The Luxury of “Reasonable”
When I went to World Fantasy last year, I think I met almost as many people who knew me from this blog as I did people who had read my books. (I try not to think about that too hard.) Frequently, people would say they read my blog because it’s usually so reasonable and calm. (And yes, I’m aware that not everyone shares that opinion.)
I appreciate that. But I also worry about the way we sometimes privilege reasonable above so much else.
Another blogger recently linked to Brandon Sanderson’s old post about Dumbledore and homosexuality. I hung out with Sanderson at ConFusion this year. He struck me as a nice guy, and I came away liking him. His post is calm and intellectual in tone as he talks about his church’s stance against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
He recognizes that there are other points of view. He expects and accepts that people will disagree with him. And he asks that people not yell at him, saying:
…those who cry for open mindedness often seem to be as hateful and unwilling to look from someone else’s perspective as the people on the far right. Rationally work to enlighten us through thoughtful nudging. Don’t call us idiots and homophobes.
In other words, be reasonable. Be calm. Be understanding and patient with those you disagree with. It’s a demand I’ve seen repeated elsewhere many times.
But there’s a reason Sanderson can be so reasonable. He’s not the one being spat on and beaten and burned (In front of a church, no less) and killed because of who he loves. He’s not being told he can’t bring his boyfriend to his own prom. Agents/editors aren’t rejecting his work because he wrote about LGBT characters. He’s not being denied basic rights, like the ability to visit his partner at the hospital. He’s not being told he can’t adopt a child he loves, a child who instead gets returned to an abusive home because the court feels that’s better than letting the child grow up with gay or lesbian parents.
I can more easily write a “reasonable” post about LGBT rights, because I’m comfortably and safely married. I know my insurance will cover my wife, that every state will recognize my family as valid, that my children won’t be hassled because I love my partner. I’m not directly, personally threatened by kind of beliefs and attitudes Sanderson describes.
It’s easy to tell advocates for LGBT rights to slow it down and stop being so loud or angry. It’s easy to demand reasonableness, and to call for negotiation when you’re not the one being hurt every day of your life.
I understand that faith is powerful stuff, and to his credit, Sanderson genuinely appears to be struggling with this issue. And he’s willing to write about it in public, meaning he risks being called names, or having his books boycotted.
In the meantime, those on the other side risk being beaten and tortured and murdered.
I fully believe Sanderson would be horrified by these crimes … but I hope he might also recognize that there’s a justifiable basis for anger and fear of those claiming to know God’s will. That such anger and fear are based on experience. That it can be difficult to distinguish the person who says “My God tells me that homosexuality is sinful” and hopes to have a calm, reasonable discussion from the one who says those same words and plans to beat you to death in the parking lot.
I’m not defending or encouraging name-calling. (I also don’t believe that telling someone they’re being bigoted is name-calling.) But it’s easy to demand calm, “safe” discussion when you’re the one who’s safe and comfortable … it doesn’t strike me as a terribly reasonable demand.
Bill Pearson
August 29, 2011 @ 10:05 am
I had totally missed the news about the couple in eastern Kentucky, ummm, wow. That is so unbelievably sad.
I applaud you for a more reasonable opinion/argument than I can have on the issue. Somehow arguing that 10% of the population can not have rights you enjoy because you belong to a group, that comprises less than 2% of the us population, who objects to it morally… well it just sets my teeth on edge.
Jim C. Hines
August 29, 2011 @ 10:29 am
Someday I would love to live in a society that 1) understands and 2) supports the idea of separation of church and state. Sadly, it feels like the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction…
Abra
August 29, 2011 @ 2:04 pm
Sadly, it feels like the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction…
A lot of people within the church are feeling exactly the opposite. They’re scared, they interpret their loss of privilege as an attack, and they’re digging in. It’s worth noting that both sides of the “culture war” are putting their heads in their hands and going “Ugh, we’re losing.”
David Alastair Hayden
August 29, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
It’s a martyr religion and the early Church endured quite a lot of persecution in the formative years. So the attitude is not surprising. It’s built in. (I was a Religious Studies major, so I’ll stop there.) And conservatives in general want to hold to the current state or an imagined previous state. They already feel they’ve lost a lot of battles over the last fifty years, they feel their grip slipping. But progression is the way of things. The conservatives aren’t winning. They wouldn’t be fighting so hard or talking so loud if they were. Progression always fights because it works against status quo.
And I think some of the current pressures are due to the baby boom generation’s greater relative portion of the population compared to younger groups. The distribution is not even.
Joris M
August 29, 2011 @ 6:22 pm
Would it help if people keep patiently politely and reasonably explaining to churches that they are not actually marrying people; that all they do is blessing or sanctifying marriages of couples that adhere to the rules set by those churches; that there already are lots of couples married that they would not necessarily approve of; that nothing would have to change for them if the law changed?
Or perhaps as an outsider the word ‘marriage’ does not translate properly.
Brandon Sanderson
August 29, 2011 @ 7:22 pm
Jim,
This is a very interesting take on my essay, one I haven’t seen before. Quite thought-provoking. The question you raise is not, specifically, “Is what Sanderson says here right?” It is, “How far must a group be pushed before being reasonable is no longer…well, reasonable?”
Good food for thought. For example, we’ve seen in recent world news, people for whom staying reasonable got them nowhere. Only revolution would get them what they need.
I’ve actually seen a similar line of reasoning (to a lesser extent) among some of my friends who are both LDS and Pro-Choice. Their argument is this: “Yes, abortion is wrong, and nobody should ever have one. However, forbidding people to have one is an equal or greater wrong. So we should focus on bringing people to the belief that it is wrong, but not forbid it.”
So, the question becomes this: For those of us who believe practicing homosexual relations is a sin, would it be better to focus efforts on conversion, and less on trying to create political barriers? After all, a lot of what we’re arguing about is semantics, isn’t it?
(It should be noted, for those reading, that the LDS Church does not oppose civil unions, or the granting of rights of visitation, custody, insurance, etc to gay/lesbian partners.)
“Just semantics” is kind of a weasel phrase, however, as words ca be very powerful things. But it could be argued (as you have) that even getting into a discussion of something on that level is a luxury, as the basic rights people seek have not been granted. Perhaps that is the line between being reasonable and not: The argument would go that we should give people the rights they seek, then we can argue about the word it is called.
If it sounds like I’m not coming to any conclusions here, it’s because I’m not. I’m writing as I consider what you’ve said, extrapolate it a bit, and see where it takes me. Thanks for your post.
Brandon
Miss Bliss
August 29, 2011 @ 8:06 pm
Great post and great comments. The separation of Church and State is one of the MOST important aspects of America. It’s right up there with our right to free speech. This country was born out of people who were fleeing religious persecution after having watched Europe roil with religious war after religious war. Complete turmoil, devastating for both church and state. Religions have a protected status and freedom in America that is vital and crucial to our country. At the same time America must be a country of laws for all citizens. If it is not a country of laws that apply to ALL citizens then we fail this great experiment. Every religion has the protected right to follow their beliefs as long as those beliefs do not violate any laws. Every Citizen should be able to safely expect all the same rights as every other citizen in this country. Currently that is not the case. Either marriage should stop being something that is defined by the state or it must be recognized equally for all adult citizens. We are in a constant process here of trying to determine what it means to be America. To quote Aaron Sorkin, “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship.”
Steve Buchheit
August 29, 2011 @ 11:12 pm
I think the “focus efforts… less on trying to create political barriers” is the crux of the matter. Do I care that you believe homosexuality to be a sin (or abortion for that matter)? Not in the least. The line gets crossed when those that hold those beliefs grasp the reigns of power and say, “And what I believe is the Truth, and you all will believe it too and act accordingly.”
There are two limits to that. The first limit is, yes, we do need laws for an orderly society, and we should prosecute those who go beyond those laws (to protect the majority of society from those who would prey upon them and to make sure everybody is playing by “the rules”). The other end of that is “you can’t legislate morality.” There is a line in between where we cross from being protected and ensuring the security of the group to enforcing social behavioral norms (of any group).
My friends who are gay don’t demand that I be gay to fit into their worldview. My friends who have had abortions don’t demand that everybody in their circumstance (of the time) have an abortion. Why should I accept the opposite argument (that everybody Must be heterosexual or Must not have an abortion)?
It’s the matter of response. When one side of the argument acts violently, should we demand the opposite side respond with non-violence? And just like how people who hold convictions on either side of the argument may personally act and respond non-violently, they will be tarred with the same brush as those who respond with violence. It’s been the same thing since middle-school that the actions of a few ruin it for all of us.
Finally, both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Mahatma Ghandi were both considered dangerous and violent radicals in their day. Some of their followers committed acts of violence in their name. It’s only with the distance of years and the comparison to others that we see them as non-violent and peaceful people.
Gay Ex-Mormon
August 30, 2011 @ 1:00 am
Mr. Sanderson’s views on homosexuality are offensive. Most gay men I know who are big genre fans refuse to buy his books on principle. The only reason he has a writing career at all is because his homophobic, vile mentor and fellow Mormon bigot Orson Scott Card pulled him from the slush pile and gave Tor his stamp of approval. The fact that Sanderson teaches at reactionary, Gestapo Honor Code BYU only lessens his appeal that much more in the eyes of GLBT readers.
Ian
August 30, 2011 @ 4:13 am
Actually in the nation I live we tried the reasonable way, bargaining and pleading and trying to get way less than equality marriage just in order to get something at all. The net result? They still spit in our face from every political side. So no, being reasonable doesn’t work, especially when the other side really believes that not only you don’t deserve equality, but you don’t deserve anything at all.
As for civil unions, I understand where that’s coming from, but your idea that marriage is a strictly religious thing is a view that isn’t even shared by all religions. The Waldensians, for example, do not have marriage as a sacrament, though they do have a ceremony and will bless any kind of union. Who is to say that their way of doing religious marriage is wrong and yours is right? That’s why a religion, any religion (even all religions), cannot take a word for its own and prevent others from using it, no matter how important that word might be for its faith. Change the context and you change the word.
Calyx Ro
August 30, 2011 @ 7:56 am
Thank you. You are describing something that’s been bothering me for a long time. It’s not just gay people’s situation. The idea that an oppressed minority ought to be reasonable in its demands for equality is a horrid form of mind control. No one should be violent, or break the law, but policing people’s most personal feelings is going too far. It is saying that their feelings are less important than other people’s feelings.
The same sort of arguments used to leveled at the women’s movement. John Stuart Mill wrote “The Subjection of Women” with help from his wife Harriet Taylor. The couple married after 21 years of friendship, but their lives were blighted by the fact that Taylor’s first husband had knowingly passed on his syphilis to her, a horrible illness for which there was not effective treatment at the time.
Following the “reasonable” ideology, opponents of feminism might say that Mill ought not to have described oppression of women as a remnant of ancient slave societies, but why not? If that was the result of his analysis? I don’t know exactly how angry Taylor and Mill were about this, but why shouldn’t they feel horribly used? Critics might say that not all women are given horrible diseases from their husbands, and that Taylor’s first husband had a bad character. That might be the case, but I’m sure it didn’t help that the husband’s doctor told him it was perfectly all right for him to have relations with his wife and not tell her. And there is your example of systematic oppression of women.
Removal of oppression is never initiated by those who feel content and respected. It has its root in the rage of the scarred and insecure. When I know that Taylor helped Mill with his article, I know that he was not sitting in an ivory tower and making pretty theories.
I deeply feel that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that right is something that comes from your heart and not from some old book. I don’t like it when people are using religious texts as “Life for Dummies”. (That last comment is not aimed at Sanderson, but at his less reasonable compatriots.)
Calyx Ro
August 30, 2011 @ 9:34 am
*facepalm*
I just discovered the very long discussion on your livejournal. There’s just nothing like reperating other people’s arguments.
Andrew S. Balfour
August 30, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
You know, from his own comments, it seems Sanderson is making a real effort to, if not come around, at least understand. Should we hate him for that?
I do not agree with Sanderson’s perspective, but that’s not surprising. A liberal Canadian atheist who was raised in a fairly liberal version of Christianity is not likely to share much perspective with an American Mormon. I do not consider homosexuality “sinful”, and I am at least mildly offended by the idea. But I can’t be much more than mildly offended by someone’s beliefs, as long as they’re just beliefs, which are personal and private.
I get offended when a believer decides that his or her beliefs are justification for infringing on another’s rights or well-being. That is fundamentally wrong according to the ideals of both of our countries.
Brandon Sanderson is not doing that. He is very openly trying to not do that. I’m not saying he’s right, or that you need to consider his perspective as you would your own, but I don’t think he needs to be painted with the same brush as people who publicly attack LGBT persons, be it verbally, legally or violently.
Jim C. Hines
August 30, 2011 @ 7:53 pm
Thanks, Brandon. Like I said on e-mail, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Likewise, I appreciate the clarification on the LDS Church. It’s interesting to me that there is no opposition to equal legal rights for same-sex partners.
But I have to say, this bit makes me cringe, “For those of us who believe practicing homosexual relations is a sin…”
I’m stuck on this point. I recognize that this is a core belief, and it’s not one I necessarily expect you to change. I do believe that you would never intentionally hurt or attack someone for being gay. But in the bigger picture, despite Christ’s teachings, we’ve never been good about not casting stones…
Jim C. Hines
August 30, 2011 @ 8:03 pm
Walked away from the computer, and my brain immediately came up with something else.
“For those of us who believe practicing homosexual relations is a sin…”
I have too many friends that I love dearly who are not straight. Accepting the idea that homosexual behavior is a sin means telling these people that God doesn’t want them to be with the ones they love.
That’s not something I can or will accept.
That is not the God I know.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
August 30, 2011 @ 10:58 pm
Brandon, ::waves:: great meeting you at Worldcon.
The issue I have with Churches reserving the word “marriage” and everyone else having civil unions are numerous, but here’s three off the top of my head:
1) Essentially, you want to strip privilege from anyone who is not religious. That isn’t okay with me. Yes, I had a religious wedding, but I’m a Wiccan. This brings me to the next question: who, in this day and age and with the establishment clause we have, gets to decide who gets a “marriage” vs. who gets only a civil union? Not as simple to legislate as you might think.
2) Our civil unions wouldn’t necessarily be recognized as “marriage” around the world — what happens when you die in a foreign country? Become struck with an illness? Marriage creates a planetary legal shorthand for a relationship.
3) Define male. Define female. The International Olympic Committee has actually given up on this one. It’s impossible to define heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage without defining what male and female actually are or are not. My husband wrote an essay about that, easily googleable with the words “kudzu” and “marriage.” There are, right now, non-heterosexual marriages that have LDS temple seals. Guaranteed. Statistically, it’s probably about 1%. Sometimes, the issues mentioned in his essay cause fertility problems, but ability to conceive doesn’t necessarily mean you’re the sex you present as.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
August 30, 2011 @ 11:01 pm
I have known too many loving quiltbag couples to believe their love isn’t as true as my own.
Andrew Zimmerman Jones
August 31, 2011 @ 12:41 am
Well said, Jim. I know that I personally have exercised the luxury of reasonableness far too often saying things like, “Well, I personally think it should be legal, but I’m just not sure it should be handled by the courts,” and so on. Sort of reminds me of the point that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made about the “white moderate” in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” I suppose that makes people like me a “straight moderate.” Thanks for calling us out on it!
Rick Moen
August 31, 2011 @ 2:45 am
Jm Hines wrote:
It’s a demand….
Point of order: Sanderson made no demand. Your polemics are showing (and I say that as someone on your side).
Deirdre wrote:
My husband wrote an essay about that
(For context:) Said spouse would be the guy I shave.
Essentially, you want to strip privilege from anyone who is not religious.
Point of order: Sanderson said no such thing. He correctly diagnosed the key point of contention as being a symbolic one over the word ‘marriage’, and suggested a sleight-of-tongue whereby civil marriage within the USA is renamed to civil union, permitting those with semantic hangups to walk away happy and substantive rights to be corrected without obstruction from certain religious communities including his own. He even recognises that a large body of civil law would need to be modified to match. I’ve only half-facetiously made the same suggestion, from an entirely secular perspective.
Our civil unions wouldn’t necessarily be recognized as “marriage” around the world….
A treaty detail, at worst.
Define male. Define female. The International Olympic Committee has actually given up on this one. It’s impossible to define heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage without defining what male and female actually are or are not. My husband wrote an essay about that
Point of order: Completely non-sequitur to what Sanderson wrote.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmaifa.com
Calyx Ro
August 31, 2011 @ 4:36 am
I just find Sanderson’s idea that marriage belongs in churches rather peculiar. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I learned in school was that marriage was originally a civil contract, and that marriage ceremonies started taking place in front of churches during the middle ages simply because that is where people would meet. And that the medieval Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament because it expanded their influence over people’s lives, thus giving it political power and also a source of income. So where is the harm in returning marriage to its earlier state, and let churches and temples bless all they like?
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
August 31, 2011 @ 5:39 am
So far as I know, your recollection is correct. However, what a lot of religious conservatives (and here I mean conservative in the sense of religion, not in the political sense) feel that they must stick to the “no gay marriage” rule. However, there’s an out: if everyone’s marriage was changed to a civil union, that allows them to have their separate but everyone to still be otherwise equal in the eyes of the law.
So, in that sense, it’s a semantic hack, and it’s possibly the best compromise.
I’m personally not willing to give up the word marriage, but then I’m also of the opinion that unless a charitable organization — including a religion — fully complies with the EEOC rules (among others) for employment and hiring and non-descrimination, then they shouldn’t be able to get any tax exemption. (Because women can’t become priests or bishops or pope, this would make the Catholic Church not tax exempt. I’m okay with that.) If you really want to separate church and state, then you’ll have to separate out the federal and state subsidies, too.
Calyx Ro
August 31, 2011 @ 7:06 am
Well , if they called it marriage before the Church got involved, I don’t see why a civil union can’t be marriage, no matter the gender specifications. I mean, if it looks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage…. Then the religious communities can just call their version a church-blessed marriage and be done with it. After all, nobody is forcing people to marry persons of the same sex.
I am fascinated by the idea that we should all take into account the rules of religions we don’t belong to.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 8:51 am
“Point of order: Sanderson made no demand. Your polemics are showing (and I say that as someone on your side).”
Counterpoint 1: Demands aren’t always stated as demands.
But yes, I would agree that Sanderson made no explicit demands on this point.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 8:55 am
Thanks for the link. MLK has come up several times in this discussion, as has that particular letter, so it’s helpful to have that handy.
Jim C. Hines
August 31, 2011 @ 8:56 am
Has anyone said we should hate Sanderson? (Serious question – I’m trying to keep up with comments here and elsewhere, but it’s possible I’ve missed something.)
Andrew S. Balfour
August 31, 2011 @ 9:24 am
Not overtly, that I’ve seen, but that was the implication I read in the comment above mine.
O.T.
September 2, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
Mr. Sanderson, I’ve loved your work on the Wheel of Time books and respect you as an artist. You’ve taken me to a wonderfully warm nostalgic place, reminding me of the first time I ever opened a fantasy novel. I am definitely buying the final volume, and could not think of a better author to carry the torch. I say all of this as a queer person.
While I appreciate your evolving position on the legal questions, your personal beliefs are deeply heterosexist. (This is different from being homophobic or hateful, which you are surely not.) You believe that the love you experience is more valid (or less sinful, or however you’d like to style it) than the love I experience. Your polite tone doesn’t remove the sting from your message. It takes a special kind of arrogance to establish a hierarchy of love with your own relationships at the top. (Your church is not alone in believing this, of course.)
The rest of the Western democratic world moves forward. I will enjoy watching heterosexism, along with sexism and racism, fade into history. Do you recall your church’s position on black people just a few decades ago? How many decades until your leaders receive their next revelation? One day we will look back on these debates the same way we look back on the 1960s.
Love is love, Mr. Sanderson. It is vast and complicated and wonderful and powerful. When it touches you it cannot be denied. I’m sure someone as radical and loving as Jesus would, in 2011, not adhere to the 1st century morality too many still cling to. I know many Mormons have embraced this broader view of love. I hope one day you can join them.
Andrew Zimmerman Jones
September 2, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
O.T. – Thanks for introducing me to the word “heterosexist.” I had never heard it before and think it’s much more apt, in many cases, than “homophobic.”