Sex: The Sequel

Great comments on yesterday’s post, some of which merit further discussion. I’ll begin with an e-mail I received that should start the ball rolling here:

You seem to make the assumption (as do most people....... especially "expert analysts" in the mainstream media), that the nuclear family has been disintegrating in recent years...... and largely due to a "liberal / progressive / sexually permissive / overly tolerant" approach that has consumed the nation over the last several decades. Alas: if only we could cling to those good old values conservatives and religious folk hold so dear!!

REALITY CHECK:
Not only is the national divorce rate on a steady and continuing decline in the last thirty years, but the highest divorce rates are in the SOUTH and the lowest divorce rates are in the NORTHEAST. (Massachusetts has consistently had the lowest divorce rate of any state.)

Although many socioeconomic factors influence the divorce rate in any given state (or region), it is invariably true that the states and regions that wear their religion and patriotism on their sleeve have the highest rate of families breaking up.

I must add that I was completely surprised that the states usually identified strongly with the LDS Church (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming) don't fare much better than the Southern states (where the Evangelicals are in large majorities) when the percentages are compared to the national average. Jews do even worse. Mainline Protestant faiths do best among organized religions. But ......... brace yourself....... agnostics and atheists have the lowest divorce rates BY FAR....

I'd be curious to read (either by email or on your blog) why you think the reality is so different from the popular perception.

This email was accompanied by an impressive group of stats which confirm the writer’s assertions. Candidly, I don’t have an answer as to why religious marriages break up more often than nonreligious ones. To hazard a guess, I would assume that religious people get married as a result of cultural pressures more often than non-religious ones do, which means the non-religious have their eyes wide open going in. And while atheists who marry may have a high success rate, it would also be interesting to see what percentage of atheists bother getting married at all.

But that’s another discussion altogether. My point wasn’t so much that too many marriages are ending in divorce; my point was that fewer people consider marriage a necessary institution in the first place.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in 1963, lamented the fact that the out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks was at a staggering 23.6%, compared to only 3.07% for whites. Yet today, 25% of white infants are born out of wedlock, compared to a staggering 70% of all black infants. The correlation between illegitimacy and poverty is well-documented and irrefutable. We now have a generation of African-Americans with no connection to a father or a traditional family, because nobody seems to recognize that getting married is a good first step before having sex and making babies.

Abbot of Arbroath, our friend from across the pond, chimed in with the following:

Stallion, you have some questionable underlying assumptions.

First, one basic is that secular society has given itself to “reckless abandon”. “Chastity is a destructive notion” is not something most educated and liberal people would consider. You have put words in other people lips and as such I call you on it! Ok you need to be able to generalise to write a blog but come on!

How do I know he’s from across the pond? One: he spells “generalize” in a flagrantly British manner. And, two, he says so later on in his comment. (Although let the record show I was clued in with the British spelling.)

But to address his point (which is, ironically, itself a generalization,) I can only offer my own anecdotal experience, which came from plenty of liberal and educated people telling me that if I wasn’t having sex in my twenties, something was seriously wrong with me. (But at least I had porn and everything, right? What? No porn, either? What is WRONG with you, Stallion?) None of them offered this sort of opinion in an academic setting, nor do I have stats to back it up, but I don’t think I’m wrong in recognizing it as reflective of the prevailing cultural winds.

I think he missed my point about the state coming between a “child and its sexually repressive parent,” as, in his comment, he proceeds to talk about sexual abuse. Make no mistake: I agree wholeheartedly that the state ought to step in – and aggressively so - when a child is sexually abused. That’s because today, the definition of sexual abuse does not include a parent who works to prevent their child from having sex. It’s tomorrow’s definition that I’m worried about.

He hits closest to home, however, when he talks about gay men who get married.

Many gay men have been married. They bear a burden alone which you cannot understand and neither can their community leaders or even their wife. I know a few who have killed themselves rather than give into “temptation”. I bet their children and their wife would have rather they addressed the issue honestly – however painful it may be than to see them driven to such deep despair that they take their life. You oversimplify this issue to your discredit.

Perhaps. I certainly plead guilty to not understanding the burden borne by those who are sexually attracted to the same gender. This has been a frequent topic of discussion on this blog, and I doubt I’ll break any new ground with this little essay. Abbot’s anecdotes are heartbreaking, although I can share some of my own, too. I know several married couples, not all of them Mormons, where the husbands have made no secret of their homosexual feelings, and both husband and wife have still been able to work together to build a stable, happy home for each other and their children. Earlier, Abbot chides me for equating sexual fulfillment with uncontrolled behavior, and now I’m in trouble for expecting a man attracted to another man to control that behavior to sustain a marriage. I can’t win for losing.

Then we get back into the gay marriage issue:

If marriage is such a wonderful control mechanism that delivers so much to you personally and to society, then you are a selfish b*stard to want to keep it to yourself.

That’s just it. I don’t want to keep it to myself. I don’t want to prevent ANYONE from getting married. (Unless it’s one of my daughters and they’re marrying a jerk, but that’s a separate discussion, too.)

I’ve talked about this extensively, too, but I’ll summarize. Abbot, you’re not asking for the right to marry. You already have that right. You’re asking me to recognize, as marriage, a partnership between two people which is not a marriage, thereby requiring me to overlook the reality that children need a mom and a dad.

I’m reminded of a classic moment from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, a film many of my LDS friends will find offensive, but which makes the point better than I could.

I provide video below, along with the accompanying script excerpt, taken from this source:



FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided
the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me
'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the
fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't
actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not
even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right
to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't
have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

I don’t know that Monty Python would appreciate this clip being put into service of a raging conservative argument, but just as Loretta can’t have babies, a gay couple can’t be the same thing as a mommy and a daddy. That’s a harsh reality for many, and it’s no fun to bring it up, because everyone wants to be inclusive and kind, and nobody likes to be reminded of realities that get in the way of their appetites, which leads me back to my original point, which is that I like McDonalds breakfasts.

Thank you.