Step by step: we do not merely tolerate, but except on an equal footing, homosexuality when we insist that homosexuals be able to get married.
I'm not so sure about that, but it's close enough to accept for the moment. See below.
Thus, we abandon claims that heterosexuality is normal and superior, essentially on the basis that homosexuality, whether genetic or psychological, is too deeply internalized to be a choice, and should not be disparaged at all.
Ditto.
However, a decent society surely promotes some behaviors and discourages others, even in regards to sex, for example, promiscuity or pedophilia.
Yes, I can definitely say "yes" to that one.
How are we to answer when the promiscuous person pleads uncontrollable impulse, analogous to the homosexuals, and demands that we accept his behavior?
The problem with your point is in this "ergo." Even agreeing with your three points, I don't think that logically follows. If we accept homosexuals as equals, then who cares how they got to be that way. They got there the same way you and I got to be heterosexual. That's just the way it is. That sexuality is innate is no more a way to justify a homosexual being a pedophile than to justify a heterosexual being a pedophile or someone with a family history of alcoholism (I understand it skips generations.) driving drunk. You're not only imagining a slippery slope, you're inventing the mountain the slope is on. There's no reason for society to accept unacceptable behavior just because it comes naturally no matter who can marry whom.
The only way I can follow your logic is to assume that homosexuality is deviant and sinful and perhaps disgusting, as well, something to tolerate because, after all, we're civilized people, but not really to accept. If you start out with the premise that people can have different sexuality and that's OK, no worse than the nuisance that comes of any other kind of social complexity, then your argument makes no sense. Sure we expect the alcoholic to dry out, or at least not drive while drunk or beat his wife, but he's still an alcoholic. We would also expect a homosexual not to do the bath house scene or molest boys, but he's still a homosexual. Now if you expect him to not have sex, too, in private, like anyone else, and that's why you think the analogy fails, then it must be because you find what they do objectionable to society, even when done in private, as married couples are inclined to do. A drining alcololic is only a problem if he hurts someone. If he gets blotto every night but can still put in a day's work the next day, it's no one's business. Likewise gays having sex in private.
As for uncontrollable impulses, we've discussed that before. You're much more inclined to excuse behavior than I am. I'm not any more inclined to excuse the guy who kills someone who raped his daughter because he had an uncontrollable impulse than I am to excuse a pedophile. There are things you just don't do and you're supposed to control yourself.
As for promiscuity, I think it's a shame that it's so rampant in both straight and gay populations, but that doesn't cause us to prohibit marriage. Rather, we would encourage committed relationships.
Now, regarding the points I tentatively agreed to up top...
I don't think we necessarily accept homosexuality on equal footing if we permit marriage. Rather, we accept homosexuals on equal footing. We don't accept mental retardation on equal footing just because we allow them to marry, we accept retarded persons. We don't accept ugly on equal footing even though we allow ugly people to marry. Now you might argue that homosexuality is more socially unacceptable than retardation or ugliness, but I don't think so, at least not enough so to warrant depriving homosexuals of forming families if they want to just like everybody else.
As far as heterosexuality being superior, I don't think anyone would deny that it's better for the individual to be heterosexual. A gay friend of mine was noticably sad when he told me his son had acknowledged being gay. Gay is a tough row to hoe and who knows that better than a gay? That would still be the case if gays were treated the same under the law. It is better, at least in the sense of easier, to be straight. Homosexual marriage won't change that. It might affirm homosexuality as normal, but not as equal. Not any more than retardation and ugliness are equal.
You know, I think homosexuality is a little weird, too, but no more weird than a passion for professional wrestling. I can't get my head around either of them. But everyone is a little weird in one way or another. Live and let live. Having gays in our midst is only as big a deal as we make it. |
