An editorial in the National Post (now on its way to becoming a tool of the Liberal Party, complete with Maureen Dowd editorials) that is no longer viewable online directs scorn at those who oppose "gay marriage" on the grounds that it is the first step down a slippery slope to, well, just about every form of sexual deviance there is. Elevating relationships between two men and two women could not possibly lead to tolerance for, then court-mandated and government enforced celebration of, incestuous unions and bestiality. The reason? Since neither children nor animals can meaningfully consent to these actions, no sane person would advocate them. This is, for many many reasons, a weaselly dodge.
Let us set aside for the moment, for the sake of brevity, the fact that a substantial segment of the gay lobby does in fact actively promote pedophilia through organizations such as NAMBLA, or through the service with which the Bishop Gene Robinson is affiliated, that hooks up "questioning" minors with adult gay mentors. (Isn't this usually called a dating service?) Let us also set aside the fact that with an obscenely low age of consent, Canada is not going to be a country in which confused teenagers are protected from adult predation by either social or legal boundaries. Let us further neglect the question of whether informed consent to homosexuality is even possible in a society in which educating people about the substantial health risks of the gay lifestyle is a hate crime. Even without reference to these issues, the argument that incest and bestiality are wrong and homosexuality is not because of consent is fairly fatuous.
If consent is considered the only issue, what possible objection can our society have to the sexual union (or even "marriage") of an adult pair of siblings? An adult child and parent? If they are over 18 and otherwise sane, why is this choice any less valid than the choice to have sex with a non-related member of the same sex? Why should society not extend the full social and legal privileges of marriage to two siblings? Near universal revulsion at the thought of this isn't a compelling argument; 50 years ago the great majority of adults felt a similar revulsion at gay behaviour, and we are now informed that such revulsion is mere homophobia, a symptom of our own psychological problems and limitations. Perhaps those of us who shudder at the thought of incest pride parades are merely suffering from another mental handicap, which can be overcome by sufficient exposure to children's books, witty sitcoms, festivals of nude and lewd siblings holding hands and kissing, and a few celebrities brave enough to come out with their lifestyle. And if the revulsion of sane people isn't sufficient to prohibit homosexuality, why then bestiality? Here, too, the notion of consent is a red herring. We don't require the consent of chickens to have their eggs taken or to be served as dinner; it seems odd then to think of requiring animal consent for anything else.
The arguments in favour of legalizing, celebrating and promoting homosexuality are generally as follows: it is wrong to expect others to conform to one's own moral, religious, aesthetic or scientific ideas about desirable behaviour; families are defined exclusively by emotions, however transient, rather than by biology, legality, permanence or ties of reciprocity and obligation, and must be recognized on those terms; and any preference for normative reproductive and mating behaviour as understood by all religions and almost all societies for all of history is mere bigotry. These arguments do not in any way distinguish between homosexuality and other "lifestyles", including swinging, polyamory, incest, or any other perversion not involving prepubescent children. To pretend that homosexuality has any claim on our acceptance that these activities do not is at best disingenuous and at worst propaganda in the service of destroying the notion of marriage and family.
Posted by Clio at August 8, 2003 10:37 AM