Ten Arguments for Sanity, 5-6

5. It will curtail opportunities for deep and emotionally fulfilling friendships between members of the same sex, opportunities that are already few and strained. This is particularly true of men.

 I ask the reader’s patience here; this argument repeats the point I made in an article in Touchstone, September 2005, "A Requiem for Friendship." 

 We in America and Canada now use the word “friend” to denote a passing acquaintance of whose company we may be rather fond. But modern life has necessarily driven us apart, even as in appearance we seem to be thrust together. For modern life has brought men and women, married and unmarried, into a kind of superficial contact with one another, constantly, at work -- where most of our contacts are made. That environment makes almost impossible the depth of friendship described by Cicero, when he said that a friend was another self, or one before whom you could without shame utter your thoughts aloud. Indeed, how many of us can even understand the passion of friendship in David’s lament for Jonathan, or Gilgamesh’s lament for Enkidu, without coloring it with the suspicion of homosexuality?

 Let me give you an analogy. Our sexual customs constitute a language, one that we must all use, whether we like it or not. If, all at once, clothing becomes optional on a certain beach, then that beach is a nude beach. If you wear your suit to that beach, your action has a meaning it did not have before. At the very least it means that you do not approve of public nudity. It may mean that you are ashamed of your body. It may mean that your religion forbids it. It may mean you are a prude. But it does signify something; and it must. You cannot say, “It means nothing to me,” simply because language is by its nature public and communal.  Suppose the incest taboo were removed. You may say, “I will hug and kiss my niece in any case,” but your actions will now have a significance they did not have before. The shadow of the thought must cross any beholder’s mind; it might cross the niece’s mind. If you were at all considerate of her feelings, you would hesitate before you did it.

 The incest taboo is surely not irrational: it allows members of a family the freedom to share each other’s company, in what might otherwise be often embarrassing circumstances, and to touch, in ways that would mean something, were it not a brother or an aunt giving the kiss. On pain of expulsion from the group, that taboo must be upheld, so that the deep feelings and intimacy of a family may develop freely and sanely. In Japan, for example, families often bathe together in a hot bath; that freedom can only be enjoyed if everyone knows (despite the vicious few who will violate the taboo) that it is perfectly innocent, that it means nothing. If you are a close friend of the family, you may be made an honorary member of the family -- and thus brought under the umbrella of the prohibition -- by being invited to share the bath. Such an invitation is unthinkable unless incest is acknowledged by everyone, including hypocrites, as forbidden.

 If homosexuality is at the least not publicly condoned, then that may clear away sufficient ground for men to forge the emotionally fulfilling friendships that they once enjoyed in the past. Such friendships have been at the base of many a cultural renaissance: the men of France who assisted Louis Pasteur in his work; the Founding Fathers of the United States; the explorers and pioneers of the American west; the friars and monks who built the first universities. I know quite well that, no matter what the prohibition is, there will always be a few who will violate it. But the point is that the prohibition is public, and helps constitute the meaning, to oneself and to others, of one’s attachment to a member of the same sex. Not so long ago, it was conceivable to suppose that two men might share an apartment merely as close friends; if Oscar and Felix of The Odd Couple did the same thing now, homosexuality would be the first thing to cross your mind, whether you support the homosexual agenda or reject it. One of my students related to me an incident that happened to him in a bar. His closest buddy had been abandoned by his girlfriend, and was weeping freely as the young man cradled his head in his arms. A young lady walked up to them and chirpily asked them if they were gay.

 The effect upon boys is devastating; it is hard for women to understand it. Their own friendships come easily, and in general are not based upon shared conquest, physical or intellectual. It is simply an anthropological fact that male friendship is essential for the full development of the boy’s intellect: the history of every society reveals it. But now the boys suffer under a terrible pincers attack. The sexual revolution causes them to rouse themselves to interest, or to pretend to interest, in girls long before they or the girls are emotionally or intellectually ready for it; and now the condonement of homosexuality prevents them from publicly preferring the company of their own sex. This is simply inarguable. If a George Gershwin nowadays shows up at Maxie Rosenzweig’s house all the time, while his pals are outside on the streets playing stickball, then there must be something up with George and Maxie. If you do not think that that is the way teens and even children now talk, then you are not paying attention. We have forced them to talk that way. What was once innocent, or what both Maxie and George need have no worry about, now means something. Therefore unless they are comfortable with the meaning, they will shy away from one another; the friendship will not deepen. Confess, reader: if you come upon two teenage boys in a pond skinny-dipping, it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that before bathing suits were invented it was the only way two boys could ever be found swimming.

6. It leaves us with no logical grounds for opposing any form of consensual intercourse among adults.

 No culture in history has accepted (even celebrated!) homosexual acts between adult men or adult women. (I will deal with the case of Athens in a later post; it is lethal to the homosexual cause.) But plenty of cultures have accepted polygamy, or, more appropriately, polygyny, the marriage of one man to several wives. Certain religions allow it or encourage it: Islam allows a man to have up to four wives, and radical Mormonism is, as I understand it, even more generous.

 There are natural justifications for the many instances of polygyny. A rich man can thereby father, and support, dozens of children; the tribe as a whole benefits from the fecundity. A man can beget several children virtually at once. The parentage of the children will be certain -- not the case if one woman marries several men, nor, barring the most freakish of accidents, will she be bearing more than one man’s child at a time anyway. An older and well-established man can continue to father children long after his first wife has grown too old for it. As I say, it is culturally common; not as common as monogamy, but common enough not to surprise.

 What grounds could we possibly have to deny people the opportunity to marry more than one person? If we establish as a matter of law that marital relations are free to any two people who consent, why limit the number to two? Polygyny, after all, is much easier to justify than are homosexual relations: it does not violate the biology of the people involved; it brings forth many children; it preserves the ideal of the union of male and female. But what would happen if the door were opened to polygyny? Would we not find ourselves, almost overnight, in a world utterly different from the one into which we were born? Nor would it be enough to say to oneself, “I do not believe in it; I will never marry another.” What about one’s spouse? What about the members the opposite sex whom you may happen to meet? In every culture that allows polygyny, the pressure of the possibility of dalliance and marriage, no matter who you are (for it turns married men instantly into eligible bachelors), compels the severest separation of roles for men and women. Is that what we want?

 On what grounds could we deny any combination of people who wish to “marry”? What of two so-called bisexual men, who want to “marry” one another and their shared wife? If homosexuals claim rights based upon their sexual actions, why not bisexuals? If the marital act is all about the fulfillment of one’s personal desires, how can even homosexual “marriage” fulfill the bisexual? And does he or she not have the same “right” to fulfillment as the homosexual? On what grounds could we deny a marriage license to an adult brother and sister? Reasons of health? Not if the brother can prove he has had a vasectomy, or not if she can prove she has had her tubes tied.

 Why stop here? What about people whose desires cannot be fulfilled unless they perform sexual actions in public? Or with animals? Or with precocious children? Or with the dead -- so long as the dead can be shown to have consented?

 The reader is correct to find the suggestions appalling. But logic requires an answer. If you affirm the false principle, you must go where that principle leads. As for now, the only thing preventing the collapse of all sexual constraints is a residual feeling of disgust. That is one rickety door to batter down.

Comments

[Tony Esolen]

Sorry about the HTML foulup. I have no idea why Typepad persists in returning spaces to my text, even after I've edited them out...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Japan

, for example, families often bathe together in a hot bath; that freedom can only be enjoyed if everyone knows (despite the vicious few who will violate the taboo) that it is perfectly innocent, that it means nothing. If you are a close friend of the family, you may be made an honorary member of the family -- and thus brought under the umbrella of the prohibition -- by being invited to share the bath. Such an invitation is unthinkable unless incest is acknowledged by everyone, including hypocrites, as forbidden.<<<

Not necessarily a good example. As a non-Christian, non-Western country, Japan has very different sexual mores than we do. Both bisexuality and homosexuality are tolerated in men, as is discreet resort to prostitutes. Women, of course, are held to a different standard of behavior: respectable women, especially wives, are expected to be chaste. Japan has also always practiced population control. Prior to the advent of artificial contraceptives, it was considered acceptable to expose unwanted children (usually girls), after the manner of ancient Sparta or Rome. On an island nation with little arable land, the peasantry limited its own numbers to what the land could support (after taxes).

Of course, boundaries of propriety are breaking down in Japan as well, but those boundaries were always different from our own. The current collapse of the population there is indicative of a stunning loss of confidence in the future, since from an economic standpoiint, the Japanese could at the very least afford to maintain population stability. Another aspect of the moral crisis is the collapse of intergenerational respect and shared values. From a position of hoonor and respect in Japanese culture, the elderly are now considered something of a nuisance by the young. That the elderly now live in isolation from their extended families--it is popular to ship them off to retirement communities in the Philippines--and have to resort to "robotic companions" ought to say much. There is indeed a problem in Japan. Whether this is due to the collapse of "traditional marriage' is open to question.

[GL]

I believe that before this current half-century is out, nearly all the things Tony lists in #6 (except perhaps necrophilia) will in fact be legal.  There are already advocates for nearly all of them.  I am unaware of anyone promoting legalizing necrophilia and my sanity restrains me from trying to find out.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I believe that before this current half-century is out, nearly all the things Tony lists in #6 (except perhaps necrophilia) will in fact be legal. <<<

Ah, come on! Dead people have needs, too, you know! And necrophilia is considered an insulting term. Deceased American perfer to call it "transviability love".

[Judy Warner]

Tony, I hope you are going to publish this whole thing in one place, on paper. It is simply wonderful.

[GL]

Stuart,

I know, I am just a bigot and a prig.  But fortunately, I live in an enlightened community which has already extended voting rights to the "transviable."  I formerly live in Missouri, in which a "transviable" (Mel Carnahan) was elected to the U.S. Senate.  (He died in a plane crash two weeks before the election.)  Due to discrimination, however, he was not allowed to take his seat.

[Nick]

Over ten years ago now my best friend and I were considering moving out together. For many reasons (including the odd couple complex) I declined. One of the strongest in the back of my mind though was, "what would people think?" We weren't just average room mates. We had grown up together. Our mothers were friends. We would have politely disposed of each others bodies if anything of a sexual nature had been suggested by the other, but we were incredibly close. I was painfully aware about how others outside of our conservative religious setting viewed that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I was painfully aware about how others outside of our conservative religious setting viewed that.<<<

The inability of the modern mind to contemplate the potential of agape distinct from eros is demonstrated by the persistent attempts of critics to sexualize the relationship between literary friends such as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (fans have even gotten into the act with a genre called "slash" fiction, as in Holmes/Watson, Kirk/Spock, Harry/Ron, etc.). In cases where the non-sexual nature of a friendship is just too blatant to be overturned, critics point to this as a flaw in the work, witness Edmund Wilson's infamous review of Lord of the Rings, "O, Those Awful Orcs".

[Bill R]

"If you affirm the false principle, you must go where that principle leads."

That is the key, Dr. Esolen. As Richard Weaver said, ideas have consequences, bad as well as good. But this requires a public that sees the value of logic and principled conduct, and does not simply stop with considering the "emotional needs" of others.

[Gina]

To offer another anecdote, I had a roommate who, when I was moving out of our three-woman household to a new city, insisted on bringing in a third roommate again. We were missionaries in a "closed country" and other single women missionaries didn't just fall off trees. She was so insistent on this, she eventually brought in a non-missionary, which was a dangerous thing to do in our situation and caused a lot of team conflict. Her reason- she had previously been in a close discipleship relationship with a woman who used the closeness as mask for a developing lesbian attraction, and she never wanted to share close space with just one woman again.

This change in perception is definitely real, and definitely affects women, too. We are used to being guarded in our opposite-sex friendships, but as in the case of my friend, the normal innocence of same-sex friendships seemed too naive to risk.

[Susan Peterson]

You know, I homeschooled for two years too.
One of my boys didn't read well until he was 8, and then did fine, while most of the rest of my children did learn to read before kindergarden age.
So I have children who didn't go to school until third grade...and one child who went to day care starting at age 2 while I went to nursing school. (my story above contains a factual error because she must have been 4 by the time I was a nurse, taking chemistry towards my BSN in the mornings and working 3-11.)
So far this youngest one at age almost 17 is a highly successful teenager and almost too good to be true, does whatever you ask of her willingly, is devout, etc. None of my older ones were quite like that but several were highly successful in school and extracurricular activities and are successful adults now. I also had some who had problems growing up and although they are doing better now, still show the results of their early problems in the shapes of their lives. There isn't a clear correlation between how many hours they went to school at a certain age and how well they did later.
There does seem to be a correlation between how well the family was doing emotionally when they were a certain age and the outcome....although one I was worried about made a terrific turn around and did well in college, has become a very serious Orthodox Christian, and just this past weekend married a wonderful girl. You never know.
It just doesn't do to be too absolute about ones prescriptions for daycare, not daycare, school, homeschool and all such things.

I thought that kindergarden was not required....last I heard, in this state at least, school was not required until age 6. And apparently one can homeschool as many people around her do. I certainly would be against coerced attendance.

Susan Peterson

[Susan Peterson]

Sorry, that comment was for the kindergarden thread, which I was still thinking about while reading here. If you can delete it, please do. I am going to put it there anyway.
Sorry again,
SFP

[Scott Walker]

John, haven't you gotten the message on the other threads you've attempted to hijack? Stop it. I am deeply suspicious of anybody who can use a nonword like "egoity" without flinching. Since you never develop your (I suspect) harebrained ideas where the rest of us can get at them, but instead choose to litter "Mere Comments" with web addresses for essays, I conclude that you are either unwilling or unable to engage. In charity, please stop. I don't want to have to mention yet another instance of my continual, alas, albeit low-grade irritability at Confession after Vespers this coming Saturday, and Fr. Matthew probably doesn't want to hear it, either.

[Ethan Cordray]

John, are you the one who keeps spamming my email with crazy New Age nonsense articles?

[Another Janet]

"But fortunately, I live in an enlightened community which has already extended voting rights to the 'transviable.'"

That's right, you live where I work. But I moved south of the border where things are temporarily saner.

AMDG,
Janet

[Firinnteine]

I still hold out hope (based on experience from the last couple of years, at college) that the possibility for real expressed friendships between men can be rebuilt, at least to a large degree, within the context of Christian community. What the rest of the world will think of it I dare not ask myself... but I'm not sure I care, either. I'm inclined to let them think or say whatever they please, and go on helping people be complete human beings....

(That being said, defying the language is very difficult. And it really is placing a nigh-unbearable weight on a lot of young men. I appreciate Dr. Esolen pointing it out, repeatedly and forcefully -- may his tribe increase, and may he be given the opportunity to train many Godly young men!)

[Ethan Cordray]

Janet, I'm not sure I'd describe northern Arkansas as a bastion of sanity (not when it comes to matters of race, that's for sure). However, it's certainly one of the last places that anyone would ever be tempted to libel with the moniker of "progressive."

Speaking as a Missourian, concerning the details of the election of the dead guy: it was Mel Carnahan, one of our most popular recent governors, versus John Ashcroft, whose job seems to be to make conservatives look bad. The vote for Mel was really a vote against John, as well as a vote of sympathy for Mrs. Carnahan. Anyway, that's why I voted for him, though I'm not sure I should have, in hindsight. I'm a lot more wary of the Democratic party now, and Ashcroft might have done less damage as a senator than he did as Attorney General.

GL, where did you live?

[michael devereaux]

I am gay and I too deplore the fact that straight men can no longer have free and open deep friendships with each other. The force of cultural suspicion against such friends is reaching the point where it is becoming a cultural taboo. Witness the 'Lord Of The Rings' comments from a few years back that labelled most male relationships in that trilogy gay. All praise Peter Jackson, a Kiwi, not infected by this American hatred of straight male friendship, for presenting such positive role models.

Having said that, gays aren't going anywhere. And we're not the cause of this peculiarly American paranoia concerning straight male friendship. You all need to take a deep breath and reassert your rights. The next time you're in such a friendship, and someone suggests you all are gay, call THEM freaks and, if you wish, pummel them til blood freely flows. That always makes bigoted bullies shut up. Oftentimes they don't even realize what they're saying, and you cause them to reassess themselves quickly. (Yes, I am serious. No pacifist here!)

[James A. Altena]

Dear Mr. Devereaux,

Your proposed "solution" -- for "straight" male friends suspected of being gay to call their accusers "freaks" and "pummel them 'til blood freely flows" -- is scarcely an option for us as Christians. While there are justifications for resorting to armed force in self-defense, offense at personal slander is not one of them. Christ was slanderd all throughout his life, and he turned the other cheek, and commanded us to do likewise.

For us, your proposal is actually a subtle and insidious temptation to sin. For, if we follow you counsel, then we will necessarily be giving you and your fellow gays justification to respond similarly to bullying "straights" who harrass you by calling them freaks and assaulting them. You seek to persuade us to act like you here in order to obtain a cloak of justification for your own actions and desires. Your underlying principle here is not that it is wrong to accuse "straight" male friends of being gay (as slander because "gay" sex is an unmanly perversion), but rather that those who object to gay male relations are "bigoted bullies."

We do not believe that anyone has a right to assault you, either with fists or vicious threatening language. But we do have both the duty to say plainly that your conduct is indeed immoral and perverted (in the objective sense of that term) and contrary to the intent and will of God for you and all men -- as is the conduct of fornicating and adulterous "straights." We seek not your condemnation, but your redemption, from a form of slavery that you mistakenly suppose to be either freedom or the design of nature -- to turn you from the way of death of that of eternal life.

We will pray for you, Michael.