I’ve been pondering a new phrase: pro-reality. I can use it to support opinions that may not line up perfectly with who would become my political base. Or really, I can use it to justify just about any position. It’s a great little tool.
For example, let’s say, “I’m pro-gay marriage.” At this point in time, many Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Now, people will immediately want to discard any other opinions I have simply because they disagree with me on this one issue. Ah, but not so fast, “I’m pro-reality.” Wait, they must be thinking, this is an intriguing turn of phrase and not part of any of the talking points I’ve been trained to ignore. “People don’t choose to be homosexual. It’s biological. So, we’re always going to have homosexual couples.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s right. That’s reality. “We have to deal with this reality.” Exactly what I was thinking! This guy makes sense. I wonder what he’ll say next. “I’m simply in favor of marriage for homosexual couples in order to give them to same legal rights as other married couples have. If one partner dies, we want the other partner to be able to inherit his or her things. It’s unfair any other way.” Hm, yes. That’s true. But I’m still not completely convinced that’s why we should allow gay marriage. “But I understand that some people are against gay marriage.” Hey, this guy understands my position and doesn’t think I’m a bigot. Maybe I will listen to the rest of what he has to say. “That’s why I’m also okay with civil unions.” (That’s the compromise qualifier. There’s also the implied “pro-reality” argument within the last two statements.) “See, all I want is for same-sex couples, a reality we have to deal with, to have the same legal rights as other couples.” That’s good. He doesn’t want to redefine marriage. He doesn’t want to tear down society. “I’m in favor of legal benefits for same-sex couples. I don’t want to redefine marriage. I have no hidden agenda. This is my agenda, and I think it’s fair, and I think it’s consistent with reality.” Oh, so this guy isn’t completely crazy simply because of his position he uttered at the start. I guess it’s okay to support him even though I disagree with him on one issue. In fact, I may be starting to agree with him on the civil unions thing.
I don’t think this was the best example, but you can see the power of the pro-reality argument. When you say you’re pro-reality, you control the facts. Thus, the audience automatically must agree with your premises. Then, you build a logically tight argument that allows for compromise (compromise being an essential component of being pro-reality), and there’s pretty much no conceivable way an opponent can disagree. No, I take that back, they can disagree, but there’s no conceivable way an opponent can paint you as a radical. And see, the way I lay out my argument, there’s no slippery slope for bestiality or polygamy. I was talking about couples. I was talking about reality.
I must add that this is my true position for gay marriage, and I hope I didn’t offend anyone by trying to simulate an opponent’s thoughts. I meant it to be humorous. However, I must add one thing to my argument. I am pro-gay marriage because I think it’s easier to give the legal benefits same-sex couples deserve through marriage, instead of trying to construct the all-new status of “civil union.” But like I said, I’m pro-reality, so I’m not automatically anti-civil union, as long as it provides legal benefits that same-sex couples should have.
Interesting concept. You need to work on the “logically tight argument” part of it though – the minute you said “it’s biological”, some alarms went off. That issue is still up for debate, as most of the studies haven’t established any causal relationship (e.g., that a person has a particular genetic difference or developmental difference in the structure of their brain that gave them an innate instinct to be attracted to the same sex). I do remember one study that concluded that gay men that are looking at pictures of attractive men activate areas of the brain similar to that of women doing the same thing (or at least, the brain pattern was very different from straight men’s). This sort of thing doesn’t establish a basis for saying the attraction is some sort of innate instinct – we can learn a taste for many things over time, and through subtle, not necessarily conscious means.
My point is simply this: while nobody really wants to believe that its just a lifestyle choice that can be tossed away like yesterday’s fashion, there’s still an ongoing empirical debate about it that will likely never reach eveb preliminary conclusions within my lifetime.
Disclaimer: I personally err on the side of believing that there is a mix of both choice and biology involved, with different ratios of either for individuals. I’m also pro gay marriage, both because its only fair (constitutionally or otherwise), and they’ll probably do a lot better with it than straight people have done in the past anyway – at least the early ones, since they’ve really had to fight for it.
David,
Some alarm bells went off in my head when I wrote those words too, but I think they were of a different type than yours. I thought, “Hm. Should I really put this? Aren’t there some people who think people choose to be homosexual?” But people don’t choose to be homosexual. Same-sex relations are a reality for humans, just as they are a reality in the natural world for animals, i.e. these penguins.
Still, I think we can both agree, and I think most reasonable people can agree, that even if you’re skeptical of a biological basis for homosexuality, there’s no gay switch that you can just shut off. There are going to be homosexual couples. They deserve legal rights.
I don’t doubt that homosexuality has a biological origin. However, I would not say that every proclaimed homosexual is necessarily driven by biology. Perhaps I did not make this distinction clear. There’s no doubt that it occurs regularly in animals and humans for purely biological reasons. I just read “As Nature Made Him”, an account of a boy who was genetically male, but due to a botched circumcision, was castrated and surgically altered to be raised as a girl. In the end, he rejected the gender role thrust upon him, and is now living happily married with a wife and three kids. I’d definitely say that there is a genetic/hormonal basis for erotic attraction.
I just figure that there has to be some amount of gays that simply chose to be – no biological basis – and that these are likely the ones who successfully “converted” back to being hetro because of their religion – spawning a whole evangelical movement of trying to ‘convert’ gays that really have no choice. There is probably a majority of biologically motivated gays, but my bet is there are at least a few that are solely intellectually motivated, thus making the statement “it’s biological” a misnomer. That’s all.