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

 

Bill Boushka

571-334-6107 is best phone

4201 Wilson Blvd #110-688

Arlington VA 22203-1859

JBoushka@aol.com is best email

http://www.doaskdotell.com

 

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.

BILL BOUSHKA
Arlington, Va.