tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post1885645421929457067..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: A Final Thought on Slippery Slopes: Sibling Marriage and Hermann LotzeEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-18878603904450071682013-11-17T21:34:14.051-06:002013-11-17T21:34:14.051-06:00Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. ...Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. I appreciate your ability to clearly articulate these important differences.blannphinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407777722151988701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-4172795447125402242013-11-16T11:41:34.415-06:002013-11-16T11:41:34.415-06:00Furthermore, the level of sexual access among thos...Furthermore, the level of sexual access among those growing up in the same household are considerably higher than what exists among friends of the same sex, even if it is true that our society is structured such that adolescent contact is more controlled and patrolled than is same-sex contact. The latter fact DOES mean that young gays and lesbians, growing up in a heterosexist society that assumes kids are straight and guards against premature sexual contact on that assumption, have the potential for greater sexual access to those they are attracted to. (Although most of their same-sex friends won't be gay and so won't reciprocate, they may gravitate to one another and become close with those who, like them, have a homosexual orientation).<br /><br />But a taboo is not the solution to this problem, for reasons already mentioned. A taboo will throw adolescent gays and lesbians into a domain free of sexual norms--since they are excluded completely from the norms of appropriate sexual expression by being told that ALL of their sexual expression is inappropriate and will always remain so for the rest of their lives. <br /><br />The closet into which anti-gay taboos thrust adolescents actually works to impede any social efforts to constrain and limit sexual expression among same-sex peers who might be drawn to it. In a society more accepting of homosexuality, young gays and lesbians will self-identify sooner without fear of social stigma...and parents will know (for example) that the rule against closing the bedroom door should be enforced when Joe has his friend Bob over, rather than when Joe is playing with Kathy.<br /><br />Finally, the rule against mixing sex into a sibling relationship is a rule that applies to a very small set of relationships, ensuring that those relationships are able to become what that kind of relationship can best become in the absence of sexual elements. Thus, the rule ensures that whatever distinctive virtues are possible in sibling relationships aren't threatened by those relationships becoming of a different kind that precludes those distinctive virtues. <br /><br />A rule against all same-sex sexual contact means that a certain kind of relationship, with all the virtues that are distinctive to that kind of relationship, are denied to persons with a homosexual orientation. By contrast, allowing same-sex sexual expression does not thereby render impossible "platonic" same-sex friendships from forming and blossoming and realizing the "virtues of buddyhood." Gays and lesbians are quite capable of forming platonic friendships with those who are of the gender they are attracted to. In fact, they seem to be better at it. They have to be, since the vast majority of the persons who fall within the gender that attracts them are not themselves gay. Gays and lesbians have to learn pretty early on how to establish and maintain friendships with others that are not sexual in character. <br /><br />It certainly is true that many heterosexual men--as you note--feel threatened by same-sex attraction and shy away from forming friendships with gay men. Since my best friend is gay, I know that the real problem here lies in the heads of these heterosexual men, not in the inherent dynamics of a friendship involving two men, one of whom is gay.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-55867194208706504172013-11-16T11:29:55.904-06:002013-11-16T11:29:55.904-06:00blanphinella,
Thanks for the thoughtful push-back...blanphinella,<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughtful push-back, which raises some important issues even if I don't think the parallels you gesture to are sufficient to extend the reasoning about incest to same-sex intimacy. I think you can already anticipate some of my answer, based on what I've already said.<br /><br />First, I'd like to recall the following piece from the post above: "...the state's burden of justification for withholding legal recognition from siblings is going to be considerably more modest than what would be required for withholding legal recognition from same-sex relationships (which effectively bars all gays and lesbians as a class from access to the social good that civil marriage makes available to others)."<br /><br />A ban on incestuous marriage has a much lower burden of justification, since the costs of such a ban are far lower--and since such a ban does not amount to legal discrimination against a class of people. This means that reasons which might be sufficient for justify precluding siblings from marrying would not be sufficient to warrant a ban on same-sex marriage.<br /><br />But marriage is only one of the issues here. The other big issue is the propriety of maintaining social taboos, apart from the matter of public policy. Are the reasons I offer for maintaining a robust social taboo against incest adaptable to the case of same-sex intimacy?<br /><br />While someone might try to make the case along the lines you propose, there is an enormous differences between the costs and benefits of the taboo against incest and the costs and benefits of a taboo against same-sex intimacy. At the root of these differences lies the following fact: A taboo against incest effectively removes a couple of individuals from one's pool of potential mates, a pool that theoretically numbers in the billions. A taboo against same-sex intimacy, for gays and lesbians, removes from their pool of potential mates every person on Earth with whom they could actually form a lasting and satisfying intimate relationship. The former taboo says, "Don't mix sex into your sibling relationships." The latter says "Never have sex with anyone for whom you feel sexual desire. Ever." That is a huge difference in terms of the cost of the taboo.<br /><br />But this fact does not merely entail that a taboo against same-sex intimacy is far more costly than one against incest--and hence requires a much stronger benefit to be warranted. It also entails that the benefits that are clearly related to the incest taboo are far more dubious in the case of same-sex intimacy.<br /><br />Consider: A taboo against sibling intimacy, inculcated early on, has the potential to encourage a heterosexual boy, upon sexual awakening to direct his sexual interest towards...every single girl in his class, and in the grade above his, and the grade below, but not towards his sister. The taboo against same-sex intimacy instructs a gay adolescent, upon sexual awakening, to completely stifle his sexuality and shut down all of his sexual feelings towards everyone.<br /><br />The latter has a realistic chance of working. The latter? Raging hormones of adolescence being what they are, the demand of a total shut down of all sexual attraction will be more likely to inspire rebellion. If there is no legitimate channel for sexual expression, no way of expressing it that falls within the rules, then the options become (a) total suppression or (b) anything goes. Some may try (a), but the chances of failure are high.<br /><br />In short, a taboo against sibling sex has a realistic chance of producing adolescents who channel their sexual feelings away from their siblings. A taboo against gay sex has a realistic chance of producing gay adolescents who exist in a sexual domain unregulated by any rules or constraints at all. Not only are the costs of a taboo against same-sex intimacy higher out of the gate than the costs of incest taboos, but the benefits that relate to the latter are, in the case of the former, replaced by even more and bigger costs.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-74077040638336174672013-11-15T20:20:14.352-06:002013-11-15T20:20:14.352-06:00Thanks for this piece. Though I am a full support...Thanks for this piece. Though I am a full supporter of LGBTQ people, I just want to follow up on some of your thoughts by rewriting a few paragraphs you wrote here in order to illustrate what I see as part of some people’s objection to homosexuality.<br /><br />Here it goes:<br /><br /><br />“There are different ways for men to relate to one another, and each of these different species of relationship has its own “peculiar beauty and worth.” The “dudes relationship” (men hanging out with their guy friends doing manly things) has a potential to be a distinctive kind of beautiful and valuable relationship, but only if it is clearly distinguished from relationships of the sexual/romantic variety.”<br /><br />(And later…)<br /><br />“Dudes typically grow up with unique access to one another. They share bathrooms and locker rooms and camp out together (maybe as Boy Scouts). If we'd prefer that sexual expression be limited before a certain level of maturity is reached, we'd have a reason to try to limit sexual opportunities among adolescents (especially at those times when they are newly awakening to their sexual feelings). But to impose external limits on sexual opportunities among dudes who have such close and unique contact with each other would require draconian measures, measures that would in the same stroke also seriously undermine the kind of close relationship that, for example, the guys in my youth group enjoyed while growing up. Internal constraints against pursuing such opportunities--such as what results from the sort of visceral disgust and unthinkability that a strong taboo against dude sex helps to inspire--offer a more promising approach.<br /><br />Maintaining a strong, deeply ingrained taboo--sufficient to make dudes balk at the very idea of sexual exploration with one another--may be the best thing a society can do to discourage men from sexual exploration with other men before they are emotionally ready for sex and its consequences. Such a taboo may be the only thing that can do this work while at the same time enabling men to form the close dude-like (non-sexual) intimacy that characterizes the best "dude relationships."<br /><br /><br />I don’t mean to be obnoxious here, but I think a lot of men who value a certain flavor of non-sexual male bonding would consider this unique relationship ruined if “one of the guys” might be attracted to him. <br /><br />I think this concern is highest among athletes and other stereotypically hyper-masculine groups.<br /><br />What do you think?blannphinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407777722151988701noreply@blogger.com