Weekends have become slow blogging times at Tribe, as you have undoubtedly noticed. So, I thought I’d fill the content vacuum with a thought provoking question. This I call Saturday Night Inquiry. It’ll be a new and recurring weekly feature. So, without further ado, I give you the very first edition of Tribe’s Saturday Night Inquiry:
Given all the commotion about California’s decision to overturn the ban on homosexual marriage, and the strategic arguments brought before the California Supreme Court by homosexual marriage supporters like Therese M. Stewart, a lawyer for the City and County of San Francisco, who, when challenged with questions concerning the sufficiency of legal rights given to homosexual partners under California’s existing Domestic Partnership Law, mockingly responded by asking the court whether it would have satisfied California’s Constitution in 1948 to give interracial couples the same rights under a different name (i.e., ‘transracial unions’ instead of marriage), I must ask: “Do you equate sexual orientation with race?”
Caldwell, your questions and line(s) of reasoning make no sense whatsoever. Of course, you will go blue in the face trying to defend them. So, I have nothing at all to say in response except your reasoning and logic are really whacked. Bye.
Shawn wrote:
-snip-
“Should sexual orientation and race be linked as it was in CA? I understand why you would argue in favor of such a link. You are a lesbian. Can you really look at this issue from an objective standpoint?”
Shawn,
Since everybody has a sexual orientation, is it possible for anyone to explore your question “objectively”?
I suppose we could ask someone who is bisexual and has had experience with same-sex and male-female relationships — perhaps this would be more “objective” than the person with just heterosexual or homosexual experience?
Or perhaps an asexual person would be our ideally “objective” persons?
-snip-
“I am racially mixed, and I’m trying but can’t see any connection whatsoever. It seems to me to be just another reduction of another social identity for the sake of justifying what seems to be behavior.”
The odd thing here is there is no sexual behavior that is uniquely “heterosexual.”
Many of the ways that people express physical affection are common across all sexual orientations. Every sexual act that gay men and lesbians do are also done by married male-female couples.
Even the one penile-vaginal sexual act that is commonly considered “unique” to heterosexuals isn’t confined to just that orientation — bisexual male-female couples can also engage in this behavior.
If it’s acceptable for heterosexual and bisexual male-female couples to express physical affection and even marry, why would be unacceptable for same-sex homosexual and bisexual couples to engage in the same behavior?
It doesn’t make sense to justify one set of sexual behaviors between consenting adults but not the equivalent behaviors performed by same-sex couples.
Cool. Philosophy, I invite! Unitarian Universalists, not so much.
Have a great evening, ck.
Hey, quick reply, Shawn–no time now to talk (and I’m not sure I need to add anything) but just a note that most of my readers these days are philosophy folks, not UU’s. I figure you can moderate your own blog, though.
Best,ck
PS: I see you pinged it, with commentary. What do I mean by banal? Let me just say it: to make make homosexual marriage equal with heterosexual marriage, without care or regard for those who embrace traditional expressions of marriage, is an act that makes trite the traditional expression of marriage, at least in the minds of those who embrace/embraced it as sacred. I don’t think that’s terribly hard to understand, is it? Perhaps a bit more understanding from your side of the fence (socially liberal) would help the larger issue, no? Or is understanding only required from our side? That’s a sincere question too.
Also, I’ll not be entertaining a flood of Unitarian Universalists on this blog. That’s not a new rule here; it’s just a reminder.
Right on, ck. I too will take your words at face value. Keep in mind, we are coming at this subject, as we do with most others, from opposed positions. We don’t agree, obviously. So, our words are going to naturally read a bit confrontational. It’s what it is. This does not mean, however, that I’m trying to be cruel to you, or overtly emotional in my response. Granted, I took a bit of liberty in the sarcasm department with Caldwell because I just find Unitarians and their approach a bit funny. I still do! You, however, usually have good arguments to make. I don’t agree, and I am not into “conversation” for the mere sake of “conversation,” but at least with you it is interesting. So, know that I have nothing but good vibes for you. Not that it matters.
As for your last comment: I do think it’s pretty clear from your citations that you were trying to draw diversity parallels between specific aspects of race and sexual orientation as illustrated in your biological and sociological examples. This I can’t buy. It’s a huge leap from which I can’t wrestle any sense. Your clarifying arguments has not helped either. You seem to be saying that race itself is nothing more than “general social constructions.” Your goal seems to be to reduce - or encapsulate - all ethnic identity to some sort of one-ism. while citing pigmentation as the only real difference between them all. And that - pigmentation - is only a social construction buttressed by other random things like ancestry and geography. You even take it so far as to say that if you had a mixed ancestry (which is only a general social construction anyway, if I’m reading your correctly), then you could actually choose which which aspect(s) of that you wanted to identify with, as if if you choose to ignore one or more aspects, then you would not BE that aspect. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I think this also makes the blatant point that race is totally different than sexual orientation. Of course, you always have the option to say that you had no choice in your orientation, but then a new and even deeper crop of issues will sprout up.
Your 4th point is a good one, but probably not for the reasons you think. You are correct when you write, “The upshot of all this is that when people say “sexual orientation is/is not like raceâ€, they often do not have the picture of race in 3).” The reason people don’t have the picture of race your paint in 3) is because it doesn’t make sense in reality. Race is identity, weather one chooses to embrace it or not. When I walk into a gas station in a farm village in Western PA, my racial identity is on display for all to see, wether I want it to be so or not. I can’t choose to embrace it or discard it at will. It’s who I am, and the biology is pretty obvious me thinks. Any behavior will not alter the fact. In this particular case, we are discussing an issue that is behavioral, or could at least be argued as such. there is no such argument in conversations concerning race and ethnic identity. Linking race and sexual orientation is a reckless venture meant only to accomplish the goal of one group; it reduces race to the same social construction much of the sexual orientation debate is built upon. Therein is the very, very serious problem.
Another problem exists in the way men and women identify marriage to one another. It is as much our right to argue for the expressed tradition that is marriage between one man and one woman, as it is yours to try to change the definition of it to include alternative expressions. So, in the context of a civil liberties discussion, we are at an impasse, it seems. You want your rights, and we want ours. What is the solution? For me, it is the Word of God. I believe I can bank on it. Yours is what? Is it general social constructions? It seems to be your only argument, but social constructions don’t seem to very dependable apart from their very limited, transient, and definitely non-universal social settings. After all, you even say you can pick and choose which constructions you wish to express, right? These things can’t be to important.
Great chat, ck. Again, we totally disagree, but that’s cool.
[...] time for a more substantial post tonight, but here’s a link to some comments I made over at Lo-Fi Tribe on the topic of marriage. The original question was whether (in the context of the California gay [...]
Thanks, Shawn - I know you read other blogs and figured you’d have seen the comment. It’s possible I’ve misconstrued intention by way of text, and read into your emotions. But yes, I often get a very confrontational flavor to your words. Still, I’ll try very hard to take your words at face value and ask the same in response!
1. Sure, I know the context. My reason for backing up a bit was because I think we need to carefully look at why we’re asking questions. Sometimes, by just diving in without looking at our assumptions, we get lost. That’s why I said what I did.
2. You questioned the link between race and sexual orientation. In order to figure out what things “race” and “sexual orientation” are, I think we need to look at both biology and culture. I’m not making a “diversity argument”, I don’t think–but if you can explain what that is, I may be able to say better if I am or not.
3. You ask, ” Are you seriously suggesting that because there is diversity, both biologically and socially, in race, that diversity in sexual orientation is not only supported but justified?” No. Here’s what I am saying.
a) There is nothing genetic, biological, physical which is a characteristic of all black people and not white people (or all “brown” people and all “yellow” people, etc.)
b) Thus the ascription of race is not based on genetics or biological reality, but by generally social constructions, like skin color (a biological reality, but one with diversity within a given race. For example, you will find black people with skin lighter than some Southeast Asian people, Indian people, etc.)
c) Race is identified by connections between ancestors and geography, some loose collections of skin color and other physical characteristics, as well as cultures that people participate in. (Hence historically, the claim that East Asian people were more “white”…)
d) The point is - if I had mixed ancestry, I could *choose* who I wanted to identify with. I could, as Anatole Boyard did, identify as a white person. We really have to ask what it means to say there is a “truest sense” of a race. Given the mixed ancestry of people living in Puerto Rico, Mexico, and other places (where there are indigenous people + European settlers + African slaves all blended together), what race would we ascribe? Determining someone’s “true” race is social, not connected to any genetic or biological or even ancestral characteristic.
4. The upshot of all this is that when people say “sexual orientation is/is not like race”, they often do not have the picture of race in 3). If they did, then it would be a different comparison. Anyway, more on that can be found in various bibliographies and books - Naomi Zack’s “The Philosophy of Science and Race” is one.
5. You say, “And then you bring in religion. Why? Who knows. :)” I bring it in because if the question is, “Why do we protect certain groups?” and the problem of behavior, choice, etc. is brought up, then arguing (which I’m not saying you were, but the previous commenter seemed to imply) “Chosen characteristics shouldn’t be protected” means religion, as a chosen identity/way of life, would get counted. That’s all.
6. You say, “And CA already offered these legal protections to people. It was not enough, obviously.”
Can you point to where CA would give me and my wife the same legal protections as you and your wife would have, were we to move in the same state? From my understanding, that’s not the case, which is why the case was taken up.
7. You say, “There was/is a need to make it equal to heterosexual marriage. I’m not so sure that the reduction of something already embraced and cherished by a large segment of the population has anything to do with civil rights…”
What reduction? Not sure where you’re going with this. Are you saying that the court case reduced marriage in some way? Can you explain how the heterosexual marriages in CA were impacted by this, if that’s what you mean? If it isn’t, can you clarify? I don’t understand how it reduces someone’s “bond to the banal.”
8. You say, “I understand why you would argue in favor of such a link. You are a lesbian. Can you really look at this issue from an objective standpoint? Probably. I just don’t think I have seen you do it yet.”
I didn’t argue for a link between race and sexual orientation. I think they ought to be defended on separate grounds, though there are some parallels between them. And in terms of “objectivity”, if you feel your bond is being reduced to the banal, then perhaps you can’t look at it objectively, either?
9. You say, “I am racially mixed, and I’m trying but can’t see any connection whatsoever.”
Then let me just ask, if I may, in terms of what I wrote in 3), what you see yourself mixed of, and how you identify. Should someone say you are “Hispanic” or “White” or “Mixed”, and why? Is it because of genetics? Your family tree? Your cultural heritage? That’s what I was getting at.
Signing off for the evening; hope this clarifies.
ck, you wrote, “All right, I’ll bite.”
LOL! You make it sound like I’m fishing! Nah, I’m simply asking a culturally relevant question for our times. Also, I’m going to add a ridiculous amount of happy favicons to my response(s) to you because I did read your comment over at Caldwell’s place about what you call my “emotional responses” and would hate for you to feel confronted about anything.
You wrote, “First, when you say ‘equate’, I’d ask back, in what context?”
Uh, the context is obvious, I think. The CA Supreme Court arguments that strategically linked sexual orientation to race in an effort to overturn the ban. That’s the context, right?
You go on, “Race is both biological and cultural–just ask anyone whose ‘blackness’ has been questioned due to their interests, or someone who’s told ‘wow, you’re really white.’ Even more than that, when races are mixed, how do we decide what is the dominant one? Many ‘white’ people have African descendants in their history, just as ‘black’ people have Europeans. Still, there are biological markers (such as susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia), but it’s tough to determine what is environmental and what is racial–are statistical incidences of heart disease in black people due to a biological difference or their lifestyles?”
I never questioned the biological or cultural sources of race. I did question the link made between race and sexual orientation. Furthermore, I can not wrestle one ounce of relevancy in the rest of your above comment. Again, the question at hand concerns the link drawn between sexual orientation and race. If you are trying to extract some sort of diversity argument from the above, with which you will then try to associate with sexual diversity, I’ll have to call a time out. That’s a huge, irrational, and unsubstantiated leap, ck. If that’s NOT what your are trying to articulate, then please, feel free to clarify for my sake.
You continue, “So, personally, I think that sexual orientation is a similar blend of biological and cultural. Someone who identifies as gay today may not have taken on that identity years ago, when it wasn’t understood as it is now. Yet there’s evidence for biological underpinnings to same-sex attraction, and it has existed for as long as humans have.”
Ah! It does seem as if you are trying to make the connection I cite above. I’m not sure how a person so dedicated to science makes situational leaps like this. Are you seriously suggesting that because there is diversity, both biologically and socially, in race, that diversity in sexual orientation is not only supported but justified? You have pointed towards it, now how will you actually defend it? This reads like a connect-the-dot puzzle that hasn’t been penciled in yet.
You start to wind things up by writing, “Long comment, but let me close by saying, if we ask outside of a legal context and just say ‘do you equate it?’ then there’s a lot to mull over as I’ve noted above. Within the question of equal rights, etc., I don’t think we have to go quite as deeply into biology, choice, etc.”
That’s a good thing, because I think your arguments get fuzzier the deeper into biology, choice, etc., you go.
You say, “Even if we grant that racial identity is generally not chosen (although look at the history of people ‘passing’ to see that’s not a hard and fast rule), there’s another category we describe people with that is chosen which we protect: religion.”
Not only is race not chosen, but it can never be associated with behavior either. Can someone white choose to behave black or brown, in the truest sense? No. This is where the association between sexual orientation and race get really rickety.
And then you bring in religion. Why? Who knows.
You close with, “We protect religious choice, racial identity and (I think we should) sexual orientation not because they’re chosen or not chosen, but because they’re characteristics of people which are linked to the free exercise of their human capabilities. Affiliating with whom we want, loving whom we want, and worshiping whom we want, are all aspects of a free society. Look up Martha Nussbaum to see where the human capabilities aspect is coming from–she defends a classical liberal view of democracy and human rights.
And CA already offered these legal protections to people. It was not enough, obviously. There was/is a need to make it equal to heterosexual marriage. I’m not so sure that the reduction of something already embraced and cherished by a large segment of the population has anything to do with civil rights, unless, of course, those who express marriage as a bond between one man and one woman have the same right to disagree and argue for their definitions too. And yes, many heterosexual couples read this as a reduction of their bond to the banal. The legal ramification of this issue was not the issue.
So, in context, I’m not so sure what most of you comments (especially the religion component) have to do with the specific question. Should sexual orientation and race be linked as it was in CA? I understand why you would argue in favor of such a link. You are a lesbian. Can you really look at this issue from an objective standpoint? Probably. I just don’t think I have seen you do it yet. I am racially mixed, and I’m trying but can’t see any connection whatsoever. It seems to me to be just another reduction of another social identity for the sake of justifying what seems to be behavior.
Thanks, ck.
All right, I’ll bite.
First, when you say “equate”, I’d ask back, in what context? Race is both biological and cultural–just ask anyone whose “blackness” has been questioned due to their interests, or someone who’s told “wow, you’re really white.” Even more than that, when races are mixed, how do we decide what is the dominant one? Many ‘white’ people have African descendants in their history, just as ‘black’ people have Europeans.
Still, there are biological markers (such as susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia), but it’s tough to determine what is environmental and what is racial–are statistical incidences of heart disease in black people due to a biological difference or their lifestyles?
So, personally, I think that sexual orientation is a similar blend of biological and cultural. Someone who identifies as gay today may not have taken on that identity years ago, when it wasn’t understood as it is now. Yet there’s evidence for biological underpinnings to same-sex attraction, and it has existed for as long as humans have.
Long comment, but let me close by saying, if we ask outside of a legal context and just say “do you equate it?” then there’s a lot to mull over as I’ve noted above. Within the question of equal rights, etc., I don’t think we have to go quite as deeply into biology, choice, etc. Even if we grant that racial identity is generally not chosen (although look at the history of people ‘passing’ to see that’s not a hard and fast rule), there’s another category we describe people with that is chosen which we protect: religion.
We protect religious choice, racial identity and (I think we should) sexual orientation not because they’re chosen or not chosen, but because they’re characteristics of people which are linked to the free exercise of their human capabilities. Affiliating with whom we want, loving whom we want, and worshiping whom we want, are all aspects of a free society. Look up Martha Nussbaum to see where the human capabilities aspect is coming from–she defends a classical liberal view of democracy and human rights.
Hey, Dave! So, you are approaching the question with a presupposition built upon the idea of sexual orientation as being something other than chosen behavior … What’s the science on this as of late? I haven’t been keeping up.
I’m not so sure that the availability or non-availability of choice results in a relationship between any two things. In other words, the lack of choice - as you assume is the case with both sexual orientation and race - doesn’t make the two the same, or even similar, does it? If the lack of choice you cite in your comparison - real or not - does make the two similar enough for you to draw your conclusion, then what would stop one from grouping race with a military draft, taxes, being aborted, going to the restroom, or being raped, to draw similar but multiple conclusions? After all, there is no choice available in any of these examples either? Does that make them the same as race too?
I don’t think any argument concerning the validity of equating race and sexual orientation will be helped at all by a polemic that is built around choice …
I wouldn’t say that I would “equate” sexuality and race, but I do think that there are significant similarities between the two.
I am one that would argue that sexual orientation is not a choice, just as race is not a choice.
Dang, is this that hot of a potato? No one wants to touch it, really? C’mon, I know more than a few of you want to respond to this one! Amazing!