This is, on its face, reasonable. However,
criminalizing homosexual behavior for not fitting into that mold (since
it’s not “traditional” despite its long history and doesn’t
result in more children being born) is worse for the fabric of society
as a whole than if it were left legal. The real
problem stems from the apparent notion that homosexuality is not valid.
Let’s say the facts were changed, with homosexual conduct being
necessary for procreation and human history backing it as the
“right” sexuality. Would Santorum, in such a world, then consider it
beneficial to criminalize heterosexual sex, seeing as how he is
heterosexual? Would he be willing to forgo his sexuality in the same way
he is asking others to do? Anyone who considers such a stifling
environment and the unhappiness it would engender should say no, but if
you believe that the “right” sexuality is inherent to you already,
you only need to choose it, then the prospect of forcing people away
from a “deviant” sexuality is plausible. So instead of thinking that
he’s asking homosexuals to just go without sex, perhaps Santorum
thinks every homosexual is a closet heterosexual who might embrace
heterosexuality once homosexuality is illegal. But this is
a false hope, as differences between heterosexuals illustrate. For
example, one of my friends is a real “leg man.” There is nothing he
likes better than long, graceful legs on a woman. Me, I hardly look at
legs at all. As Jerry Seinfeld pointed out, “I’ve got legs,” so
why not look at things you don’t already have? Did our individual
tastes come about because my friend chose to like legs while I
didn’t? Of course not. He sees a nice pair of legs and it attracts him
without his having to think about it, while I see the same legs but
don’t have the same reaction. Would Santorum propose it’s possible
to force me to become interested in legs or for my friend to lose his
interest? I doubt it. Why should homosexuality be any different? Just as
my friend might disagree with me as to whether a given woman is
attractive or not, a lesbian might do the same. Or we might agree, and
for exactly the same reasons! Is her appraisal of what “does it” for
her any less honest than mine or my friend’s? The opposite
of this is the unfounded fear that the presence of homosexuals will
encourage heterosexuals to become homosexual, thereby denying society
the children and traditional families it needs to continue. Beyond some
chance experimentation in college, at most, there’s just not much to
this. One would think that, with the predominance of heterosexuals in
society, it would be the homosexuals who feel the most pressure to
change. And indeed they do feel that pressure, yet they don’t stop
being homosexuals. Instead, at most, they hide in the proverbial closet.
Why assume that heterosexuals would be more susceptible to being
“turned” than homosexuals? Or what
about monogamous heterosexual couples that refuse to have children?
Aren’t they, on balance, injuring society by not having children, just
like homosexuals? What if other future couples decide to follow their
example because they decide that having kids is just a hassle and it
gets in the way of career and vacations and cocktail parties?
Criminalize that as well? If Santorum
can imagine the anguish and pain he would feel if his right to be
intimate with his wife were removed, why not apply that same reaction to
homosexuals who he would deny the opportunity to find and experience the
same intimacy? Banning homosexual sex won’t make homosexuals marry and
have heterosexual sex as much as it will only cause a significant part
of the population to feel estranged from society, with no corresponding
benefit to anyone else. At least with punishing those who impose their
sexuality upon nonconsenting partners you can measure the benefit in the
protection afforded to the victims. But banning consenting homosexual
sex doesn’t help society much at all. |
||
