Why do some people consider gay sexual freedom
immoral?
Chris Crain’s
July 29 Editorial gives a sobering view of how Justice Roberts may
view the Fourteenth Amendment, which often justifies upholding individuals’ fundamental
rights from various levels of majoritarian intrusion,
especially on “moral” grounds. Nevertheless, the Constitution and its
amendments are supposed to provide a dependable structure for interpreting
problems not envisioned at the time that these national documents were written.
I want to ask
exactly what the majority considers “immoral” about my inclinations and private
behavioral choices. In a more interconnected world, of course, my expressed
values (and my freedom to access sexuality with absolutely no procreative
consequences) can have an impact on others. Beyond the obvious religious
foundation of many intrusive moral values, the feedback that I seem to get
from some people is that my lifestyle (by avoiding heterosexual marriage with
children and all the infrastructure for caretaking
that family formation provides) shirks family responsibility. I seem
aloof and unemotional around issues of biological kinship, satisfied with what
looks to others like a world filled with fantasy. My sin is not what I commit;
it is what I omit.
Gay marriage and
gay adoption, if allowed, could go a long way in encouraging the sharing of
family responsibility and in promoting personal goals that take into
consideration the needs of others and that welcome dependents. So then we drill down into what seems like
irrationality. Others are concerned not just that I compete with them in the
same economic space without sharing their burdens. They feel that my life
expresses narcissistic or meritocratic values that demean or show contempt for
them. This is particularly the case with people who have a large psychological
and emotional investment in procreation, marriage, parenting, lineage, blood
loyalty, and tying conventional sexual performance to all of these, and who may
not have particular skills or talents in dealing with a modern technological,
individualistic, and sometimes brutally competitive world. (Call this the
"Days of our Lives" soap opera syndrome!) Sometimes gay political
leaders do not seem to realize that this is how many “average Joe’s” feel—their
own cultural values are vulnerable so they as persons are vulnerable.
Of course, this observation sounds
like so much whining. But it does show that we need to keep the political and
social (and legal) debates focused on balancing individual rights and
responsibilities. In difficult times,
responsibility for self may have to incorporate responsibility for others. My viewpoint for all of this comes from
having spent thirty years of a "singleton" adult life in
relative freedom but “exiled” into urban ghettos, away from family concerns.
Recent family eldercare issues have forced me to deal with the family
responsibility that others take for granted lifelong. Forced socialization with
filial responsibility, whether chosen or not, may eventually become the
underbelly of the gay marriage debate.
Aug. 3, 2005
4201 Wilson Blvd #110-688
JBoushka@aol.com is best email
You can see Jim Moran (D VA 8th District) quick reply to my detailed letter arguing to repeal "don't ask don't tell" now (the Meehan bill) at http://www.doaskdotell.com/personal/submissions/tomoranmilban.htm The letter and his reply are presented at this link.
John W.
Boushka ("Bill")
Gay marriage may teach gays some ‘family values’
To the Editors:
Chris Crain’s July 29 editorial (“Ask Roberts one big question”) gives a sobering
view of how Justice John Roberts may view the Fourteenth Amendment, which often
justifies upholding individuals’ fundamental rights from majoritarian
intrusion, especially on “moral” grounds.
I want to ask exactly what the majority considers “immoral” about
my inclinations and private behavioral choices.
Beyond the obvious religious foundation of many intrusive moral
values, the feedback I get from some people is that by avoiding heterosexual
marriage with children and all the infrastructure for
caretaking that family formation provides, I am shirking family responsibility.
I seem aloof and unemotional around issues of biological kinship,
satisfied with what looks to others like a world filled with fantasy.
Gay marriage and gay adoption, if allowed, could go a long way in
encouraging the sharing of family responsibility and in promoting personal
goals that take into consideration the needs of others and that welcome
dependents.
Others are concerned not just that I compete with them in the same
economic space without sharing their burdens. They feel that my life expresses
narcissistic values that demean them. This is particularly the case with people
who have a large psychological and emotional investment in procreation,
marriage and parenting.
Recent family eldercare issues have forced me to deal with the
family responsibility that others take for granted lifelong. Forced
socialization with filial responsibility, whether chosen or not, may eventually
become the underbelly of the gay marriage debate.