Marriage and Culture

Previously I discussed one possible effect of the redefinition of the word "marriage" on the church, that is a necessity of additional teaching for the sake of clarity.  I would like to discuss in this post one of the arguments given for normalizing homosexuality in our culture.  What I mean by "normalization" is the argument that practicing homosexuals should be given all the same cultural privileges that non-homosexuals have.  Further, normalization means accepting that homosexual relationships should be seen as exactly equal to heterosexual relationships.  Thus, normalization is not just an argument that homosexual individuals should be given the same social considerations given to heterosexuals, but that homosexual relationships be given the same consideration of heterosexual relationships.

One argument for the normalization of homosexuality in the United States and the West is that there are cultures that have normalized homosexuality with no detrimental effects on their culture.  This argument is made by pointing to certain American Indian (the article entails a an example from a sociologist arguing that homosexuality was widely accepted within certain American Indian groups) groups or other populations (small and relatively unknown as they may be) throughout world history.  However, it is important to note that even these people admit that those who engaged in openly homosexual marriages did not live as two women, or two men.  Gender roles in society were always upheld through one of the partners taking on the role normally held by someone of the opposite sex.  In addition those engaged in homosexual activity are often noted as having special religious roles, such as acting as shamans or healers.

Even in ancient Western and Near Eastern culture there was open homosexuality within religious rites and practices.  However, these practices were generally recognized as limited to only this sphere of life.  Thus the argument for full cultural normalization of homosexuality cannot be established from either the religious practices of ancient cultures, or those of American Indian populations.  Moreover, those that argue for normalization of homosexuality must recognize that in making their arguments they are calling upon cultures that are vastly different from modern Western culture.  Thus, the importation of any practice from those cultures directly into our culture must be seen as a clear example of cultural change, and those who seek to establish cultural change must establish that the change they are seeking will lead to a superior culture.

I have yet to see an example where any culture has actually normalized homosexuality.  In the above mentioned cases where homosexual marriages were allowed, homosexuality was not normalized because the culture still enforced specific gender roles on the two partners.  For instance, in a homosexual union between two women in American Indian societies, one of the two women had to take on the traditionally male role of the household, including hunting and fighting in war.  Thus, while it may be argued that these cultures allowed individuals to engage in what we in the modern West call homosexuality, culturally these relationships would not have been seen as "homosexual" because of the strict enforcement of gender roles.  Those who seek to normalize homosexuality within Western culture have to accept that no culture has ever normalized homosexuality as it is defined today, and recognize that there are potentially good reasons for this.

There are potentially good reasons not to normalize homosexuality in modern culture.  Western culture has led to the greatest increase of wealth and freedom of any culture throughout history.  Ancient Western, Near-Eastern, and even far Eastern cultures that accepted limited homosexual expression were also extremely structured, so that gender roles and family connections generally limited the level of success any individual could expect.  Similarly, even today, those countries that would be considered part of Western culture enjoy the highest levels of freedom and individual wealth in the world (especially for openly homosexual individuals).  Thus, what are the overriding arguments that should require a significant cultural shift, such as accepting the normalization homosexuality?  And, if homosexuality were completely normalized, are there potentially unforeseen consequences that could lead to significant harm to modern culture?  We are under no obligation to assume the post-modern concept of cultural equality so as to quickly change our culture to another.

There can, perhaps, be an argument made that certain privileges which are granted to married couples in the United States, could be broadened to apply to others.  However, the case must be made for each privilege individually.  For instance, if a group wants to argue that the tax benefits given to married couples (whatever tax benefits may exist) should also apply to other relationships, the question must be asked, "Why are those tax benefits given?"  Likewise the privilege of automatic inheritance between married couples, such that a wife is the assumed heir of a husband, needs to examined in light of its purposes for those who would like to see this privilege extended to others.

No culture has ever normalized homosexuality as it is understood in modern Western culture.  Those cultures that have had some standardization of homosexual activities have also had religious and ideological structures that specifically allowed for this standardization.  The question that must be answered by those advocating for homosexual normalization in the United States today is whether or not the principles of these other cultures can be added to or assimilated by Western culture without leading to larger social breakdown and unforeseen consequences.  The article I linked to specifically notes, "Indian society did not conceive of the universe as being composed of absolutes and polarities of black and white, male and female, good and evil. Nor did it automatically equate gender identity and sex roles with biological sex characteristics."  This author's assumptions may be overstated (I have yet to see a culture that really did not have absolutes of "good and evil") but he does make an excellent point, and that is that Indian society had dramatically different assumptions as to the natural world and humanity in general than exist in Western culture.

Have we really considered all of the possible cultural consequences of normalizing homosexuality?  Are we willing to face those consequences?  What are the actual benefits to society?  Are the potential benefits sufficiently superior to the potential consequences, such that we are willing to risk the consequences?  Is there a more desirable solution than full normalization that will result in equitable treatment of individuals (if inequality can be proven) and not lead to cultural reformation?  (Remember, full normalization of homosexuality means not only granting homosexual individuals all of the same social considerations given to heterosexuals, but also granting full social and legal equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships as well.)