Comments on: Homosexual marriages and adoptions

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:34:30 +0000

What’s interesting to me is that institutional pederasty, as practiced in ancient Greece and older Islamic cultures, is associated with highly-regulated relations between the sexes, such as the delaying of marriage for men of certain classes and the seclusion of women in these same classes. Since marriage is, in fact, nowhere near as highly regulated as it was in older cultures, and women in the West are no longer isolated and hidden away, there is no longer a need for such “outlets.” There’s really no comparison between the gay marriage issue and the promotion and institutionalization of pederasty. Such equivalencies don’t really help us understand the issues involved. And America has *never* regulated marriage to the extent dictated by older cultures.
Who’s to say Freud wasn’t right after all, in arguing that sexual liberation is the key to success? It wouldn’t surprise me if, as I have seen suggested, Unwin’s research was colored by the prejudices of his day. The fact is, at present, anyway, that America has come out on top in the superpower wars, and we are still the dominant military and economic force in the world. If we lose our influence and power, I strongly doubt it will be due to our views on marriage. But I could be wrong.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:08:07 +0000

Are straight men and women lured away from marriage by the irresistible charms of “the gay life”?
Paul Cameron said as much at one time. He likened gay sex to heroin, saying that it was just intrinsically more arousing than straight sex.
Which caused a lot of snickering over on my side of the fence.

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:25:19 +0000

Doing a little more searching, I found that Philip Yancy called attention to Unwin’s “Sex and Culture” in a 1994 article in Christianity Today called “The Lost Sex Study.” It’s now a bit clearer to me that Unwin’s speech referred to his interest in Freud’s theories about sexual freedom and society, which prompted his study and the resulting book, which in turn caused him to revise his thinking about the issue.
At any rate, I find nothing extraordinary about Sorokin’s and Unwin’s theories about monogamy and the regulation of sexual behavior outside of marriage. Having read Will Durant, I’m very familiar with this theme. What puzzles me is how this gets twisted into a condemnation of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. It is unclear to me whether Sorokin ever wrote specifically about homosexuality. The work most widely referred to was written in the mid-1950’s. But here’s a typical statement from an article quoting Sorokin:
“The words homosexual and marriage are inherently contradictory. The very fact that these terms are in public conflict demonstrates the radical character of the social revolutionaries that now demand the legalization of homosexual marriage.”
I do not understand how this can be so. Do homosexuals break up marriages? Are straight men and women lured away from marriage by the irresistible charms of “the gay life”? By condoning homosexual behavior are we going to create *more* homosexuals? (I assume that’s the real fear.) No, it seems clear that, somehow, it just *is*. Again, I look in vain for some kind of rational or statistical proof to the effect that homosexual behavior interferes with heterosexual marriage–beyond the vague “feeling” that recognizing gay couples leads to a “destruction” of public morality.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:17:59 +0000

Am I the only one who finds the whole thing about “societies that tolerate homosexuals will tend to suffer” reminiscent of antisemitism? And what, may I ask, are you going to do with us? It’s not like we’re going to disappear.
Now, as to your latest assertions about monogamy and homosexuality, nt only is Grover correct about ancient Greece and Rome, but Islamic civilization flourished while allowing polygamy, so it’s kind of ridiculous to say that only monogamous societies succeed. (Even given that, I’m all in favor of monogamy, and I think society would be better off if it were more monogamous. Just if you’re going to settle down with one person, it should really be someone you can sincerely love, whatever gender they may end up being.)
As to the research you have mentioned, I can’t say I’ve read it. But that Grover and I could think of a couple of very serious counterexamples right off the top of our heads suggests that it wouldn’t be worth my time.

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:02:57 +0000

…and now I see that Lawyerchik cites *both* of Unwin’s works, the earlier and the later, so she’ll have to reconcile that for us. That’s all, I’ll stop now.

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:59:39 +0000

Sorry to go on, but it’s kind of interesting. Unwin’s address apprently was dug up and privately reprinted by one Frank M. Darrow, in 1969. This republication is cited in books by James Dobson and Timothy Dailey. Darrow apparently wrote a series of self-published pamphlets on various social issues, including “Sex Ethics and Survival.” I cannot find any other reference to him or his work. Why Unwin is such an “authority” is beyond me.

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:42:08 +0000

Ah! Now I must correct myself. The work Lawyerchik cites is actually a 1935 (?) address to the British Psychological Society in which he announced that he was forced to reverse his thesis from his earlier book, “Sex and Culture.”
“The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior…
“Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous…
“If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases… If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn.
“It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation.”
It’s worth noting again that not a single reference to the work of this “notable anthropologist” turns up anywhere else that I can find, save the parrotted references on Christian web sites. I wonder who troubled to dig up this obscure fellow’s pronouncement. I wonder what the story his behind his abrupt “revision.” And I wonder what Unwin thought of the great polyandrous Islamic empires who rescued Aristotle from oblivion and gave us so many advances in science and philosophy…

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:36:44 +0000

Interesting that you should mention Unwin. I did quite a bit of searching and found that this citation and “summary” of his thesis is parroted on dozens of Christian and anti-gay websites. A bit more research reveals some intersting facts. His “notable” book is so rare that the single copy available at Alibris lists for $824.32. Therefore we can assume, as this writer logically does,
http://www.ilv.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=224
that few people who cite him have actually read him. A search of Amazon.com reveals only two or three references to Unwin, including a book by Pat Buchanan. This article:
http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2004v77n1aut.pdf
goes into more detail about Unwin’s strange and unwarranted authority amongst the anti-gay-marriage crowd.
Here’s a synopisis of the work from a paper about, of all things, Chinese foot binding:
“Argument: Unwin

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:15:41 +0000

That fact is, lawyerchik, the ancient Greeks and Romans would probably not approve of gay marriage. Masculinity was an important and highly codified concept. What to their minds constituted a weakening of the state was any sort of feminization of the male parent and warrior.
It’s useless to look to ancient models for the current debate. Would you, for instance, advocate a return to customs which forbade women to work or leave their homes unaccompanied? If you are a single woman above the age of 20, you would be in a vary bad way according to “traditional” values going back “millenia.” What, may I ask, was the role of women in the societies Unwin studied? Assuming from your handle that you are a in fact a lawyer or attorney, yours is an exceptionally privileged position compared to even American culture a scant hundred years ago. So while you benefit from the social advances and liberalized attitudes of the past 30 years, you would deny those benefits to anyone else.
The concept of legal, same-sex marriage is largely unprecedented in human history. Like so many things in America since its inception, it’s a social experiment. We really don’t know what the effects will be, despite attempts to draw parallels with some European countries using disputable methodologies.

By: Grover Gardner

Grover Gardner — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:57:42 +0000

“Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy.”
That was his theory, yes. Unwin makes the same point. Do you see anyone here arguing against marriage and monogamy?
The fact remains that during their most robust periods, both the Greeks and the Romans tolerated pederasty and homosexual behavior, while simultaneously maintaining a firm grip on marriage, heterosexual morality and gender roles.
You’ve cited two sources out of literally thousands of historians who offer numerous theories on the decline of ancient Greece and Rome. Like so many Christian apologists, you’re trying to equate tolerance for homosexuality with collapse of morality and family life.