The Eric James Stone Axiom on Homosexuality
The New York Times has a slideshow of same-sex marriage photos here which show a tremendous amount of joy and happiness. But not everyone is happy about this. Hell, my state passed a constitutional amendment stating that, “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union…”
I don’t get it. I’ve never understood why some people feel that same-sex couples are so dangerous. As I tried yet again to wrap my mind around it, I thought of Lavie Tidhar’s story The School, which includes the following line:
“Homosexuality is a genetic defect. This is known as the Eric James Stone Axiom.”
Stone is a Nebula-winning author and, from what I can tell, a fairly intelligent human being. So I went looking for his own words. I didn’t expect to be persuaded, but I wanted something to help me understand where he and others like him are coming from. I found the following:
That doesn’t mean homosexual people aren’t human, of course. Neither does it mean they should be treated as less human than those who are heterosexual. There are people who are homosexual but who have gone on to do great things … But no matter how much we love and appreciate homosexual people, it doesn’t change the fact that they do not have something that, by design, they are supposed to have.
Stone also has a blog post in which he compares the redefinition of marriage to allow same-sex partners to the redefinition of marriage to allow people to marry barnyard animals. He asks:
Why are you offended? Why should you be upset that a sexual practice you do not care for is included in the definition of something you care about? Isn’t that exactly what you are doing by demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual couples?
Arguing for an unchanging definition of marriage is ridiculously ignorant of history and the ways marriage has evolved. Should wives still be property? Should we continue to limit marriage to people of the same race? Should grown men be allowed to marry children?
The only explanation Stone gives for homosexuality being a genetic defect is the reproductive argument. “The reproductive organs weren’t put there just to provide sexual pleasure, after all.”
I know a number of homosexual couples with children, either the biological offspring of one partner, or adopted. But maybe those don’t count?
[ETA: My friend Catherine says Stone is describing homosexuality as a defect, but not necessarily a genetic one. I’m basing my description on his comment, “If a child’s genes showed it was going to be born homosexual, I see nothing morally wrong with changing that.” However, it’s worth reading Stone’s post and deciding for yourself. I might be off-base here.]
Stone’s view of homosexuality as a genetic defect doesn’t come from evidence of chromosomal damage. So does that mean they simply fail to live up to Stone’s personal beliefs about genetic purity? Bad science aside, his idea that we should “fix” people who don’t conform to his standards is, frankly, terrifying: “I don’t think correcting those defects through medical science … is problematic.”
I’m all for modern medicine. If you want to grow me a new pancreas, please do! But the idea that you get to decide which sexual preferences are defective and “fix” them is abhorrent. (Stone explains that this is only okay if you’re making homosexuals straight. The reverse is “morally wrong.”)
I don’t get it. The flaws in these arguments are so glaring to me. You’re upset because you don’t want anyone to change the definition of something you care about. I can follow that much. But you believe your sense of discomfort and offense is important enough to continue systematically denying legal status and protection to an entire class of human beings? That is obscene.
- If you personally find same-sex relationships distasteful, fine. There are certain sexual activities I find distasteful. Which is why I don’t do them.
- Your religious beliefs are your business. They are not and should not be the basis for law. If you use them as justification to discriminate against others, don’t be upset when others decide you’re an asshole.
- Reproduction is not the be-all and end-all of human civilization. If you want kids, great! I’ve got two, and I love ’em dearly. But you don’t get to force your choice on everyone.
- “Genetic defect” is a phrase with actual meaning. Here’s a hint: the definition isn’t based on your personal/religious beliefs.
My congratulations to the newlyweds in New York. I look forward to the day when same-sex couples throughout the United States are able to share in that joy.
Anke
July 26, 2011 @ 10:18 am
The “it’s like allowing people to marry animals or children” argument is nonsensical because it completely ignores the idea of consent.
Marriage is a legal contract, and animals and children can’t enter one of those. (Makes you wonder if the people using that argument think of their spouse as a piece of property, though more likely they just didn’t think things through.)
And if the whole “marriage is for reproduction” argument were not bogus, they’d be fighting for banning infertile people, or people who don’t want to have children, from marrying.
Jason
July 26, 2011 @ 10:19 am
See the irony is that you don’t have to have kids if you are straight to most of these people, you just have to have the reproductive organs in some way to be allowed to get married. They don’t deny, despite it being “all about reproduction” that heterosexual couples that cannot have kids for various reasons shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but they say gay people should be allowed to marry because they can’t have kids with each other.
Basically, it’s all garbage to get themselves out of a hole that is impossible to get yourself out of because there is no LOGICAL reason to not allow gay marriage, only that they don’t like it.
Btw, the website up there is an amazing video with a great song people should watch cause it rocks!
bookishdragon
July 26, 2011 @ 10:25 am
From an anthropological perspective I find the idea of homosexuality as a genetic disorder problematic. There is currently research into how homosexuality actually serves the biological imperative of genetic propagation. Lets say a family has 4 children (a common number in hunter/gatherer societies). 3 of the children are straight and are in bonded relationships and have the maximum number of children each bonding can support. 1 child is in a homosexual bonding and cannot produce children. Now if one of the 3 straight bondings is killed off (illness, injury, whatever) who provides for the children? All straight individuals of the family have their own children and cannot provide enough to take on more mouths to feed. The homosexual bonding means those children are adopted, cared for, and the genetics of that line continue. This argument the homosexuality is actually part of our evolution is given further weight when you consider the studies that have shown how often a gay family member crops up in the younger siblings of a family unit.
Or in the short form: Genetic defect my foot. We evolve defects out not in.
Anton Gully
July 26, 2011 @ 10:52 am
I come at this from a different direction. I don’t think marriage of any kind should be legal. Depending on how you look at it, it was either a way for men to claim ownership of a woman, or a way for politicians to trap men into stable relationships (the horror!).
These daysit’s all about tax breaks and pension rights. Romantic, no?
Also, interesting to see the number of responses on here vs the number of responses on G+. Should help you decide how to proceed.
law-nerd
July 26, 2011 @ 11:03 am
Sadly, there are folk who *do* try to prevent heterosexuals that they think of as incapable of reproducing from marrying. It does happen, usually with couples who wish to marry in the Catholic church, one instance was turned into a documentary: the Forbidden Wedding.
It seems that there will likely always be some Churches that object to all sorts of marriages. Glad to see that civil marriage is alive and well and that (sometimes all too slowly) the U.S. is living up to that separation of church and state thing.
Mary Robinette Kowal
July 26, 2011 @ 11:05 am
Jim, I think you are being a little unfair here. At no point does Eric advocate for legislation. You can read that in, certainly, but he doesn’t cross the line and call for action. In both of those posts, he states his beliefs and explains why he is uncomfortable.
The problem that I have with people bashing him for this is that– Look. Eric and I don’t agree and we have HUGE differences of moral opinion but he’s a good man. He doesn’t let his beliefs affect the way he treats people.
This blog post paints a target on him for stating his convictions. Should he have done that in public? Frankly, no. That was a poor tactic. Of course, the first post you linked to was on a blog that he might have thought would only be read by other people who shared his beliefs so… you know. Unless someone goes out of their way to point it out, I can see why he thought he was in a safe space.
Understand that I am NOT defending his beliefs. I am, however, defending his right to religious freedom and that includes being able to state his beliefs in his own space.
He states very clearly that he doesn’t think that his beliefs should affect the way that people are treated. He’s not a hypocrite. He’s consistent with his ideals. He’s a generous and compassionate person.
I just don’t share the same belief system that he does. But I think he has the right to express it.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 11:07 am
Also about health insurance, visitation rights, and a whole list of other legal rights and benefits…
Okay, now you’ve got me thinking about how one would eliminate the legal entity of marriage and what to do about all of those other issues. It could get messy, but it’s interesting to ponder.
Danny Adams
July 26, 2011 @ 11:10 am
I’m always amazed at how many people of a certain political persuasion cry “Government needs to stay out of the bedroom!” until such time as they want government in the bedroom.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 11:15 am
Mary,
Did I anywhere say that he *doesn’t* have the right to express his belief system? And when you say you have a problem with people bashing him for that, is there anywhere in my post that I bash him?
I did consider that this could result in people rushing over to attack him. I haven’t seen evidence for that yet.
I don’t know Eric. I chose his writing as a starting point because, as I said above, from what I’ve seen I judge him to be a reasonably intelligent person.
Absolutely he has the right to state his beliefs in his own space. I’m fairly sure I have that right too. And when I, like Eric, state my beliefs *publicly* (and I consider his blog, which is where he talked about marriage to barnyard animals, a very public statement), then I recognize that people may disagree with me. I also recognize that they have every right to do so.
Bill Pearson
July 26, 2011 @ 11:25 am
The real issue is if marriage should be a legal or religious issue. If marriage is a religious issue, then the church can make it only between a man and woman, but hand back all those tax breaks and legal protection. If is is a legal issue, then you have to include everyone.
As for the idea of genetically flipping a switch and making someone not be gay being perfectly fine… well, I find that no group throughout history that has decided that genetic purity was a good thing is a friend of mine.
Bill Pearson
July 26, 2011 @ 11:28 am
Eliminating marriage as a legal entity is easy, they have already provided the framework. After all what is a civil union other than marriage without the religious trappings. I know there are some equality issues there, but that is easy enough to shore up once everyone is thrown into that boat.
Joe G
July 26, 2011 @ 11:32 am
1) You take the existing legal institution of marriage and rename it “civil union”. It has all the legal benefits and strictures of marriage, and can be between any two consenting adults with no close blood relation as currently defined by law (I won’t get into a debate about the ethics of incest here) in a conjugal relationship.
2) Any person, couple, or religious institution can refer to this or that civil union as a “marriage”, but the term would no longer have a legal definition. All existing legal marriages would be redefined as civil unions under the law.
3) All churches and faiths currently sanctioned to perform marriages by the state are granted the same power to perform civil unions. They still have their religious freedom and can adhere to their own doctrine: e.g., clergy who oppose same-sex unions should not be forced to perform them; clergy who are accepting of them should have the right to perform them. (I notice the latter group tend to be ignored whenever anti-same-sex religious groups bring up “religious persecution”.)
4) The option for a civil ceremony should always exist for couples who cannot find or do not wish a clergyperson to marry them. No couple should be refused a civil ceremony if they meet the criteria of consenting adults, etc.
It’s a slap-dash solution that probably doesn’t address the base inequalities the institution was founded upon, but it does take the emotionally-charged term of “marriage” out of the same-sex union debate while making heterosexual and homosexual unions equal.
Anke
July 26, 2011 @ 11:44 am
FWIW, in Germany it’s “marriages performed by the church have no legal power in the eyes of the state. Only civil marriages have legal meaning.” Until quite recently you had to marry civilly before getting married in a church.
My first reaction to hearing about the gay marriage debate in the US therefore was, “huh? What does the church have to do with marriage?” 😛
Anita K.
July 26, 2011 @ 11:52 am
I love it! Way better, and more elegant, reasoning than anything I’ve heard on the other side of the argument. And I say that as someone who grew up in a very conservative Christian atmosphere where the “genetic defect” argument was bandied about quite a bit.
John Kusters
July 26, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Eliminating Marriage in lieu of Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships/Contract Spouse/whatever is an interesting thought experiment, but fated to go nowhere. There is simply no way that a majority of Americans would go along with the plan. Religious conservatives are already screaming that the “homosexual lobby” is trying to destroy marriage, when marriage equality does nothing of the sort. Imagine the push back that would happen when people start campaigning for the abolishment of civil marriage altogether! “You’re trying to destroy my marriage!!!” will have the ring of truth, and the ads against “civil unions for all” practically write themselves.
Like it or not, the governmental recognition of long-term relationships is probably here to stay. The state gets benefit out of it, and people like it. The task ahead of us as a people is how to make it equitable, just, and fair.
Talking about something that will never happen, no matter how enjoyable the thought experiment, only results in conversation derailment.
Anita K.
July 26, 2011 @ 11:55 am
I recall my German teacher in college explaining that… while many/most of my classmates were shocked by the idea, it make a whole lot more sense to me than the way we handle it here in the US! 🙂
Patrick
July 26, 2011 @ 11:59 am
Some thoughts…
As to the legal aspect of Marriage, Jim hints at an important point; marriage allows for kind of legal shorthand. It’s possible to draw up contracts, living wills, insurance policies and a host of other documents that simulate nearly all the legal aspects of marriage, but it’s expensive and inefficient. Likewise, civil unions offer some of the same benefits but legal questions remain. Does a civil union count as a marriage in that insurance contract? The terms used in legal contracts are specific and the question as to whether “civil union” equates to “marriage” in a legal sense is open to question. Extending marriage to homosexual couples is cheaper and more efficient than creating civil unions. (Think of all the millions of contracts that use the term marriage that would need to be modified.)
As to the genetics… as I understand it there is no conclusive evidence indicating a genetic basis for homosexuality, but there are some tentative indications that some may yet be found. There is more evidence that points to pre-natal hormone levels as a possible factor. There is also ample evidence that indicates that homosexual behavior can be the result of a deliberate choice. (The question of whether or not someone who engages in homosexual behavior really is or is not a homosexual seems, to me, pointlessly pedantic.) Whatever the “cause,” of course, the legal questions should center on the issue of consent and consent alone, just as they do for heterosexuals.
However, I’ll raise a question to the forum: if it were possible to identify a pre-natal or genetic marker for homosexuality (or heterosexuality) and it were possible for the mother to reverse the marker, would you find that morally objectionable? If so, are you pro-choice? If so, what distinction do you draw between the mother’s right to abort a fetus and the mother’s right to modify the fetus?
Jordan Lapp
July 26, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
Mary,
I didn’t read Jim’s post as an attack at all. Compared to the vitriol out there, I thought he was positively pleasant to read.
Eric is a friend of mine also and I agree with you that he’s a great guy, and has never treated a homosexual different from a straight person in my presence. However, I disagree with his stance on GLBT issues, and I might have written a blog post in the same way Jim did (had I been brave enough to wade into this morass). I don’t think silence is the answer when someone states an opinion with which you disagree.
On the other hand, I hate the way a post from EIGHT years ago is being dragged back into the light. I was a pretty different person 8 years ago, and I wouldn’t want to be judged now by my actions then (and yes, I know that Stone’s beliefs haven’t changed, but only because we spoke about them on a list).
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
Nitpick – the “defect” post is from 2006. The “barnyard animals” post is from 2003. Which, admittedly, doesn’t really change your point.
Janci
July 26, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
The post crosses over into bashing for me at this line: “If you use them as justification to discriminate against others, don’t be upset when others decide you’re an asshole.”
I also disagree with Eric, but I feel like the name-calling moves this from logical deconstruction of the argument into an attack. Some of the tone in the previous paragraphs also leads up to this. I have no problem with *what* you’re saying, but some of the tone in which you’ve said it leads me to agree with Mary.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
I don’t see that as calling him names, in part because Eric said very clearly that he tries *not* to discriminate against others. But I can see what you’re saying, and the blurring of the hypothetical “you” vs. the Eric James Stone “you.”
Janci
July 26, 2011 @ 1:20 pm
Right. It’s the juxtaposition of that statement immediately after the information about Eric that makes it sound like you’re talking about him, even if you aren’t.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 1:22 pm
Fair enough, and that makes perfect sense. Thanks!
Becca Stareyes
July 26, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
My personal distinction is that terminating a pregnancy is a statement of the mother’s right of bodily autonomy — as long as one cannot separate the fetus from the mother* without killing it, you’re essentially trying to balance two sets of rights. But genetically modifying a minor without hir consent, barring medical need, strikes me as infringing on the fetus or child’s rights without a corresponding protection of the parent’s rights. I have the same thoughts on other surgical procedures.
* If we were living, say, in a Lois Bujold book, my views of abortion would be rather different, as there would be a way to have my cake and eat it too — remove the fetus and put it in a uterine replicator, and everyone goes home happy. But, you’ll note, that this technology doesn’t actually exist outside of fiction.
Philip Weiss
July 26, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
He may be *mostly* good. But calling my friends genetically defective is treating people differently. He’s already treated them differently, without even meeting them.
Bill Pearson
July 26, 2011 @ 1:49 pm
Oh, I doubt the argument would go anywhere… after all you are trying to argue with people who are not going about this rationally. Any time spent yelling at the loonies is bound not to go anywhere. The only real path to change is to keep a consistent and well-reasoned argument to the populace as a whole long enough that the loonies eventually derail themselves.
I don’t doubt that some sort of governmental recognition of long-term relationships is here to stay… I just don’t see why it needs to be called marriage…
Steve Buchheit
July 26, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
I disagree that this is “bashing.” I believe you’re conflating the strength of the word “asshole” with vitriol. If the word choice replaced “an asshole” with “mentally facile” would it still be bashing? If not, it’s the strength of Jim’s word choice that you’re disagreeing with.
There is a difference between being flippant, direct, and using “fightin’ words.” Everybody’s bright line to cross is different. IMHO, Jim was being direct. He wasn’t calling for violence, he wasn’t calling for email bombing, he was stating his position.
It’s just my personal opinion, but sometimes people feel they can hold a position because they won’t be opposed strongly, counting on society’s “we’re being polite here” function to withhold the justified slings and arrows. It’s this kind of thinking that joins “anonymity” to giving “unvarnished advice” or to be offended when someone disagrees with you. I call bull on that argument. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions, maybe you should rethink the position. Or, if you’re not willing to be called an asshole by someone for taking a stand, then you obviously don’t believe in what you’re saying.
Yes, you may call me an ass for believing that.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
Random thought: you don’t need to explicitly call for e-mail bombing to get it. That is something I thought about when writing this post. I haven’t seen anything to make me think that my readers are running out to send Stone hate mail, and I don’t think my post encourages that, either explicitly or implicitly. But I do wonder if I should have said explicitly that it wasn’t something I wanted.
“Yes, you may call me an ass for believing that.”
Oh, so we can call you an ass, but not an asshole? Is this a double-standard I see before me, Buchheit? Hmph.
Steve Buchheit
July 26, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
It’s the old marriage=sex privileges argument. Homosexuality is as much a genetic defect as being white is a genetic defect. Eric James Stone’s argument of “it doesn’t change the fact that they do not have something that, by design, they are supposed to have” is disproved by basic Darwinian evolutionary theory. Since this trait survives it is either advantageous to the population in some way, or it is non-harmful (ie. provides no benefit, but also doesn’t provide a disadvantage).
Steve Buchheit
July 26, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
An “asshole” is merely the absence of ass, sounded by ass. Call me either name. I’d rather be the asshole than the ass.
Mary Robinette Kowal
July 26, 2011 @ 2:37 pm
Jim… do you really think that naming a post “The Eric James Stone Axiom on Homosexuality” is going to make his life pleasant? The reason I said, “people bashing” instead of “you” is that yours isn’t the first post on this.
To be fair, yours is a lot more moderated in tone than most of the others, but I did take the section that Janci points out as being directly at Eric. The fact that the post is about the “Stone axiom” makes it pretty thoroughly about him rather than about his position.
You also appear to use direct address at the end starting with, “You’re upset because you don’t want anyone to change the definition of something you care about.”
You are using him as an example of the type of person that you think is “obscene” and “an asshole.” I can grant your intent to use this as a jumping off point for a larger discussion, but I’m not sure how calling him on it can be anything except bashing.
Email bombing, people rushing over to his website… those aren’t the only things that are unpleasant. You’ve written a thoughtful post. Unfortunately, you used his full name as the title so when people link to it, you’ve created a google-bomb whether you intended to or not.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
Mary,
That’s not really how Google-bombing works. (Unless they’ve completely changed the definition of what that means.) If you’re worried that this post will end up being one of the top results for a search for his name, I think you’re drastically overestimating my internet power.
If you’re referring to Janci’s comment, then I assume you also read my responses to her, acknowledging that my use of “you” was problematic, meaning there’s no need for me to repeat myself?
“[D]o you really think that naming a post ‘The Eric James Stone Axiom on Homosexuality’ is going to make his life pleasant?”
Well, no. But the purpose of the post wasn’t to make his life pleasant. It was to look at arguments against homosexuality from someone I consider to be a reasonably intelligent person.
“You are using him as an example of the type of person that you think is ‘obscene’ and ‘an asshole.'”
Nope. I said that to “believe your sense of discomfort and offense is important enough to continue systematically denying legal status and protection to an entire class of human beings” is obscene. The word “obscene” modifies the belief, not the person.
I also said, “If you use [your beliefs] as justification to discriminate against others, don’t be upset when others decide you’re an asshole.” Eric has said he tries *not* to discriminate against people, which seems to preclude him from falling into the “asshole” category I’ve set up here.
Like I’ve already said, I’ll happily own imprecise writing in the directed “you” of Eric James Stone vs. the generic “you,” but please don’t accuse me of things I haven’t actually written.
Patrick
July 26, 2011 @ 2:58 pm
Introducing the idea of consent for a minor is dangerous and legally awkward, introducing it for a fetus even more so. But to follow the reasoning… it would be OK to repeatedly abort fetuses with a specific marker, but not OK to change the marker?
I know it seems silly, but I do think we’re going to actually start having these kinds of political debates in the near future. Also, I think it raises a question about what political liberty actually entails. The mother certainly has certain rights to raise her children as she sees fit and though we’ve granted her the right to terminate her pregnancy, do we remove her right to seek the medical treatment that she asks for?
Mary Robinette Kowal
July 26, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
Fair enough, this post is not a google-bomb by the current definition.
What I was trying to say was that Janci’s point about the imprecise writing of the directed “you” applies more of the post than the single sentence.
I know what you meant to write and what the words on the page are, but that has little to do with whether the result is “bashing.” If I bump into someone on the subway and step on their foot, it hurts even if I didn’t plan to step on them.
But, I’ll let it drop since you are only intending to look at the question and the people involved are incidental.
Jim C. Hines
July 26, 2011 @ 3:16 pm
Reply sent via e-mail.
Patrick
July 26, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
A nitpick, but in this context I think it’s important…
Evolution does not drive to an “optimal” state. A trait may very well provide a distinct reproductive disadvantage and yet survive in low incidence within a given population so long as the evolutionary pressure exerted on that disadvantage is relatively weak. Whether or not any specific trait survives over the long-term is a question of it’s reproductive fitness relative to competing mutations. And it’s important to remember that “long-term” in this context is exceedingly long. Far longer than we have any kind of accurate data about the incidence of homosexuality in humans.
Also, evolution never guarantees success. Just because a certain species has a certain trait right now doesn’t mean that trait is necessarily benign.
Anton Gully
July 26, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
Ahhh… I suspect both your well-reasoned arguments, would have little impact on a man who speaks about human “design”…
John Kusters
July 26, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
Meh, what we call marriage was recognized by civil authorities long before religion got into the picture. It was originally an arrangement sanctioned by the state for the distribution of property after the death of the male head of house. It rarely had anything to do with love, and much more to do with recognizing legitimate heirs and marking the married female(s) as the exclusive property of the male. If we want to be truly traditional (which I don’t but some claim they do), we should kick the religion out of marriage. They can call it what they originally did, “holy matrimony”…
Anton Gully
July 26, 2011 @ 3:39 pm
Government was primarily concerned with having a steady supply of new workers/tax-payers, and that’s still very much the reason behind the promotion of marriage as a tool for social stability. Under current estimates the world’s population will be over 7.5 billion within ten years. Increasingly sophisticated manufacturing technology coupled to over-protective health and safety legislation will likely reverse that policy. You’re going to see people actively discouraged from breeding.
“The Forever War” may not be too far wrong – eventually gay marriage won’t just be accepted, it’ll be the norm.
Anke
July 26, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
We seem to be pretty close, yes.
Very recently here in Germany there was a vote on PID. A good chunk of people were actually against the idea of allowing the screening of embryos bred in vitro for genetic defects before implantation.
Given that German law allows abortion in those cases later… Can you imagine? “Yes, ma’am, we know you and your partner have a high risk of producing a child with a genetic defect, and it would be technically possible to screen for it, but it’s not allowed, so you’ll just have be pregnant for a while and have a miscarriage or abortion if you’re out of luck [again].”
Classifying being gay as a genetic defect is an example of how things might go wrong, but still, that scenario strikes me as nothing short of monstrous.
Anton Gully
July 26, 2011 @ 3:45 pm
I wanted more Government in the bedroom but I’ve been having difficulty getting an election.
James Chandler
July 26, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
I find this post and many of the responses disturbingly disingenuous. It’s another example of the aspect of today’s political debates I find unacceptable – intellectual inaccuracy. Although many inaccuracies are the result of outright dishonesty motivated by political agenda, often, as here, it’s the result of simple laziness. To his credit, both of the posts by EJS do not engage in fuzzy logic to make his point.
Eric’s posts do not claim he believes homosexuality is a genetic defect or even a defect. He is responding to the article preceding his post, which provides a simple “what if…” premise. Moreover, the article itself does not claim homosexuality is a genetic defect. It acknowledges the possibility, but also recognizes the causes are likely more complex. EJS also does not suggest “we should ‘fix’ people who don’t conform to his standards.” Rather, he concludes, based on a very disciplined intellectual argument, that there is nothing morally wrong with correcting a genetic defect if it is possible. In contrast, this post and its responses attack EJS’s reasoning because they reject the idea that homosexuality is a defect. You have confused the reasoning in response to the premise with the premise itself.
As for defining marriage, with the exception of removing racial limitations (and the six states which allow gay marriage), current legal definitions of marriage are actually more restrictive than ever, i.e. minimum age requirements, restrictions on blood relations, blood tests(?), bigamy. Regardless, however, EJS does not argue for an unchanging definition of marriage. Again, the article ascribes to EJS a position he has not asserted. Rather, the point EJS makes is that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is as offensive to many as redefining homosexuality to include sex with barnyard animals would be to homosexuals, and is equally inaccurate. The concept of marriage has been accepted in every human culture, and it has never included permanent “legal” relationships between same gender couples. The argument is that permanent same-gender couplings are anathema to the concept of marriage – that marriage is more than merely a legal definition – and, therefore, you cannot simply add to it without fundamentally altering it. It would be like redefining “blue” to include yellow (or should that be pink?).
Of course you do not understand EJS’s arguments – he never made them. You are trying to understand his arguments as applied to positions he did not take. If you’re going to argue against a position, at least argue against the actual position, accurately articulately. Imprecision in such discussions leads to Fallacious reasoning, which only impedes actual understanding.
Patrick
July 26, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
True. And isn’t it odd to insinuate genetics into an argument from design? If we’re designed, then aren’t our defects also designed?
Patrick
July 26, 2011 @ 8:50 pm
You find intellectual inaccuracy unacceptable?
You write, “Eric’s posts do not claim he believes homosexuality is a genetic defect or even a defect.”
Stone writes, “Homosexuality is a defect.”
Talk about disturbingly disingenuous.
You argue that Stone does not engage in fuzzy logic. The comment in question analogizes deafness (the absence of a faculty) with homosexuality (a demonstrated preference). That’s a rhetorical trick, not a disciplined intellectual argument.
You decry laziness and then write, “In contrast, this post and its responses attack EJS’s reasoning because they reject the idea that homosexuality is a defect.” (See point one above.)
When you disagree (I think that’s probably more precise than “attack”) with someone’s reasoning, it’s often because you disagree with their premise. In this case, that premise is “homosexuality is a defect.” (See point one above.)
You also write, “You have confused the reasoning in response to the premise with the premise itself.” Hmmm…. “The reasoning in response to the premise,” would be the substance of Jim’s *response* to Stone’s premise, “homosexuality is a defect.” (See point one above.) I don’t think anyone here confused Jim’s response with Stone’s premise.
You do, however, get two points exactly right.
1) Redefining marriage is offensive to some people. Fine. I don’t care how many people are offended by political liberty or equality under the law. I had hoped we had long moved past the point that sputtering bigots could stop equal rights simply by braying their ineffable disgust at those they consider their genetic inferiors.
2) You write, we “do not understand EJS’s arguments – he never made them.” Too true; there isn’t argument to be found anywhere. Indeed, he closes his “discipled intellectual argument” with this gem of absurdity,
“…I do see something morally wrong with homosexual parents who are so adamant about there being nothing wrong with homosexuality that they purposely try to conceive homosexual children.”
Steve Buchheit
July 26, 2011 @ 9:21 pm
I don’t know where you got the “drive to an ‘optimal’ state” from my statement. Basically, I was restating the basic tautology of “That which survives, survives.”
But here I will disagree with your implication that homosexuality is a “weak reproductive disadvantage.” Being homosexual does not mean being infertile. Many homosexuals have children, and not through the magic of modern medicine or the social constructs of adoption or surrogates, but the old fashioned way. If homosexuality is genetically determined (and, actually, there is good evidence that it is), it provides no hinderance or advantage in reproductive activity.
As to your comments implying that homosexuality is a recent advent, given the prevalence of homosexual behavior within the animal kingdom (and here I’m talking about same sex preferences, not same sex intercourse as used in power displays), by Occam’s Razor I think we can safely assume that homosexuality and bisexuality are a natural component/variation within sexually reproducing animals.
Jessica Strider
July 27, 2011 @ 11:08 am
I’m not going to comment on your post beyond saying that I think you spoke eloquently as always. I was wondering if you’d seen this link,
http://www.happyplace.com/8958/the-most-hilariously-convincing-gay-marriage-signs. They have some great signs. My favourite is: “Three words that will save the economy: gay bridal registry”.
Oh, and I read Snow Queen’s Shadow and liked it a lot. 🙂 I should post my review next week. I’m sorry to see the series end, you did some clever twisting of fairy tales.
Jim C. Hines
July 27, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Jessica – thank you! I’m rather sad about ending the books too…
And I’d seen some of those signs, but not all of ’em. Thanks! 🙂
Christian A. Young
July 28, 2011 @ 11:38 am
I confess, I tend to lose a lot of patience when the barnyard animals thing comes into play.
It’s an abhorrent statement. No matter how much one might protest before or afterward that the conversation isn’t about LGBTQ people being sub-human or less worthy of love and respect that’s precisely what’s being said. If we are equally human and equally worthy, where exactly is the problem with legal recognition of our relationships and our families?
Likewise, when the state of being LGBTQ is declared a defect (genetic or no). Am I different? Boy howdy, am I. But the only time I feel defective is when I’m treated as if I am, or when I’m told that I am, over and over again.
When it happens, it’s the most miserable feeling, because no matter how hard I work and how invested I may be in the community, I have fewer rights to work and housing in many jurisdictions than a convicted felon because of my gender identity and expression and my sexual orientation. It’s as ridiculous and arbitrary as segregation, or denying women the right to vote. It’s distressing that both my state and the United States does not offer me equal protection under the law because someone, somewhere, is uncomfortable with me without even knowing me. It’s galling that there are people who do know me, or claim affiliation and love for people like me, who persist in doing us harm.
And statements like this do harm. They’re personally hurtful, and they encourage persons who do genuinely want to discriminate against us to continue doing so personally, socially, and in law. They perpetuate attitudes that sometimes lead to violence and oppression.
Does that mean I advocate silencing people like Stone, or Rick Santorum, or the Phelps clan? No, because a system which allows government to silence an individual or a group based on ideology is inherently oppressive. But I do frequently wish that they would stop and listen to themselves, because what they’re saying doesn’t parse.
One cannot make the barnyard argument or the defect argument and still expect me to believe professions of love or respect. I’m a human being, my relationships are human relationships, and to declare otherwise denies at least one (and probably both) of these things.
zvi
July 28, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
If Stone’s beliefs have changed, he always has the option of amending his blog entries to reflect updated beliefs.
zvi
July 28, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
Thank you
Michele Lee
July 28, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
Like Like Like Like. I’d heard about this before, but never heard it put like this. It does make a lot of sense.
Josh Jasper
July 28, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
The idea that you *ought* to show patience with someone who compares you to an animal molester is nearly as offensive as the person making the comparison. And the idea that criticizing in anger them amounts to silencing them or attacking them is also really aggravating, and offensive. It’s bordering on victim blaming.
Rose Fox
July 28, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
Mary:
At no point does Eric advocate for legislation.
No, he advocates for genetic “cures” for the homosexuality “defect”. If anything, that’s worse.
He doesn’t let his beliefs affect the way he treats people.
Blogging in defense of bigotry is treating people poorly. It contributes to and perpetuates a cultural atmosphere in which queer teen suicide rates are multiple times higher than straight teen suicide rates. It doesn’t matter whether it reaches one person or a hundred or a thousand. Promoting the concept of “fixing” queer people encourages other bigots to think that anti-gay speech and behavior are okay, just like laughing at rape jokes encourages rapists to think rape is okay.
Of course, the first post you linked to was on a blog that he might have thought would only be read by other people who shared his beliefs
He states in that comment that he knows he’s going to offend the “zealots of homosexuality”, and the separate blog post has a similar warning on it, so it’s pretty clear he knows he’s not in anything like safe(r) space.
I am, however, defending his right to religious freedom and that includes being able to state his beliefs in his own space.
You’re defending something that’s not under attack.
He states very clearly that he doesn’t think that his beliefs should affect the way that people are treated.
He states very clearly that if a “gay gene” could be identified, he wouldn’t have a problem with parents “fixing” that gene in their children. I don’t know if I can explain just how abhorrent that is. It’s equivalent to ethnic cleansing, or aborting female fetuses. It’s equivalent to present-day practices of trying to psychologically “fix” children who don’t fit gender norms–practices that lead to those patients committing suicide because they have been convinced they are permanently damaged and incapable of fitting into society.
He’s a generous and compassionate person.
He generously and compassionately wants to eradicate people like me from the face of the earth.
As a queer person who thinks of you as a friend, I’m really hurt and disappointed that you’re defending Stone this way.
Rose Fox
July 28, 2011 @ 4:28 pm
Thank you for this, Jim.
sylvanstargazer
July 28, 2011 @ 6:30 pm
The other argument I’ve seen is that there isn’t a specific “homosexual” gene, but rather a collection of genes that can make one very attracted to men or very attracted to women. So these sorts of gay men have sisters who are more attracted to men and thus have more children, and these sorts of lesbians have brothers who are more attracted to women and thus have more children.
Basically, though, homosexuals exist and were not created by humans in a test tube. Therefor, homosexuality is natural and must not be costly enough to cause any genes or cultures that support current prevalence to be dominated by other options. To try to argue otherwise is to argue that reality is wrong, which is only a winning proposition in certain circles of Economics…
Terry Wallace
July 29, 2011 @ 9:00 am
Some homosexuality may well have a genetic basis; many gay people claim they were “born this way.” I think many lesbians may have started out as basically heterosexual, but the relationships they have had with the males in their lives (husbands, fathers, brothers, other) have been so bad and damaging that they will NEVER consider a sexual relationshipwith a man ever again. If it is genetic, or isn’t, is a moot point in my opinion. It is not my bleeping business, or anyone elses, in my judgment.
I do believe the issue of “gay marriage” is a red herring; the only thing that counts is the legal matters handled by civil unions. Not that the ceremony is not important, it is just as important and probably more. However,once you get the legal relationship nailed down, you can come up with your own ceremony.
Amy
August 3, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
Way after the fact here, but I can’t see how responding to an argument an individual has made on a public space, such as a blog, with a civil, reasoned, disagreement is inappropriate. (And no, stating that “If you do x, some people will call you an asshole” is not uncivil in my book.) How can anyone read Stone’s original postings as anything except an invitation to dialogue?
Jennifer Thorne
August 16, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
The other way you can look at it is this: evolution is a whole bunch of genetic defects building up over time. Some carry forward, some do not. This is what makes life so interesting, and why we have more variety on this planet than jellyfish and plankton.
The ‘defects’ are normal. Rigidity and inability to change and grow is very much not.