Printer friendly version

June 2, 2004

Soon to Be Chastised?

Yesterday, Jay Nordlinger ruminated

Again, I am sort of amazed at the speed with which life can move.

I, for one, will not wear the label of bigot or hater because I oppose — or certainly have doubts about — homosexual marriage, and I invite others to reject that label as well. (I doubt that many of my readers have much trouble.) I believe that you can be perfectly compassionate and understanding and sympathetic without endorsing gay marriage — because, in the view of some of us dinosaurs, marriage is a specific and peculiar thing, not a free-for-all.

But I will say once more: In some circles, at least, this debate has turned nasty and perverse very quickly. You think you're a perfectly liberal-minded fellow; you would fight furiously the menacing of gays anywhere. But you wake up to find you're Torquemada just because you're not willing to upset a definition of marriage that has existed since the dawn of time.

Reading that, I thought of a letter in the Providence Journal the day before, by Judy Logan:

Before we legislate for full acceptance of homosexual behavior, I think we should wait until more facts are known. Is there any physiological evidence that a homosexual person is made differently from a heterosexual? Is there conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not a learned behavior? A study done in 2001 by two University of Southern California sociologists concluded that while children raised by gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, they are more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. Is it possible that homosexuality is a result of a chemical or hormonal aberration that could be addressed medically if more research were done in this area?

I think we need more facts before we redefine the institution of marriage.

I wonder how Ms. Logan was, and continues to be, met on the streets and in the public and private spaces of Rhode Island since she was brash enough to publish such sentiments. Presumably she had some inkling of what to expect; I don't think the right-thinking diktat is evolving more quickly than a newspaper's letter-publication cycle.

Posted by Justin Katz at June 2, 2004 11:47 PM
Marriage & Family

Over and over we are reminded that the scientific evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality is a resounding "Maybe". Yet one side of the debate seems to accept this as PROOF and will not entertain any other options. Am i a bigot for suggestiong that something more concrete that "maybe" should be required before we completely re-order civilized society? Well, so be it then.

They gay lobby has to ride this fence for as long as possible: on one hand they need a biological basis to affirm that they are not freaks of nature -- yet on the other, don't dare accept any scientific basis for fear that it might actually lead to a CURE!

Meanwhile the rest of us are supposed to take their word for everything else, lest we be called ugly names...

Posted by: Marty at June 3, 2004 8:27 PM