Why Can’t Heterosexuals get it Right?

An article today in the Daily Mail, Betrayal of a Generation, outlines the difficulties experienced by children in the United Kingdom. The UK performed as follows:

Rates of teenage births were the worst in the developed world. British children were most likely to be drunk from the age of 11 onwards, most likely to have had sex by 15 and highly likely to smoke cannabis. Their diet was also poor.

The Netherlands ranked highest according to the UN study. The difficulties cited by the article suggest that pro-child social programs in the UK have not been effective at improving the plight of these children.

It leads me to the question which has long troubled me in the same-sex marriage debate: how can heterosexuals who have so neglected their obligations as parents dictate to gays and lesbians the limits of marriage and parenting rights?

It has been my opinion that if we indulge the selfishness and self-gratification of heterosexuals (sex without love, love without commitment, children as an afterthought) then we have no right to refuse gays and lesbians in their assertion that there should be exemptions from moral absolutes as well.

Kinsey, in his landmark studies on sexuality, from a population of participants sought to “describe” what America’s sexuality really was. To dispel myths and “get down to the facts.” We now know how agenda-driven his research was, and how flawed his population selection was. Kinsey is the left’s, Paul Cameron. Nevertheless, his work was championed and set the foundation for a sexual “revolution” which has had enormous negative consequences for multiple generations of children.

I may not agree with gay marriage based upon my religious beliefs and my interpretation of some social science data, but my larger concern, and the larger concern of our society’s future should be how heterosexuals are treating sex, love, commitment and parenting.

14 thoughts on “Why Can’t Heterosexuals get it Right?”

  1. Marriage, the social institution, is not about sexual orientation.

    The nature of marriage is both-sexed. It is not about heterosexuality v. homosexuality.

    Marriage integrates the sexes, provides contingency for responsible procreation, and combines this into a coherent whole.

    That nature of marriage is in alignment, indeed it arises from, the nature of humankind. There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. The nature of human generativity is both-sexed, not one-sexed. The nature of human community is both-sexed, not sex-segregative. The foundational human community is the family and family is by nature both-sexed.

    All sides of the marriage debate ought to drop the hooey about sexual identity politics. That is extrinsic to marriage. While same-sex attraction may, or may not, be inborn, no one is born as this or that socio-political identity.

    The problems that the original post referred to as arising from heterosexuality are really problems that stem from the direct attack on the nature of marriage by a libertine culture — i.e. the revolting sexual revolution of the past 40 years. This cultural deconstruction of marriage shifts from the nuts and bolts of human sexuality, human community, and human generativity — it shifts from that to the emotivism that has led to the SSM argumentation.

    That argumentation is populated by a littany of false equivalencies, such as the one that is suggested in the original post above, whereby homosexuality is presented as outside of the very society in which marriage serves sex integration and responsible procreation.

    If we drop this core of marriage, what is left?

    If we replace the core of marriage with the core of SSM, what stands as the substitute?

    While it may seem fashionable to criticize people on the basis of sexual identity — i.e. “heterosexuals” — for the weakened state of marriage in our society, it is misleading.

    There is no prohibitive sexual orientation test. For example, most of the children, by far, living in same-sex households got there by migrating from the both-sexed relationships, typically marriages, of either mom or dad.

    The real test, based on gay identity politics, is one which admonishes people who experience same-sex attraction from remaining faithful to their marriages. The identity trumps marriage. And this is demonstrated in SSM argumentation itself whereby selective sex-segregation is touted as an “improvement” on the most pro-child social insitutition which integrates fatherhood with motherhood.

    It is demonstrated when SSMers make the profoundly flawed comparision with interracial marriage; for the bans on such marriages were also rooted in identity politics that depended on the racist filter in just the way that SSM argumentation depends on the gay identity filter.

    So enough of this heterosexuals have been so awful while homosexuals (i.e. straight versus gay) couldn’t do any worse. Wherever SSM has been enacted — in whatever form — the participation rates have been dismally low and diminishing. The SSMer would answer that participation rates are irrelevant, however, no one who supports and defends marriage as a social institution can stand by such a claim. For a society to flourish, a foundational social institution needs to exert a strong influence on all of society — even those who might never enter that social institution.

    In this instance, marriage channels men and women toward the combination of responsible procreation, integration of the sexes.

    Heterosexual this and homosexual that … it is not about those dichotomies that gay identity politics pushes onto the national agenda.

  2. Tim –

    The marriage is not “fraudulent” if sex is not had…that’s ridiculous. Why? We allow people to marry on the onset who will never have sex. An inmate sentenced to life in prison with no conjugal visits will still be allowed to marry. Two quadrapalegics can marry who will never engage in sex any way we may define it.

    They are still allowed to marry, and their marriages are not considered fraudulent.

    How do you explain these?

    We are a culture obsessed with sex, it seems…

    Personally, I’d rather not know what most people are or are not doing sexually…as long as they are happy with it, and it is shared by two consenting adults.

  3. a quick follow up example.

    You may all recall from the debate about whether Anna Nichole Smith would inherite from her billionaire octogenarian husband, one of the points of contention was whether they had ever had sex.

    (and yes I know that not all gay-straight marriages should be assumed sexless – but if one of the parties is known to be gay, the Gov. can use that to support their case that the marriage is fraudulent)

  4. OK, even though I know I’m guilty of raising the point, I will readily admit that we won’t find agreement on this site. But I do want to comment on just a couple of things you said, JAG

    First – marriage is civil, matrimony is religious. I think churches are protecting the wrong thing. They are fighting for the right to control a civil matter (or to control the word “marriage”) when they already are in full control of who is bound in holy matrimony.

    Although they pretend not to, I think the Catholic Church already understands this distinction. There are plenty of Catholics whose marriage is recognized by the state but whom the Church does not see as bound in holy matrimony.

    Second – the claim made by some anti-gay activists that “you can marry a person of the opposite sex even if you’re gay” is not technically true. True, the church may recognize such a marriage but the government’s base position is not to recognize such a marriage. Most of the time they don’t bother, but if immigration issues or tax issues come up, a sexless marriage is presumed to be fraudulent.

    OK … back off unresolvable debate…

  5. Truth is, you don’t need to explain to anyone why you select your mate. Inmates marry (who will never have physical intimacy with their spouses), and the elderly marry (with no reproductive capacity). You could marry a “friend” of the opposite sex that you have no intention of ever having an intimate relationship with…and the law does not stop you.

    All this talk of various forms of love take away from the true legal issues surrounding marriage. It is a civil contract on one hand, and a religious institution on the other. As a civil contract, there are certain rights that are to be given to every citizen…as a religious institution, it is up to those institutions to decide who can or cannot be married in their church and endorsed in the faith.


  6. The power of the Christian ideal of a multilayered love: erotic, filial and agape seems much more robust.

    Yes I agree. It is that multilayered combination – along with a sense of mutual caring and obligation and even an emphasis of seeing each other as family – that I see in those gay couples that are trying to hard to gain access to the civil institution of marriage. The gay marriages I’ve observed usually have placed far more emphasis on obligation and caring than they have on sex. Let’s hope heterosexual marriage takes note.

  7. Gordo,

    I didn’t know there was a referrendum on it here in Oregon, but I was aware of the one in Washington. Maybe you could move temporarily :).

    Regarding heterosexuals…I wonder if the culprit the last forty years has been the tremendous emphasis on romaticism and erotocism in love? Which are primarily aligned with the positive feelings my partner creates in me. A form of narcissism….

    The power of the Christian ideal of a multilayered love: erotic, filial and agape seems much more robust.

  8. David,

    Thanks – I’ve put the book on my Amazon wish list. I’m not defending Kinsey, but I don’t think he’s at the level of Cameron. If Kinsey hadn’t existed someone else would have done what he did. The times were ready for it.

    Back on topic – I saw a report on CNN last night about someone who’s trying to put a referendum on the ballot in Oregon requiring married couples to have children. The Supreme Court there recently ruled gay marriage unconstitutional reasoning that marriage is primarily about procreation. Wish I lived there to be able to sign the petition.


  9. Regarding the comparison of Kinsey to Cameron from Amazon review of Jones’ biography of Kinsey:

    “Jones reveals that the data were hardly as unbiased as Kinsey claimed, but it was world-shaking nonetheless. Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life is a magnificent work of cultural history as well as a sensitive study of a troubled individual”

    Jones describes Kinsey as follows: “a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores of the United States…The beauty of sex research that it allowed Kinsey to transform his voyeurism into science.”

    Since Kinsey’s views largely dismantled the conservative values of the religiously trained middle class, there was little to no outrage from science or academia. His population samples have been exposed as beyond skewed to manipulative of his agenda. The sexual world you and I inherited as a result of his “research” is as troubled and exploitative of the weak as the world Cameron would provide us if we blindly embraced his work as “science.”

    Jones concludes: Kinsey’s “interpretations” rested less on the findings of biology, or on science of any kind, than on his own social-sexual agenda (From a review by Epstein).

    Long post…if you have read this far, thanks.

  10. good post, David

    I wonder what could be done to reverse the course of disassociating commitment, love, and sexuality? I doubt you’ll agree but I think a possible solution may be found in the very thing that some fear most. I think that the conversation about gay marriage has caused many people to requestion the purpose of marriage and the commitments that come when you love someone.

    Perhaps the fight some gay people are willing to wage in order to gain the “prestige” of marriage may cause some heterosexuals to value it more. I suspect that may be true, both of those who favor gay marriage and those who oppose it. If something is worth fighting for, it’s value seems to grow.

    I do know for certain that since before the debate, some straight couples had devalued marriage primarily because gay couples they admired could not marry. It may not be many who consciously make that connection, but it does set a tone.

  11. great post.

    I personally think that focusing on sexuality, is missing the point of why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally…

    Refusing two women the right to marry is based solely on the sex of her partner. It’s a gender discrimination issue. With ERAs, this sort of discrimination won’t hold up for much longer.

    However, the post…

    yes, it is always interesting to me how we hear “the sanctity of marriage” but there is no critical eye to the difficulties marriage is facing – due to heterosexual marriages. There are las vegas drive-through marriages, an unprecedented divorce rate, a large amount of single-parents, difficulties collecting child support, etc…but these things go relatively unexamined.

    Instead it seems that everyone wants to say that the “gays” will ruin marriage…

    funny – to me, it seems that if you want to see marriage destroying itself, you need look no further than the heterosexual institutions progression.

  12. Maybe if we could figure out what causes heterosexuality we might have a better idea of how we can help them get it right.

  13. It has been my opinion that if we indulge the selfishness and self-gratification of heterosexuals (sex without love, love without commitment, children as an afterthought) then we have no right to refuse gays and lesbians in their assertion that there should be exemptions from moral absolutes as well.

    Am I reading it wrong or did you just compare the desire of a committed gay or lesbian couple to have a child to str8s screwing randomly?

  14. Kinsey is the left’s, Paul Cameron.

    A bit of an overstatement, don’t you think?

    While Kinsey’s population wasn’t representative, it wasn’t as wildly biased as Cameron’s. Kinsey’s agenda was to show the wide variety of sexual expression in post-war America and to convince people that what many did in secret wasn’t all that unusual or deviant. I question whether Kinsey laid any foundation or just described what was already in motion. The social forces unleashed by the end of the war were far more responsbile for the sexual revolution than Kinsey’s studies.

    Cameron’s agenda is hate and he has absolutely no interest in science or research. He uses the trappings of such to demonize people.

    Quite the opposite of Kinsey.

    But otherwise – a good post. Thank you for commenting on what is obvious to a lot of us.

Comments are closed.