Wow, this bollocks is just so Gay!

Heh, takes me back to my childhood. Going to a Catholic school and all, that was both a generic curse and a deadly insult. Given that reality, it's probably not surprising that I did not know one person who was out of the closet. There were a few suspects who I always felt sorry for because they were picked on even more than I was, but other than that, I don't think I met someone who was "out" until I got to York University in the early 90's. In retrospect, this fact is amazing to me, but that's what you get when you're A. Catholic and B. discriminating against a group that can, with some effort, hide away from the majority. For my part, until I got to York and lived next door to a flaming drag queen who used to ask me if his boobs were on straight, my perspective on it was one of "Let them do whatever, as long as they don't shove it in my face." Not exactly accepting but bordering on bare tolerance at least. Come a long way since those days though.

Yesterday however, there were two bits of news in and around Southern Ontario that demonstrated that our society still has a fair ways to go. First, we have this little bit of stupidity. According to former Iraq hostage James Loney the Knights of Columbus have closed a summer camp of which he was a councillor because he is gay. As the article puts it:

Days later, the chairman of the Knights of Columbus Ontario State Council — which funds the camp — expressed concerns to the camp’s director that the event was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, making specific reference to Loney, the former hostage said in an interview Monday.

Not surprisingly, the "Knights" have figured out that this isn't very good publicity to be floating around and Jack Clancey, a Columbus spokesman, denied the charges. "That statement is totally out of left field," said Clancey. "We closed down that leadership camp because we needed to review the way we were going and the curriculum that we were teaching."

Now reading that even cursorily, it's not exactly a denial of the KOC's homophobic approach. The same article goes on to note that the KOC has denied the use of its facilities to gay couples and demanded that same-sex marriage be repealed. Not to mention "review the way we were going" isn't rhetorically opposed to "promoting a homosexual lifestyle." Could mean exactly the same thing. From my end, Loney has the credibility on this one. I unfortunately still know people who think being gay is catching; just hang around a homo long enough and you'll just switch right over. Why, in retrospect, it is amazing to me that after a number of years of wandering around College and Carleton during Gay Pride Week that I am not a raging fag, hitting on every guy I can see. *snort* Anyways, Loney is getting an award for bravery today re: being a hostage in Iraq-- seems to me he ought to get one for simply being associated with the Knights of Columbus.

The other piece of news seems a little more ambiguous. Yesterday at Ryerson's graduation ceremony, Margaret Somerville, a quebec ethicist was awarded an honourary degree for her academic scholarship. She was the subject of a small but vocal protest for her "pro-family" views, which according to an earlier Star article by the same writer, include arguing that marriage is primarily about having children and respecting their right to both a biological mother and father. Somerville argues that she is not homophobic and is instead concerned with children's rights and, to her credit, addressed the protest directly with an apology if she has hurt people's feelings but an argument that she is going to stand by her position.

So I had a look around to find out exactly what she has said. The problem with this sort of issue, as I well know, is that once politicized, the Left is no more immune than the Right to articificially polarizing issues they are passionate about. The first thing I found is a 2005 column from the National Post, hardly an auspicious beginning, but at least her own words.

First, Somerville argues for what is essentially a nuclear family.

When limited to the union of a man and a woman, marriage establishes, as the norm, children's right to an identified biological mother and father, and to be reared by them, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Same-sex marriage, in disconnecting marriage from procreation, compromises this right for all children, not just those brought into same-sex marriages.

Now this argument essentially argues against divorce (let alone a second marriage) as much as it does against gay marriage. Presuming she has been consistent in this respect, than to extend the criticism to same-sex couples is at least consistent if entirely unrealistic in its entirety. "Unless their are good reasons to the contrary" is pretty vague; perhaps she would argue that divorce is a good reason. And, lo, this is what she does. (Click here for a html version if the PDF doesn't work.) Somerville argues that "there is a major ethical difference between, for example, the situation of not being reared by one’s own biological parents being created by chance, as in divorce or death, as compared with by choice, as in same-sex marriage." Now I don't think that there is much "chance" about it; divorce is also about choices. Moreover, the divorce rate in Canada is over 37%, so I also don't think that this is about "experimentation" as Somerville puts it-- there are plenty of one-parent families, or remarriages, so I think we're a bit past the stage of social engineering at this point. But what she's talking about I guess is the deliberate choice at the outset to raise a child without a parent of each sex.

The ethical position that this is a "bad thing" is based on a series of assumptions about gender roles and two-parent families. I don't know the truth of this one way or the other but I think that the latter generalizations are weak in any event-- as I wrote above, 37% of marriages end in divorce so there are plenty of cases where children were reared by a parent, or by a steparent. My point being, it happens a great deal regardless, so it seems a fairly weak argument to suggest that in the small number of cases where "choice" and not chance is involved are going to turn out differently than when there is a heterosexual divorce or death.

Somerville continues that "There is also a major ethical difference between the decisions and actions of individuals resulting in children not having a mother and a father and the state or society becoming complicit in creating such circumstances for children." So it would appear she has addressed my counter. I won't argue with this, only point out that society has already done so by allowing divorce.

In terms of gender roles-- i.e. children function best with a mother and a father in parental roles I don't feel like mastering the debate at this point. It may be that literal gender is important, it may be secondary and it may also be the gender roles that are crucial-- ie. if one person acts like "Dad" it doesn't matter if (in this case) she can actually be one. So in this sense, Somerville may be correct. However, I rather suspect that having even one stable loving parent is far, far more important than having two who are screaming at each other half the time, or who don't care about the child. Two stable loving parents are even better. I think love is more important than anything else in rearing kids. Somerville does not deal with this-- what if Dad doesn't fill his "role" whatever that is? What I would like to see is Somerville address this question-- is it better to bring up a child in a relationship with two stable comitted parents of the same sex, or is it better to do so in either an unhappy situation or with one parent absent/secondary, as in the case of divorce? For my part, the answer seems obvious. And therefore, generalizations that two-parent heterosexual parents are always better seem suspect. In effect, it returns back to nature vs. nurture-- that is, Somerville seems to be arguing that the intrinsic nature of male and femaleness in a parent is better for raising kids than the amount of love or attention they give.

I am willing to accept that a strong hetereosexual couple is the best scenario for child raising. But it does not follow from this that a strong homosexual couple is also not a good situation. It's not an either/or setup. What is most important, is love. So I would rank things like this:

1. Two-parent, heterosexual, committed, loving
2. Two parent, homosexual, committed, loving
3. Two parents or single parent (i.e a family where one parent has died), loving
----
4. One parent- loving, one parent unloving.
--
5. Two parents, unloving, or single parent unloving, or no parents.

I am just guessing here, but I suspect its as bad to have no parents as it is to have one or both who abuse their child (which includes indifference.)

Somerville's argument is also weak in this respect-- she argues that "marriage should continue to represent the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman." That is to say, only men and women can have kids, which is the point (a more sophisiticated redition of "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve). She adds that

Marriage establishes the cultural norms that distinguish the relationship that is capable of transmitting life from allother relationships. Doing so is important for individuals and society, and for values at both personal and societal levels, quite apart from the function of marriage in relation to the children who result. This function of marriage also explains why a man and a woman who cannot or don’t want to have children can still marry. Their relationship fits within the general norm of that which can transmit life even if in a particular case that is not possible or not desired. In contrast, same-sex marriage does not fit within that norm. Indeed, it expressly contravenes it and the symbolism and values it establishes for society.

But this position is not logicially consistent. An infertile woman or man is not "inherently procreative" and therefore cannot fulfill their role in marriage. They therefore cannot fit "the general norm of that which can transmit life." Their respective sexes are irrelevant in this case. In short, what we are left with is that same-sex marriage doesn't fit the "norm"-- this, to my mind, leaves outside of the realm of ethics unless we're suddenly going to simply use social norms as guideposts to right and wrong now.

Somerville is on stronger ethical ground when she argues that children's rights should include

1) The right to be conceived with a natural biological heritage -- that is, to have unmodified biological origins -- in particular, to be conceived from a natural sperm from one identified man and a natural ovum from one identified woman; and (2) the right to know the identity of one's biological parents.

In this case, I am closer to agreement. The possibility that science may be able to develop a viable embryo from two sperm or two eggs strikes me as ethically questionable, to say the least. If you want a kid, adopt one. But this is not an argument against SSM, it is an argument against genetically modifying embryos. On those grounds, I am agreement 2) is debatable, but seems quite secondary. Somerville objects to the principle of recording two mothers names on the birth certificate and not the "anonymous" donor of the sperm. I can see how this might have an effect in later years, but it's also not an issue limited to same-sex marriage. Therefore, to introduce SSM as being indicative of either, or to argue that these reasons (i.e. the rights of the child) is to introduce a red herring into the equasion. She can argue for both those rights exclusive of SSM.

So, to return to my original point, who is correct here, the protestors or Somerville? Clearly, one has to go with the protestors in this case. I would not have voted for her to receive any sort of recognition, particularly not for ethics since she proceeds from biased reasoning.