Santorum to kids of gay parents: You'd be better off with a dad in jail

[anvi]

Politico,

With regard to biology, it's manifestly clear that individuals in many animal species exhibit homosexual behavior, and such behavior does not prove to be detrimental to the survival of that species.  Furthermore, while life in the most general biological terms might be defined as the ability of an organism to convert matter into nutrients and energy and reproduce, that does not mean that every animal instinct is driven by or reducible to the desire to reproduce and perpetuate the species.  Just to use the simplest example, I'm pretty sure the human species could have survived had it not developed the ability to compose music, but the fact that we have developed that ability makes our lives a very great deal better than without it.

One of the things that makes what Santorum is reported to have implied in his talk yesterday so objectionable is that, while data does show that children have better outcomes in two-parent homes than in single-parent homes, that fact does not necessarily imply anything about the sexual orientation of the parents.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of adopted children in the U.S. are cared for by gay couples, and to claim that all of those children would be better off, and their emotional needs and needs for support better served, with one heterosexual parent separated from the family because of imprisonment than with two gay parents caring for them at home is wildly implausible.  It's also, based on everything else we know, also quite dismissive of the needs of the children in question.  Now, to be fair, the quote from the report at the beginning of the thread is isolated from the story's context, and so I don't know if Santorum actually said these things.  But if he did, in my view, they are quite wrong.

But, putting all that aside, I think the most important aspect of the conflict on this thread has to do with the issue that you seem to be confusing a descriptive stance with a prescriptive one.  If one were to merely assert that, in American society now, gay people are not fully accepted by straight people, that as a matter of mere description may well be true, and the huge cultural and political conflicts we are presently having over the rights of gay people may well serve as evidence of that.  But, on the basis of such a present fact, it does not follow that these circumstances will never change. Inductions about the future do not simply follow on the basis of present circumstances.  If you truly do favor the rights of gay people to live as they wish and be fully accepted by society for who they are and for their desire to be treated equally, you would not simply shrug your shoulders, say things will never change, accept their unjust treatment and suggest that they should seclude themselves to a select number of isolated cities.  You would, rather, admonish those who treated them unfairly and at least speak out on their behalf.  Fifty and sixty years ago, people such as Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King did not just resign themselves to the unjust segregation of African Americans and call for their return to Africa; they instead denounced injustice, inspired and led movements of resistance, and risked everything to transform our society.  A half century later, things are very far from perfect, and we still have quite a distance to go in establishing genuine racial equality of opportunity.  But, three years ago, an African-American candidate for the presidency of the United States received the votes of 70 million Americans, and even though he won only 43% of the white vote, that's a much bigger percentage than would have been received by an African American candidate for that office in the '50's or '60's.  That didn't happen because people resigned themselves to the impossibility of change.  The point is that describing a current situation and prescribing, or endorsing, it are two importantly different things.  Description is not prescription.  Saying that something is wrong should not lead one to argue that what is wrong ought to be perpetuated.   

[anvi]

Politico,

As noted, homosexual behavior among species of animals has not resulted in their extinction. Homosexual play, courting, pair bonding and parenting has been observed in about 1500 living (not extinct) species, and nobody believes that the human species, should homosexual marriage be pervasively legally permitted, will suddenly revert tout court to homosexual pairing and thus result in its extinction.  So, what's the point of the "biological argument?"  

How does it follow, on the basis of what biological parents may or may or not want for their children, that a society should frown on what those children might want to make of their lives despite their parents' wishes?  I'm absolutely positive that, when I was born, my parents didn't want me to study philosophy; hell, my dad was horrified when I chose to pursue philosophy as a college major when I was 20.  Does that mean society should have ensure that I only be allowed to teach philosophy in just three American cities??  (Ok, maybe lots of people on this forum wish I'd seclude myself to a city without an internet connection so they wouldn't be subjected to my endless windbag posts, but that's beside the point.)  The argument is completely irrelevant.

What the hell difference does it make about what specific religiously conservative African American churches who might otherwise align themselves with Democrats might think about homosexuality at present?  This is not a partisan point, it's a moral one, in my view.  Whether it is Republicans or Democrats or Martians who reject the right of people to be treated equitably in society, regardless of sexual orientation, they are, in my view, wrong.  Period.  Barack Obama is not a whit less morally wrong about this issue, in my view, than is Pat Robertson--gay people should either have equal rights as citizens or they shouldn't.  Obama might be politically clever to avoid the issue right now, but he is still morally wrong to do so.  Those who disagree with me might be able to out-vote me at present, but that doesn't make them right.  (I'll bet you all the money in my pockets that Rick Santorum would say the exact same thing about abortion, by the way.)  However prevalent the rejection of equal rights for gay people may be now, it's wrong, and you yourself say it's wrong.  Majorities can easily be wrong, and subsequent generations can recognize them to have been wrong.

This is not about comparing the experience of gay people to African Americans. It's about the possibility of social change, the capacity of societies over time to re-evaluate their foregoing social and ethical judgments when confronted by brave people who call them on injustice.  The fact that you believe (I'm guessing) that eventual social change is possible when it comes to racial segregation, but impossible when it comes to equality of rights regardless of sexual orientation, is quite revealing.  All I can say is that it's a good thing that the universe didn't put you in charge of what's possible and what's not.

Your whole web of arguments is nothing more than a network of thinly veiled excuses to justify the social rejection of what should be equal rights for gay people.  You say it's wrong, but you think nothing can be, and thus ought to be, done about it, so you claim gay people should effectively ghettoize themselves.  So, as far as legal and social outcomes go, there's not much difference between you and conservative opponents of equal rights for gay people, is there?   But, as this thread very painfully demonstrates, you're impervious to persuasion on the matter, so I'll stop here.    

Good grief.