Homosexual Marriage—Posner

President Obama’s declaration of support for homosexual marriage has focused public attention on the question whether such marriage should be permitted, although so far the response has been rather tepid. It no longer seems a hot issue, though it may heat up in the furnace of a presidential election campaign. 

In 1967 the Supreme Court, in a case called Loving v. Virginia, held that the prohibition found in the laws of a number of southern states against interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The decision was the culmination of a long series of judicial, legislative, regulatory, and corporate measures that collectively had eliminated most public, and as well a degree of private, discrimination against blacks. It would have been odd for prohibitions of interracial marriage to have survived the antidiscrimination movement. The evolution of homosexual rights has been similar. In the 1950s, when I was growing up, homosexuals had, as homosexuals, no rights; homosexual sex was illegal (though rarely prosecuted), homosexuals were banned from the armed forces and many other types of government work (though again enforcement was sporadic), and there were no laws prohibiting private employment discrimination against homosexuals. Because homosexuality is much more concealable than race, homosexuals did not experience the same economic and educational discrimination, and public humiliations, that blacks experienced. But to avoid discrimination and ostracism they had to conceal their homosexuality and so could not openly engage in homosexual relationships or disclose their homosexuality to the heterosexuals with whom they associated. Homosexual marriage was out of the question, even though interracial marriage was by the 1950s legal in most states. 

Although I knew in the 1950s that there were homosexuals, if asked I would have truthfully said that as far as I knew I had never met one, or expected ever to meet one, any more than I had ever met or expected to meet an Eskimo.

Beginning in the 1960s and accelerating dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s, legal changes and changes in public attitudes resulted in the dismantling of most public and private discriminatory measures against homosexuals. Why the powerful antipathy toward homosexuality gave ground so rapidly and, it seemed, effortlessly, in the sense that resistance seemed to melt away rather than having to be overcome by militant action, is something of a puzzle. Greatly increased tolerance of nonmarital sex, and of cohabitation as a substitute for marriage, reduced the traditional abhorrence of homosexual sex, which was (and to a large extent still is, since only a handful of states recognize homosexual marriage) nonmarital; and with the decline of prudery, deviant sexual practices created less revulsion in the straight population. A number of foreign countries and U.S. states recognized homosexual marriage or close-substitute civil unions. 

Another factor in increased tolerance is that as homosexuals began feeling less pressure to conceal their homosexuality, and so began to mingle openly with heterosexuals, the latter discovered that homosexuals are for the most part indistinguishable from heterosexuals, and this created sympathy for homosexuals’ desire to be treated equally with heterosexuals both generally and in regard to marriage. Moreover, the older view of homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) as a choice—the “selfish” choice because male homosexuals have on average more sexual partners (because men are on average more promiscuous than women) and didn’t have to worry about pregnancy (one reason men are more promiscuous than women)—gradually gave way to realization on the part of most people that homosexual preference is innate, rather than chosen or the result of seduction or recruitment. There is no gene for homosexuality (as shown by the fact that if one identical twin is homosexual, more often that not the other one is heterosexual), but it is highly likely that a combination of genetic factors (studies of identical twins reveal that if one identical twin is homosexual, the likelihood that the other will be is greater than the incidence of homosexuality in the population as a whole) and prental and other biological factors cause homosexuality. See the excellent discussion in “Biology and Sexual Orientation,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation. 

That there is a genetic component in homosexuality may seem paradoxical, since homosexuals produce on average fewer offspring than heterosexuals, which might lead one to expect that over time homosexuality would diminish and eventually disappear—which of course has not happened. But in the harsh ancestral environment in which human beings evolved, there was a tradeoff between number and survival of offspring. A family with many children would not be able to feed and protect them; none might survive childhood. Both menopause and homosexuality are ways of increasing the ratio of adult caregivers to children, since homosexuals can provide care to their nephews and nieces and menopausal women to their grandchildren, without either group having obligations to their own children. The result can be a net increase in inclusive fitness (number of descendants); there are fewer offspring but more survive to an age at which they produce offspring. 

This is just a theory; it has not been confirmed by evidence. An alternative theory, for which there is some evidence, is that male homosexuality has survived because the female relatives of male homosexuals are more fertile than women who have no male homosexual relatives. This is an alternative genetic explanation for homosexuality. 

Whatever the precise causality, there seems very little doubt that homosexuality is innate. It appears to be universal, despite public and private efforts (the latter by parents) to prevent it. Homosexuals invariably report having discovered their homosexual orientation at an early age. And psychologists’ efforts to “cure” it have virtually never succeeded, despite the disadvantages even in a tolerant society of being homosexual. 

If homosexuality is innate, it becomes difficult to see why it should be thought to require regulation. And for the additional reason that the homosexual population is very small. Kinsey’s estimate that 10 percent of the population is homosexual has long been discredited; it appears that no more than 2 to 4 percent is. This small population is on the whole law-abiding and productively employed, and having a below-normal fertility rate does not impose the same costs on the education and welfare systems as the heterosexual population does. It is thus not surprising that in response to the President’s announcement of his support for homosexual marriage, Republican leaders cautioned their followers not to be distracted by this issue from the problems of the U.S. economy. This was tacit acknowledgment that homosexual marriage, and homosexual rights in general, have no economic significance. 

It seems that the only remaining basis for opposition to homosexual marriage, or to legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in general, is religious. Many devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are strongly opposed to homosexual marriage, and to homosexuality more generally. Why they are is unclear. If as appears homosexuality is innate, and therefore natural (and indeed there is homosexuality among animals), and if homosexuals are not an antisocial segment of the population, why should they be thought to be offending against God’s will? Stated differently, why has sex come to play such a large role in the Abrahamic religions? I do not know the answer. But whatever the answer, the United States is not a theocracy and should hesitate to enact laws that serve religious rather than pragmatic secular aims, such as material welfare and national security.

Comments

[Sitaram]

Please pray for my parish. This weeeknd a lesbian couple is being allowed to baptize their twin babies , who were conceived through vitro, at our church. Yes, the babies are innocent and should be baptized, but I believe it should be done privately. The fact that they are being allowed to participate in a public baptism opens a very dangerous door. I think our Pastor is making a big mistake because it tells the parishioners, and the other families participating, that this is acceptable. How can they renew their baptism promises when they are openly living in defiance of God's law? They may be using these babies to drive an agenda and once they get their foot in the door, watch out! You know what comes next: You baptized our babies, now why can't you marry us. They're both sacraments, right? Pray for our Pastor and the Deacon who runs our baptism program, who gave permission for this, and for me because I fear some day, because I stand totally with the magisterium of the Church, it may cost me my job.

[Maximo]

Well, we've already ctelecold some ideas in the comments to the original posting and the lomohome seemed to be the most popular one. Has anybody checked back with LSI about what xxxanderrr said, that they don't accept content that could stir political or religious discussions? Because in that case I guess we should get an external website that we can create without worrying about any LSI rules.If the LSI doesn't count LGBT content as problematic and we can create a Lomohome we should think about how exactly it should work (how to contribute stuff).

[Pitten]

Who gives a shit why some people are gay? why does there aaltcluy have to be a reason? i guess if there was one, it would have to be cuz they weren't too successful with the opposite sex, so they switch to what they already know! but that's just my opinion. anyway, i got a question, does anybody know why gay people are always happy?! it's kind of funny but i have never seen a sad-gay-person! what gives?

[David]

i think its half rubbish and half thsarh.so it is still a load of garbage piled up to theorize something.but we are in a free world.so go think that way. but that doesnt mean that i am not believing reincarnation i am not a bigot come on speak your mind to chnage my thoughts if you can!

[Ibrahim]

so Ron,how would you define mgariare? like if you were engaged to a girl could you and her just make a promise before the two of you and God and then call yourselves married and have sex then? does a couple have to sign the mgariare certificate before they are officially allowed to have sex? or when you have sex does that make you married to the person you had sex with? the question isn't just should you have sex before you're married because the issue is, what does it mean to be married? and what does sex have to do with it? what was sex intended for?

[Julian]

The courts have a long horitsy of overturning legislation that's based on fear, discrimination and/or bigotry. Just because something becomes law does NOT make it above reproach; after all, slavery was once legal. Should that still be in effect, simply because it was law at one point? It was illegal to walk down the street in Oklahoma without carrying a lantern to help avoid being hit by a carriage and buggy. Should that still be legal?The issue isn't with the courts the issue is that we enacted a policy that tells up to 20% of our armed services that they can fight for our country, die for our country, but they can't talk about their family.Whether you want to admit it or not, but gay men and women have fought and died to protect your right to post on this blog, perpetuating anti-gay stereotypes. They deserve the right to serve openly as much as Hindu and Muslim troops do.

[Salvatore]

nothing about hsaeooxumlity. Although hsaeooxumlity or claims thereof were among the favorite methods of dodging the draft during the Vietnam war, there certainly have been a tiny minority of homosexuals in the ranks even before the DADT policy was forced on the military by the Clinton administration. There are also child molesters, rapists, and thieves. The fact that a group is represented in the military, or that some of its members have died in the line of duty, does not mean that we need more of these groups, particularly when their presence is detrimental to good order and discipline. I agree that the issue is not with the courts. It is with the law, which the courts are ignoring.Your fantasy of 20% recalls the wishful thinking of the homosexual agenda in the 1990s when claims of 10 to 15% were common, based on nothing but Kensey's studies of criminals in jail in the 50s. The disappointment when legitimate studies concluded the actual rate was 2 to 4% was palpable. This was probably the last legitimate study done before science was captured by political correctness.

[Christy]

not having sex brofee marriage i guess sorta protects you from a lot of things like gttinghurt by jackass's that totally don't respect u, or even in the more biological sense of not catching STI's.. cheers for this it was interesting.. i'm frantically tryin to write my essay (due tomorro!) on sex, religion and gender and i'm just focussing on sex brofee marriage and the Song of Songs in the Bible.. thanks again hope i finish this silly thing in time!

[Jack]

I'm not gunna say this is rubbish buescae its not. it makes alot of sence. I can tell you thought alot about it and assuming that there is such a thing as reincarnation, you probably are right.

[Tian]

MarcDLS, based on Gen 4:8 has some similarities with this arictle on wanting to kill someone.Jimmy said, I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died. The interesting part between the two is the I Jimmy- Cain in their hearts hated with a passion towards their fellow human(relation or not). When we feel in us that we're right who is to change us? When we choose to hate it is from I . the failures comes from within us, losing focus and not realizing the love of God has for us, makes us and anyone who has not the focal point for reference. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.Here is another interesting part, Jimmy say's and tell God he died and Cain said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? Can we both agree that they're both idiot's and a lier?!So, let us praise God and help us to better understand the world we live in through is Son Jesus Christ who is the truth and way-the only way.

[Kashif]

It is a shame that Jimmy is preaching like this splsehy considering how he was found out with a hooker. The whole American evangelical / Pentecostal / Fundamentalist jargon filled crap thing that we have for so long passed off as church needs to be seen for what it truly is .an abomination & a farce; a show; entertainment; gettin' the crowd all whooped up & on fire so they give more money to the cause namely Jimmy & his associates. Loud fun music with great horns & harmonies & fantastic rhythm section & beautiful people up the front beautiful buildings with a fantastic colour scheme & a big stage. A great big, state of the art PA system with the best operator that money (?)can buy so the band sounds just so slick! etc etc etc etc.It truly is just as well that all have sinned & come short of the glory of God .John 3:16 might well say that for God so loved the world but John 3:17 says that He came into the world not to condemn it but to > . IT!!!!Everyone on the planet who has ever lived & who will live is one of the whosoever of John 3:16 because the scripture says that all people will eventually be saved .even the homosexual Jimmy!!

[Elia]

In case you are interested, one of your ltirebies is not freedom from religion. It is freedom of religion. That in it's self is an example of how things get distorted.Yes, you have every right to not believe the Bible. That in no way does make you free from the consequences of your life's actions, if in the end it is a valid instruction book.Jimmy means well, I believe, but his words are spoken with emotion , as he is an emotional person. And he is subject to sin , as we all are. But to be able to call sin sin , it takes guts and it can make people mad. I am glad when he is able to call sin sin, but I think when he speaks with emotion, he should weigh his words more carefully. You should take notice he made sure to say that the homosexual is not who he is bashing. I think he cares for people and he hates sin ( not the sinner). He believes sin has consequences, as he himself is constantly finding out because he is human. Yes , he knows he needs constant forgiveness too, but that doesn't stop him from calling sin sin.

[Citra]

No, it doesn't silence crtiics of religion. However, they are not equitable. The mainstream media welcomes criticism of religion because they hate Christianity. They are willing participants. This will not be the case with homosexuals. The full force of the media and Hollywood will bring all of its weight and influence down on anyone who dares speak against homosexuals, whom they greatly admire.The difference, therefore, is how it is enforced. While there are laws protecting religion, slurs against religion are generally ignored and endorsed by those in the media. Yet, they will bring all the force they can muster in the case they do support.In my Culture Wars newsletter I rarely mention AFA. They are often paranoid. But this instance merited enough importance to turn to them. I do it very selectively. So, I am not a defender of Wildmon. You will have to take up criticism with his tactics with him personally.Thanks again, Scott. I hope this answer is more suffiicient.

[Nozomi]

They are too busy tossing their General Mills cleraes before their 7 kids plus one-on-the-way eat anymore of that sin-laden, but fiberous, sugary goodness. Plus, they got that whole EXPLODING Starbuck s boycott thing to manage. Don't worry, they'll get around to quoting this maybe to the Supremes?

[Lorenza]

What gets me about these organizations is that they are so picky about who gets what. Many of them are reuloigis organizations who take steady contributions from their patrons without regard to who they are (drug dealers, prostitutes, gays, lawyers, gang members, old people, and corporate entities included) but then decide to JUDGE who is worthy of their largesse after skimming some off the top for expenses. Not exactly the example Christ would have set.Even worse what about our tax dollars going to the unsustainable wars that only make us more enemies, patronizing corporate agri-business, ethanol manufacture, oil subsidies, and the giant black hole of the military/homeland security/CIA-NSA spying on us without our approval?

[Wesley]

I like women because I am being raped by domnes? What I find deviant is that Christians believe that God would condemn people for love. If there is a God I do not believe he would condemn people for loving one another, I think he would be against the separatism and the judgments that should be left up to Him. And what about Orca whales? Would God destroy them as well?

[Christine]

Jimmy is one of the best actors I have seen. He is also a very good sameslan. He is a good singer and piano player. He also uses the defence mechanisms. Reaction Formation, Projection, and a lot of Rationalization. He is very close to being a Sociopath. He is a con man and a good one. He was reared in the South with the Red Necks but hides that a bit. He does have a pugnacious attitude and look about him. He feels Omnipotent. I like watching him, but I don't believe a word he says! I feel sorry for those who do! Send him some money and then tell him later you need it back for an emergency and see what happens! In a nutshell, he is in it for the money and recognition. Beware of the Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

[Gean]

How much more overwhelming sitneicfic evidence do we have to collect for something that is plain and obvious to anybody who has looked into this tragedy for more than a second?The sooner we accept homosexuality as a communicable genetic disease the sooner we'll have a cure! Let's stop doing the research and start implementing the cure!!!

[Shamshad]

Doesn't look like they are in uniform to me. I'm not sure they are wniearg BDUs in that picture, the t-shirts are Army green, but I own t-shirts that Army green and I'm not military.I will ask the friends I have who are in the military or are former military when I see them tomorrow though. I believe that the rule specifies dress uniforms anyway.

[Rattikar]

i think gay people shloud be allowed to marry eachother and have it called marrage. I think its just discriminating when they dont allow it to be called marrage just because the two people are of the same sex. Marrage is supposed to be the union of two people who love eachother, it shloudnt matter what your gender is.

[Megha]

For God so loved the world that He gave JESUS CHRIST His only begotten Son to die and WHOSOEVER beeeivls will not perish but have eternal life. Jn.3:16 But he that believe not is condemned already. vs:18No man will have excuse on the day of judgement, think twice and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal Saviour rather than condemning your fellow man. If we repent of our sins, faithful is God to forgive and cleanse us from all iniquity.

[Lusi]

Hello ben,Your post seems misplaced. Ebenezer's post didn't seem to coitnan any anger. While mine can certainly be interpreted as angry, I can assure you it was not. My post coitnaned disgust and exasperation, but not anger.I am exasperated and disgusted that the reasoning' that Ebenezer tried to use to persuade us passes as acceptable in US society. It is not valid reasoning. Hell, it isn't even reasoning.

[Fabian]

Actually, DADT was no assurance asinagt serving side by side with Gays. Gays were serving all along. The point of DADT is that a gay servicperson wouldn't make their orientation KNOWN! And the military wouldn't ask. It was a reasonable arrangement. If a gay servicemember was REVEALED to be gay, they were discharged as before DADT. Open homosexuality was a disqualifier for service. But nobody asked and if you kept your mouth shut (forgive the unintended pun there!) you could serve honorably.NOW, OPENLY gay people can march into the recruiter and say I'm as queer as a 3 dollar bill, and I think you're cute sign me up! and they'll get ACCEPTED into the service!

[Stuart]

I'm still not sure what you mean by criminalization, nor how you think the anoynmous writer here criminalized anything. I don't find any name calling in this quote, either. But OK.No doubt many soldiers are not homophobes, and have no particular bad feeling for homosexuals. But many are in my experience well over half and it is to them that this writer refers. He does not make the claim that all soldiers fear gays.Permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military does not confer a special status on them. In fact, it removes a special discriminatory classification of homosexuals as somehow unfit. This special status line of argument is typical of people who want to argue against making full citizens of homosexuals, but you get it exactly backwards. Finally, changing society and rich historical customs that discriminate against out groups is not about lifestyle accommodation, it's about eliminating discrimination. Besides, I don't see you and other conservatives agitating against rich historical custom that accommodates religious lifestyle choices (state holidays for religious celebrations, protection of church property from taxation, conscientious objector status).

[Joao]

EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED!!!! I am bisexual (pansexual to be more acturace) and I really want to be able to get married! I didn't choose my sexuality I was born this way. Love is love and when I fall in love I WILL get married!