I've just become aware that part of the culture war over homosexuality has been waged via penguin stories. Really.
There is a pair of male Chinstrap Penguins (apparently the capitalization is appropriate) at the Central Park Zoo in New York City who were seen trying to hatch a rock together as if it were an egg. Zoo officials gave the penguins, Roy and Silo, an egg from a heterosexual penguin couple to see what they did. They hatched it and raised the chick, a female named Tango.
A children's book ("And Tango Makes Three") was written about the story thus far, but more has happened since then. The author opined that it was a reasonable tool to help parents explain same-sex parents to their children. Backlash against the book from social conservatives resulted in it being the most challenged and banned book in the USA for several years. Apparently, conservatives prefer the heterosexual penguins from "The March of the Penguins."
The penguins, of course, lived on after the book was written. Tango grew up and stayed with another female penguin ("Tanuzi") for two mating seasons. Roy and Silo broke up after six mating seasons when Silo seemingly left Roy for a female penguin from San Diego's Sea World named Scrappy. There are 4 other homosexual couples among the zoo's 65 Chinstrap Penguins.
Liberal lessons from these events:
- Homosexuality is natural, since animals do it.
- Homosexuals can have stable, long-term relationships (6 years out of a 20-year lifespan).
- Homosexuals can raise infants to adulthood.
- Without social stigma, about 13% of the population is gay.
Conservative lessons from these events:
- Young raised by homosexuals turn out homosexual.
- Homosexuality requires irrationality: rocks aren't eggs.
- Homosexuals eventually turn straight or go celibate.
- The Beach Boys were right about California girls.
But the most important lesson of all is this crap is stupid. The behavior of penguins proves absolutely nothing about the ideal behavior of humans, and only tells us what we already know about actual human behavior, except badly generalized and subjectivized.
Fine, it's entertaining water-cooler conversation. But when it starts getting op/ed space in the New York Times and people start advocating for the book to be banned from public libraries then people are taking this gibberish way too seriously.
(On another note, speaking as a social conservative, don't ban the stupid book. Just don't read it. Yeah, it irritates me, too. But freedom of speech should win, even if the speech is irritating.)
I agree. STUPID! If we are comparing ourselves to animals then we should be completely confused. Look how many different types of relationships you can find in the animal kingdom. We are our own species. We are not penguins! Blah.
ReplyDeleteI think the salient point is that there *are* many different types of relationships in many species
ReplyDelete(including a documented case of homosexual necrophilia between 2 birds -- seriously). Given that humans are (presumably) many times more complicated than animals (ability to reason, knowing that we know, etc.), is it not reasonable to assume that we *also* have many different types of relationships, certainly many more than the standard one man and one woman? That these should not be considered anything other than "normal" provided it is consensual between two legal adults?
Psudo: thank you for you last point regarding censorship - a point far too many conservatives seem to forget all too easily when the message in question disagrees with their point of view. "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it" -- surely that holds for conservatives and liberals alike?
From a law-and-government standpoint, you're basically right: government shouldn't be imposing and enforcing rules unless there's proof of some abnormality of an objectively harmful kind. Similarly, government shouldn't be advocating or rewarding behavior unless there is some abnormality of an objectively beneficial kind.
ReplyDeleteBut when dealing with individuals instead of governments, you miss the mark. There's no special reason any individual should be forced to accept anything as "normal" based on lack of evidence. It goes back to the same freedom of speech point you praised: anyone is free to think anything is "normal" or "abnormal", "acceptable" or "unacceptable", "moral" or "immoral" for any reason they find sufficient. Further, no law or enforcement should prevent expression of those views, provided tact and accountability still apply to the speaker. The ideal of freedom of speech would include a Christian saying "Homosexuality is wrong." and a homosexual saying "Christianity is wrong." and them getting along well anyway.
The friendship between Kjorteo and I exemplifies this approach.
Individuals rightly are their own masters, choosing what they do for their own reasons. To forcibly restrain them from action until they justify themselves is an act of oppression. The governed are the masters of any morally defensible government, and thus must arose public support through reasonable, persuasive arguments. For government to act without justifying themselves is an act of oppression.
In both cases, I oppose oppression.
And, yes, I will continue to avoid making any argument on the morality of homosexuality directly. That topic is a sinkhole into closed-minded partisanship.