|
 |
 |
 Monday, April 24, 2006
Contraception: Good for Society? Opening Post/Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
Thank you Cristina for accepting my challenge. Thank you Maggie, for hosting this debate. I hope this debate will give readers a clear idea of what the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life sides believe. For purposes of this debate, I am not concerned about what should be legal or illegal. I simply point out that many of our (perfectly legal) sexual decisions are just plain dumb. Behind the demand for abortion and contraception is an entire world view about the meaning and purposes of human sexuality. It is this position that I dispute, because I believe it encourages people to make choices that will not make them happy. The modern view holds that sex is a recreational activity with no moral or social significance. The freedom we have come to value is to be completely unencumbered by human relationships. We are entitled to end or walk away from any relationship with a person who might legitimately make demands upon us that we don’t want to fulfill. Reproductive freedom in particular, is the right to unlimited sexual activity without a live baby resulting. I call this view of sex, Consumer Sex. The decision to have sex is comparable to the decision to go bowling or go out for pizza. If sex is a recreational activity, then our sex partners are consumer goods, that satisfy us more or less well. When we are no longer satisfied with our sex partners, we feel entitled to discard them. We believe it is morally acceptable to use people, as long as they consent to being used. If sex is voluntary and properly contracepted, it is ok. The alternative view is the organic view of human sexuality. Sex has two organic purposes: procreation and spousal unity. Spousal unity is a fancy way of saying that sex builds up the relationship between the husband and the wife. Both of these organic purposes build up the community of the family. Procreation brings new people into being. And spousal unity helps to sustain the bond between the spouses, so they will be there for each other and their children over the long-haul. This organic view of human sexuality is completely consistent with science, both the biology of reproduction and the physiology of attachment. People have a better chance of having a happy life if they embrace this view, rather than the consumer sex position. I need not say that consumer sex would be impossible in the absence of abortion on demand and unlimited access to contraception. posted by Dr J Roback Morse at 9:53 AM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
My choice to have a decade-long, monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner makes me very happy. It is not a setting in which sex is a recreational activity or in which either I or my partner is treated as a consumer good. Your grotesque generalization rests on ignorance and ideological blindness, and it is thoroughly unsound.
While our relationship may not involve procreation, the loving, monogamous sex certainly "builds up the relationship" between male partner and male partner. By insisting that sex is either inside a different-sex marriage and therefore good or outside that arrangement and necessarily "a recreational activity with no moral or social significance," your entire argument rests on the fallacy of the false dichotomy that involves simply ignoring monogamous, loving sex between either same-sex or different-sex partners who are not or are not allowed to marry.
I'm always amused at the infinite arrogance and condescension of right-wingers who insist that I must be unhappy becaue I have not chosen to live a loveless life of pointless chastity in perpetual deference to the views of other people who are ignorant of my experience. Apparently their ESP gives them a better understanding of my emotional state than my own consciousness does. By outward appearances, however, it is they who seem unhappy, given their constant, enraged complaining about other people's lives. Authoritarian personality disorders without the dictatorial power to satisfy them must truly be a great emotional burden.
The simple truth is I do not agree with the silly natural-law theory that sex has two "purposes" (or with archaic and baseless "natural law" philosophy in general). I'm not a Catholic or a fundamentalist Protestant, and I don't share the belief that homosexuality or, more generally, sex outside of marriage is sinful. I do not need to condemn other people to feel better about myself. I do not find what I regard as your peculiar and obsessive superstitions to be personally compelling. And I'm entitled to that view and to live according to my own values.
As for abortion, as long as you continue to defame gay men as loveless sex-machines seeking nothing but self-gratification through supposed exploitation of people whom you can't understand that they love, I'm not interested one whit in your views on abortion. If you want to treat us with a modicum of respect, I might be open to your arguments as to abortion, which, frankly, is a much tougher philosophical issue than same-sex marriage. Until then, however, you can continue ranting to the right-wing choir about abortion because I won't lift a finger to help you in that cause.
The simple truth is I do not agree with the silly natural-law theory that sex has two "purposes" (or with archaic and baseless "natural law" philosophy in general).
Natural law is not baseless. It is not silly. You find it disagreeable. That's all.
Perhaps you seek a theory or a philosophy that is shaped to fit your own axiomatic beliefs and your own personalized prediliction(s). That's yours to bellow.
I don't share the belief that homosexuality or, more generally, sex outside of marriage is sinful. I do not need to condemn other people to feel better about myself.
[blink]
Focus on the topic at hand. That's a good way to enter a discussion with a clearly stated topic. The topic is not same-sex attraction. If you think that second topic is relevant, perhaps calmly try to restate with greater clarity the basis for that relevancy.
I agree whole-heartedly with Dr. Roback Morse.
As for stephenclark's response to Dr. Roback Morse's post, I will say three things. First, Dr. Roback Morse does not insist that any sexual activity outside of a traditional pro-creative marriage constitutes Consumer Sex. This would mean that she also opposes sexual relations between an infertile husband and wife. I'm reasonably sure that she does not.
Second, stephenclark's self-conscious pre-occupation with his homosexuality does not contribute to this particular debate. Although I am sure Dr. Roback Morse is arguing from a traditionalist background, she made no mention of sexual orientation. Rather, Dr. Roback Morse mentioned only that which should be obvious to any reasonable person - that the biological function of human sexuality is the pro-creation of children. Just because stephenclark's homosexuality logically excludes his relationships from that function does not mean that Dr. Roback Morse was taking a shot at him.
Third, of the many things I can pick apart in stephenclark's post, I will focus on his argument that "right-wingers" seek to impose their views on everyone else. I agree. "Right-wingers" do indeed try to impose their views on everyone else through the political process. What stephenclark fails to grasp is that in a democracy, that is THE POINT of politics. Perhaps stephenclark thinks that he is not imposing anything on anyone by insisting that he have the right to be married to his same-sex partner and that he have the right to be treated equally in society. The fact of the matter, however, is that stephenclark and others like him seek to impose on the rest of us their particular view of how society ought to be. After all, what is an anti-discrimination law if it isn't a law designed to enforce some particular view of human relations? What is the legalization of gay marriage if it isn't the enforcement of the view that same-sex relationships are equal to traditional marriages? Forcing people to accept the social normalization and legal equalization of homosexuality is just as much an imposition of a particular group's world-view as it is for "right-wingers" to defend traditional marriage from those who would dilute its meaning.
stephenclark, um, not everything is about you. Not everything even particularly relates to you. There's nothing in there about the approx. 3% of men who are homosexual. That's a whole 'nother discussion. This one seems to be about the 97% of the population who aren't primarily involved in same sex relationships. You and your partner may be building bonds and love, but you don't have to worry about making a baby. One's relationship need not be the same as everyone elses to have value, but there's no point in acting as if there aren't differences. Equal does not neccessarily mean the same. You and your partner may well be building bonds and love (which is exactly one of the things that sex is meant to do as the author points out and science on the subject confirms), but you don't have to worry about making a baby - which is the other purpose of sex that the author points out. Doesn't make your relationship any less fulfilling for you, perhaps, but it does mean the discussion isn't really aimed at couples whose relationships, by way of biology are different. Besides, if you have made a life-long committment to your partner, wouldn't the part of your relationship which might correlate with the heterosexual relationships the author is actually talking about simply re-enforce the idea that sex is best in such a life-long committed relationship where bonding is desireable rather than inconvenient? Rather than getting huffy over a conversation which doesn't even address you and your partner's form of relationship, why not take the opportunity to point out how even in relationships which are different, sex still works best with committment? If anything the fact that the bonding nature of sex is still at work in couples who can't (or choose not) to procreate simply affirms the author's overall point.
There is a reason, chairm, that natural law has been out of favor in the American legal system since the early 19th-century. It is because we had the good sense to realize that natural law claims were nothing but personal political preferences dressed up as something objective. If you like natural law so much, then, I assume you don't mind the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade, since that is the most prominent example of the use of what is basically natural law reasoning by the Court in the last 50 years. Or is that just bad natural law because you happen not to like it? When you're ready to condemn deaf people for using their hands to talk instead of living a life of communicative celibacy because natural law and biology dictate that the exclusive purpose of hands is to perform manual work not to speak--that's the "purpose" of a MOUTH, for goodness sake, along with eating...and definitely not for sex!--I might consider that your natural law has any consistency to it and is anything other than merely an attempt to protray your personal likes and dislikes as some kind of objective fabric of the universe.
penitent, Morse was of course including same-sex relationships in her discussion by defining the two exclusive purposes of sex as procreation and unity of the HUSBAND and WIFE, unity which she then defined as necessary solely in instrumental terms of rearing the procreated children. It's pure, unadulterated Catholic dogma masquerading as objective science--as natural law always tries to do. And I'm only self-conscious about my sexuality when right-wingers obsessively insist on reminding me of it. I'm never less aware of it than when alone with my partner shut off from you and the rest of the world. As for same-sex marriage, I think you'll find my post said nothing whatever about that--or antidiscrimination laws for that matter. Mine was exclusively a criticism of Morse's condemnation of all non-procreative sex. It seems like you're the one injecting issues that aren't there. You should stay on the point.
rebecca t, I don't believe I denied that there were differences. I very clearly said our relationship is not procreative, didn't I? And I think you need to read Morse's post again. She leaves no room at all for non-procreative sex to have any moral or social value precisely because it is not procreative. What mental gymnastics she would perform to avoid condemning infertile couples, I leave to her. So, yes, her post did contain an indirect attack on all same-sex couples. I appreciate your attempt to put a less gay-hostile spin on Morse's post. But I do not think her post will support your fair-minded extension of her bonding point to same-sex couples, however much I may agree with you. I wasn't criticizing your view; I was criticizing Morse's, which is considerably more rigid, hostile, and demeaning than you acknowledge.
As for pointing out that sex works best with commitment, I'm not in a position to comment on that because I haven't tried it in any significant way without one, and I don't have a pat religious dogma to tell me what I should think about it. I'd, frankly, be more interested in hearing a defense of it from someone who finds it satisfactory, rather than hear armchair complaining about it by people who are frightened of it or ideologically opposed to it. Perhaps biology dictates that sex is for pleasure as well, but since that conflicts with conservative morals dressed up as pseudo-objective natural law, we don't see people who cite biology make the obvious point that the existence of powerful pleasure centers and innate urges for sexual gratification means sex is for pleasure too. So, as I say, I'd be more interested in someone defending the view that sex outside a commitment can be good because I might learn something from that perspective. I'd much prefer that to endless repetition of the same old natural law theory that wasn't any more persuasive the 900th time I heard it than the first. It's amazing how many people think the "sex has only two purposes" premise is a new insight just because they're the ones saying it.
And I'm justified in "getting huffy" over having my relationship defamed as taudry, recreational, commercial, and worthless, as Morse implicitly characterized it here.
Lastly, it is curious that I basically opened a door to considering whether abortion is immoral if only I received a modicum of respect in return. Since none of you took me up on that, with the partial exception I suppose of rebecca t, I guess you really aren't interested in persuading me that abortion is wrong if the price is to give a little respect to homosexuals. What if you couldn't have both? Would you rather wipe abortion off the face of the earth or gays...if forced to choose? I'd think the former, but, then again, I'm not obsessed with condemning gay people (or anyone else, for that matter) as evil sinners. So I guess I can't really make that choice for you.
Why seek through law what you cannot get by consent?
Socialists are the same every where. It is only what they wish to socialize that differs from venue to venue.
stephenclark, if abortion is wrong, as you seem to indicate, then it would also appear that you would hold unborn children as hostages to your sexual identity politics. Thank you for clearing that up.
The rest of your rant is irrelevant posturing.
No, chairm. I did not say abortion is wrong. I said it was a much tougher philosophical question than same-sex relationships. I don't have a strong view one way or another as to abortion (and am frankly sick of people screaming at each other about it). I'm not holding anyone (or anything) hostage, as you call it. With millions of people lacking health care or dying of AIDS in Africa, I can't get all bent out of shape about abortion. Sorry. Treating me with contempt is not the way to persuade me to your view or move me to act. But, sadly, it seems to be all that you are capable of.
stephenclark, I think you are seeing what you want to see and are making some assumptions about Dr. Morse which are not accurate. First of all, Dr. Morse started writing about this topic after trying all the various permutations of non-committed sex and came to realize how damaging and unnatural they are. So she's not some stuffy ideologue stting on high dispensing judgement.
Second, it seems reasonable to assume that you might be more sensitive or opposed to the idea of natural law than many of us due to the fact that it has often been used to condemn homosexuality. The difference between the sort of natural law which was used to condemn homosexuals, keep women in their place and the like and what Dr. Morse is talking about is science. Just as science has changed many people's thinking about homosexuality, so it also should force us to re-examine our other assumptions (both old fashioned and modern) about sex. Aside from the obvious connection between sex and procreation for most of us, science has shown that sex triggers hormones in our bodies which cause bonding. It's not at all unreasonable to say that if X causes Y, we should acknowlege and be respectful of that or even characterize such a reality as natural law. This is no different than saying that the construct of anatomy demonstrates that men are not designed to give birth. Sometimes natural law is stretched and abused, but sometimes it is a reasonable explanation for the reality we observe.
As for procreation, Dr. Morse most certainly does not say that all non-procreational sex is wrong. What she is saying that sexual activity which does not respect the procreational realities of sex is a recipe for disaster. I have known many men who despite having a working knowlege of human biology are so accustomed to the idea that they should be able to enjoy sex without concern for reproduction that they are both surprised and angry when a woman they inadvertantly impregnate expects them to have some sort of responsibility for their child. That's the sort of disregard for procreation in sex which Dr. Morse is condemning, not any sex which is not done for procreational purposes. You're definately reading things into her writing which are not there if that's what you think.
Post a Comment
<< Home