Another failing argument about gay marriage

I've recently explained in this post how Jonathan Rauch has made arguments for gay marriage based on the blue meme of consciousness (i.e., mythic and mythic-rational) according to the typology of Spiral Dynamics, and why Spiral Dynamics explains how and why those arguments ultimately fail to persuade. Now, in the interest of fairness and balance, a few words to show how arguments from the blue meme against gay marriage also fail.

There are many conservative voices I could choose from, but I'll look to the blogosphere where I find some recent posts by the conservative Catholic David Morrison. In Sed Contra, Morrison recently articulated a common anti-gay marriage view:

As an American you have the right, post Lawrence, to pretty much do whatever you like by way of homosexual sex in the privacy of your home. You do not have the right, however, to demand that society celebrate, sanction or otherwise act as though that behavior is a good. Conversely, society does have the right to decide what sorts of behavior in which it has an interest and to reward, or not reward, those behaviors.

To sum up Morrison's take: (1) homosexuality is only about voluntary behavior, not an involuntary variation of sexual orientation and identity that is valuable to society and in itself; (2) marriage is not a right, but a privilege given to "reward" individuals for certain behaviors (unstated, but presumably procreative heterosexual sex and childraising). Note that both (1) and (2) must be true in order for Morrison's views to prevail, yet both these points are asserted rather than argued. Their truth is considered self-evident based on Morrison's blue meme presuppositions.

I believe both points (1) and (2) are not-so-true. Specifically, they are both potentially (relatively) true at the blue (mythic or mythic-rational) meme of consciousness evolution, but they are revealed as false on the orange and green subsequent levels of consciousness development and they are revealed as partially and relatively true at yellow and higher.

For (1) to be true, I believe one must ascribe to a blue meme/premodern (e.g., Thomistic) anthropology; more modern concepts of personhood suggest convincingly that homosexuality is about far more than voluntary sexual behavior. That is to say, when you base your understanding of gayness based on a mythic view of reality (that is, the unverifiable dogmas of revealed religion), then you must adhere to the traditional view that equates gayness with specfic voluntary sex acts (i.e., sodomy), regardless of the findings of the human and biological sciences. You are locked into a straightjacket view of sexuality that is act-based and is stuck at the conventional level of moral development (where "conventional" refers to widely held views of moral psychological development such as those described by Kohlberg and Gilligan).

The limitations of (1) should be obvious: it reduces gayness to voluntary behavior, whereas the full truth is far more complex, spiritually, psychologically, culturally, biologically, and socially. At higher levels of consciousness, gayness is ultimately perceived as a natural variation on sexuality that is not more or less morally worthy than more typical (i.e., heterosexual) variations, because all sexual orientations are manifestations of deep universal structures of reality. The objectively true, positive value (or "goodness") of gay, bisexual, and straight sexual variations becomes fully apparent at the yellow (integral) level of consciousness.

For (2) to be true, I believe one must ascribe to a blue meme/premodern (e.g., Thomistic) political philosophy, or at least view that such a philosophy appropriately describes the marriage issue, while inconsistently denying that it applies to other areas. In (2), the vast multitude of state and federal rights associated with marriage are overlooked or dismissed (often this is accompanied by protestations that gays who are concerned with rights can duplicate them through private contracts, a claim that simply is not entirely true). Because there is supposedly no right to marriage, it is perfectly consistent at this level of consciousness to deny marriage to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals on the basis of purely arbitrary whims of the majority, such as the race of the spouse.

Morrison, in a typical conservative argument, tries to avoid this pitfall in his beliefs by claiming (if I may extrapolate a bit) that it is not a good thing to discriminate on the basis of a spouse's race, but it is a good thing to discriminate on the basis of a spouse's sex. And yet in a pluralistic society, this argument amounts merely to an assertion that the traditionalist's concept of The Good is superior to the values held by those who disagree. The blue meme's political philosophy is classically theocratic; it seeks to shove its concept of the Good down the throats of all in society, and recognizes no universal rights that trump its supposedly Divine revelations from God, Goddess, or Prophet. Remember, in Morrison's view as with Rauch's, there is no "right" to marry, only a matter of which concept of the Good society shall enforce on all its members.

Morrison's arguments succeed and fail for exactly the same reasons as do Rauch's: the blue meme has not yet grasped the evolving nature of consciousness, and so it elevates valid but partial concerns and concepts of personhood to supposedly universally valid abstractions. Morrison's twofold mantra is wrong (or, more precisely, limited and partially true) twofold. He views homosexuality as merely behavior (not an involuntary condition that is valuable to society), and claims marriage is a privilege (not a universal human right). Even where it seems as though Morrison recognizes rights (i.e., "As an American you have the right, post Lawrence..." actually the context makes this reading dubious. I suspect Morrison is actually referring to merely invented rights proclaimed by judges, rights that could easily be overturned. I see no reason to believe that Morrison recognizes any sort of universal, inalienable right to private sexual behavior or marriage.)

To sum up: Rauch and his many conservative opponents seem to be taking diametrically opposed views; in fact, their views are merely the opposite sides of the same, partial, limited, and not-so-true coin. The blue meme cannot appreciate the values of more highly evolved states of consciousness, because those states are not (yet) recognized as such. Blue believes "all gods are idols except mine" and the more it secretly begins to doubt this dogma in its heart, the more rigid and fundamentalistic it often becomes in its practice. Only when blue moves beyond its ethnocentrism towards a truly universalistic, rational, and transcendent perspective does it recognize the inadequacies of its arguments against gay marriage.

Comments

[Greg]

Joe,

Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Morrison's position, which leads you straight of a logical cliff. His position rests on the premise that, voluntary or not, some behavior is right and other behavior is wrong, and that society has the right not only to decide which is which, but to demand that the wrong behavior be kept behind closed doors.

You've extrapolated the wrong conclusions. To understand Morrison's position, and that of most conservative Christians, you have to come to terms with two things:

First, that there are such things as absolute right and wrong. Christianity rejects moral relativism, an easy (read: lazy) way to avoid the troublesome notion of judgement.

Second, that to proceed on the premise that because something is involuntary it therefore cannot, by definition, be sinful, is to miss completely the Christian understanding of sin. We are all sinners, and we sin by mis-using those things God gave us. As long as you fail to understand this central point - or insist on disregarding it - you will never be able accurately to characterize or refute the conservative Christian position.

[Joe]

Hi Greg:

Thanks for your response. You may be right or wrong about whether I've got Morrison's position pegged, but if I'm wrong, it's not for the reasons you state.

For one thing, you confuse moral relativism and liberalism. They're very different. I'm a liberal, not a relativist. A moral relativist claims there are no universal moral principles; a liberal claims that society must not be governed by any one person or group's (thick) conception of The Good, that persons must be free for self-determination and pursuing the Good, so long as they don't interfere with others' universal human rights. Some liberals combine their view with relativism, but I certainly don't, because that view is self-contradictory. I believe that human rights and liberal values such as tolerance are universally valid, and good. Liberalism as I understand it requires that society be governed by the "thinnest" possible conception of The Good. The conservative case against gay marriage is a "thick" conception of the Good (you are basically saying that your theological views can and should be shoved down the throats of others in society who vehemently disagree with you. If your views were about your own behavior, fine. Don't have a gay wedding. But you have no right to restrict my individual freedoms.) Make no mistake: I am not "avoid[ing] the troublesome notion of judgement" as you imply. I believe Morrison is objectively wrong. (Or, more precisely, that his views are relatively true as a statement at the blue meme of consciousness development, but wrong at higher levels, and seen ultimately as partially true and partially wrong.)

Greg: "because something is involuntary it therefore cannot, by definition, be sinful" I have made no such assumption... and if I did, it would be irrelevant, because you are welcome to judge behavior sinful, but in a liberal society you may not force your behavior on others if it interferes with universal rights such as marriage.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you felt that you understood my position well enough to comment on it. I wrote this post mainly with an audience in mind that is familiar with the presuppositions of Spiral Dynamics. Your post evidences that you are unfamiliar with Spiral Dynamics. while you are welcome to read, disagree, and post your comments, I feel compelled to observe that unless you take the time to understand my own presuppositions, further discussion is meaningless.