Howard Dean, erstwhile candidate for President of the United States, clearly stated that electoral contests ought not to revolve around god, guns and gays. But, there seems to be a wide-spread consensus that's exactly what happened. The question is why? What's the connection between god, guns and gays, other than that these three one-syllable words all begin with the letter 'g'?
Gods, regardless of whether or not they are real, are obviously superior beings whom man aspires to emulate. The question is how? And that's where the gun comes in. Guns, just the latest version of any weapon which allows him to extend his power and reach, enable man to threaten or exterminate any man who might refuse to recognize or challenge his god-like superiority.
But what does this have to do with gays? Well, the fact is that, in addition to the use of weapons to threaten or dominate other men, man has traditionally defined his superiority in his relationship to women. That is, in the union between a man and a woman, the relationship was that of a superior to an inferior. The inferiority of women being clearly evident from the fact that they are not men.
It is this relationship of superior to inferior that is threatened by the union of same-sex individuals, male or female. It is a threat that is not just theoretical because if some individuals can find mutual and social support as equals, then the inequality enshrined in traditional heterosexual unions becomes both more obvious and less likely to be accepted. Given an options of choosing between being subservient and being free, most people are likely to prefer freedom, thereby undermining the very principle of superiority upon which society is assumed to be based.
If society is made up of superiors and inferiors then relationships based on the equality of individuals, regardless of gender, are indeed a threat to the traditional arrangements.
On the other hand, Howard Dean was mistaken when he argued that the people, whose interests have traditionally been encapsulated in the terminology of gods, guns and gays, have a greater interest in education and health coverage for their children. If their children were really a priority concern, they would bust their buts to satisfy these interests, instead of going out and acquiring another gun and another pick-up.
Health coverage for children is a social interest and arises out of the recognition that disease is infectious and a threat to everyone with whom sick children come in contact. The only thing superior men want FROM their children, rather than FOR their children, is their obedience. And, since sickly children are less likely to be able to do what they are told, they might as well be left to expire. Ditto for the women who get worn out by their reproductive efforts. There's no need for divorce, if women die prematurely and can be replaced by a sturdier substitute.
If this interpretation is correct, that the traditional value being protected is the "natural" superiority of the male, then what's truly objectionable about gays is their commitment to an egalitarian existence. Whether this is a civil rights issue is questionable. The notion that some humans are naturally superior and others are inferior is not likely to be change by writing some new laws. Of course, if we don't even recognize that traditional social organization assumes that some people are naturally superior to others, inequality is bound to persist.
The question we should be asking is whether society is better off supporting relationships in which the participants assume unequal positions, or those in which the participants are exactly the same. I would, of course, argue that the latter are preferable. Inequality can only be sustained by a greater or lesser amount of force or coercion and societies which have to rely on the use of force are bound to be unstable in the long run. On the other hand, humans are social creatures and regardless of how often particular social organizations collapse, others are sure to take their place.
Posted by Hannah at November 3, 2004 11:39 AM