It is very difficult to enter the fray regarding homosexual marriage. Gay activists require a degree of courage because there is still an element of real homophobia in the Irish public.
On the other hand, such activists are guaranteed uncritical support from most of the media. Without implying that the degree of discrimination is the same, anyone who proposes anything less than full parity between heterosexual and homosexual unions is also likely to be nervous. There is every possibility that they will be branded a homophobe. Homophobia is defined as a hatred or fear of homosexuals. There are few who would wish to incur such a description, especially when it is inaccurate or unfair.
The first casualty in war may be truth, but the first casualty in debates involving sexuality is balance. For example, the recent Vatican document was greeted variously as homophobic, hate-filled and as an incitement to hatred. Yet it is simply a re-statement of a moral position regarding marriage which is well-known.
Simply stated, marriage is a union of one man and one woman who commit to a love which will endure. Marriage provides the optimum environment for the birth and nurturing of children and as a result, it plays a major part in the stability of society. The Vatican document, in reiterating that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, no doubt hurt many people of homosexual orientation, and that hurt should not be taken lightly. Should it be termed homophobic, though? The document states that "according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
How is this homophobic? It is hurtful to many people that the institution of marriage may be redefined in a way which contradicts their basic beliefs, and that this may be done without their consent by legislation. Yet this hurt is considered irrelevant to the debate.
There is a real danger that those who are subjects of intolerance will become intolerant in their turn. Those who condemn others for judgmentalism are often extremely quick to label and judge those who do not agree with them. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
The question of tolerance does not arise when I have no problem with someone else's belief. I am may only be termed tolerant when I am willing, first, to put up with and secondly, to listen with respect, to someone I believe to be in error.
Similarly, judgmentalism is not about making a judgment that someone is wrong, which people do all the time.
The term judgmentalism is only properly applied when there is real evidence of a false sense of moral superiority engendered by my judgment that someone is wrong. Could advocates for gay marriage be considered to be immune to this kind of judgmentalism?
In a pluralist society, arguments cannot be settled by appeal to religion. Yet it is ironic to seek to silence religious organisations, given that gay activists would rightly resent being denied a right to set out their position. We should also be wary of excessive talk of rights. Simply stating that something is a right does not make it so, but it does make it more difficult for an opponent to oppose an argument. It is an attempt to short-circuit debate by automatically consigning those who oppose such alleged rights to the ranks of the reactionary and regressive.
There are many who would feel sympathy for the predicament of, say, a gay partner who is excluded from the bedside of a dying lover, or from funeral arrangements.
To grant certain rights of inheritance to gay partners would also be favoured by many.
Yet there is still resistance to the idea of gay marriage, and even more to gay adoption or surrogate parenthood. Rather than homophobia, this may represent a concern for the rights of any children brought into such unions.
To say that it is irrelevant whether someone is raised by two people of the same sex or by a man and a woman is at the very least highly questionable. The premise is that in a union of two men, the mother's role is replaceable, and in a union of two women, that the role of a father is irrelevant. Can we justify conducting a social experiment to determine whether that premise is correct, given that the subjects of that experiment will be children?
Activists often cite research that purports to show that children of gay unions are not any different from children reared in heterosexual unions. Yet Prof Ann-Marie Ambert, a Canadian sociologist who has been involved in family research since 1971 and who is sympathetic to gay marriage, says that there are major problems with the studies. Subjects tend to be self-selected or selected by researchers.
She says: "Obviously, such an approach draws relatively educated couples who maintain links to the homosexual community, may be activists, and are fairly young." This skews the results. There are other problems with the research such as the absence of control groups. Like many other researchers, she points out that the idea that Kinsey's claim that 10 per cent of the population is gay has never been replicated in reputable studies. She cites carefully designed studies which indicate that those who are exclusively homosexual may be closer to 3 per cent for men and 1.6 per cent for women.
At the very least, the case that the gender of parents is irrelevant remains unproven, while as explored in previous columns, there is a strong body of research which indicates that the current model of marriage involving one man and one woman is the best environment for children. That is not to say that individuals who are gay and who are currently raising children may not make very fine parents, or to propose that they should be treated with anything less than respect.
It is difficult for people involved in any argument concerning sexuality to remain calm, because sexuality is such an intrinsic part of our humanity.
Gay and lesbian people have often been treated in a despicable fashion solely because of their orientation. Naturally, some have been embittered by this experience. However, it advances nothing to apply an often inaccurate label of homophobe to those who disagree with them.
bobrien@irish-times.ie