Osler's Razor

A slightly different take:

When these stories come out--and that is a fairly regular occurrence--I always want to interject the possibility that gay politicians vote against gay rights because in their heart of hearts they may sincerely believe homosexuality to be wrong.

Obviously, the morality of homosexuality is in play in contemporary society--but we know that reasonable people will differ on this question.

Is it so hard to imagine a gay man, so convinced that his proclivity toward same-sex relationships is wrong that he builds a life according to the model he sees as moral and upright and more constructive to society?

In the same vein, is it so hard to imagine that same person often losing out to his sexual and emotional longings?

The hypocrisy angle, of course, is the ubiquitous conversation when these things happen (which, of course, is partly a function of Democratic and Republican politics). However, it seems to me there is a larger and vastly more interesting human tragedy at play here.

As for being happily gay and voting against homosexuality solely as a function of representing your constituents, this is a ridiculous assertion--manufactured hastily out of desperation most likely.

I
 

Maybe he can appropriate some state funds to support his treatment at Ted Haggard's deprogramming camp.
 

I think he votes in a way that maximizes his chances of keeping his job.
 

Yes, he essentially ran--and was elected by his constituents--as a different person, as a straight, non-gay person. Perhaps he did this for the reasons Waco Farmer stated. But that's the hypocrisy, to me, and it's the hypocrisy his constituents would be upset with.
 

AWF -- while I generally have deep respect for your views, and in this case I really want to you give you the benefit of the doubt that it was just your wording or my misunderstanding, I'm not sure that "we know that reasonable people will differ on this question" (the morality of homosexuality).

There is nothing reasonable about the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Just as there is nothing reasonable about the belief that racism is moral. Unless we endorse total value relativism, there are certain values that a society (whether that be defined by a nation-state or humanity writ large) must claim as certain.

Perhaps I might suggest that the morality of speciesism is in play; some think it immoral to kill animals, and some are fine with it. But to think homosexuality might just be immoral -- there's nothing reasonable about that view.

Before this thread gets totally off Prof. Osler's fantastic prompt though: I agree with Swissgirl (and everything else AWF said) here. He ran as a conservative, straight dude. He is a conservative, gay dude. It may or may not be hypocritical, but the larger tragedy (right word choice) is that humans must feel ashamed about at least a part of who they are, so long as that part is moral (if I like killing babies, maybe I a bit of shame about that is a good thing).

He could still be conservative for economic, security, and many other social reasons, but there's no way he should be voting against gay rights legislation.
 

Profiles in Courage by JFK is a good read on this subject.
 

I don't know if I find this to be all that ludicrous or hypocritical. I can think of lots of examples where you might have personally held beliefs, that might be in conflict with the way you vote politically, and it is for completely legitimate reasons.

For instance, in my personal life, I think I would never want to be in a situation where a child I fathered would be aborted. I ultimately understand that our country has given women the right to make that choice, but to the extent that I had any input on the choice in my personal life I would be in favor of having the child.

At the same time, if I had to vote on a state referendum on whether to make abortion illegal in the State of Texas, I would vote in favor of allowing abortion to continue. This has nothing to do with hypocrisy, but instead stems from the fact that I genuinely mean it when I say that I hate government entanglement in society, and to the extent possible I would choose to limit that involvement.

Another example, I hate guns. Don't own them. Won't own them. They scare me. But, I also hate gun control legislation, but again I don't find this hypocritical because my opposition to gun control has nothing to do with my personal feelings about guns, but instead has to do with my belief in the constitution and again my dislike of state overreach.

So, I know this isn't the reason he gave, but isn't it possible that he is gay, and has an active gay lifestyle, but also believes that the government doesn't have a role in sponsoring that lifestyle, or that government efforts to give "equal rights" to homosexuals, such as gay marriage, are an example of government overreach. I'm not saying this is my position, or a correct position, but it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that he could both be gay and also be against so-called "pro-gay rights" legislation.

As to Osler's original point, I think it is better for a politician, assuming they are lying about their positions when the run for office in order to get elected, to actually follow through on those lies when they get to congress than it is for a politician to lie to the electorate to get elected, and then once they get to congress simply abandon the positions they ran on completely. Both people are liars, but at least one is noble enough to stick with what he told the people he would do.

Septimus says, "there's no way he should be voting against gay rights legislation." Really? There is no situation in which a gay person could disagree with a piece of "gay rights legislation"? Their entire political philosophy has to be so myopic that they allow their homosexuality to be the dominant force in their voting? I can think of lots of reasons a gay person may not like a particular piece of "gay rights legislation", and would vote against it regardless of their sexual preference.

Finally, hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice. There is nothing I care about less than someone being a hypocrite, because talk about a situation where it would be hard to find a person without sin to cast the first stone.
 

Two Things:

1. I apologize for hijacking the excellent prompt. Just thinking out loud.

2. Septimus: I think I will stand behind my assertion that the morality of homosexuality is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. Like most moral issues, homosexuality is presently, has been historically, and will be in the future, determined by a moral consensus. Community mores are inherently democratic.

What we as a society decide is moral, therefore, by definition, is moral--and vice versa. Our collective beliefs dictate social mores (a moral zeitgeist--if you will). Some are easy. No one ever objects to murder as immoral. On the other hand, we are deeply divided as a polity over whether terminating the life of an unborn child (as long as we have the permission of the mother) is immoral. Ditto for capital punishment. Reasonable people will disagree.

Right now homosexuality is in play on a whole host of different levels: same-sex marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military, civil rights protection for gay Americans, etc.

All of those are both moral and political questions.

I am assuming you do not hold any religious scriptures as authoritative on this issue. Therefore, Septimus, on what authority do you base your definitive assertion that "no reasonable person could find homosexuality immoral"?

Where am I going with this?

I am guessing your moral values are anchored to something somewhere: natural law, natural rights, the Declaration of Independence, the UN Charter, the philosophy and example of Gandhi and/or MLK, something.

Why can't a reasonable person reject the basic assumptions to which you adhere and offer other reasonable underpinnings (with which you are free to disagree) for categorizing homosexuality with some of the other sexual orientations that we find repugnant and legislate against?
 

"There is nothing reasonable about the belief that homosexuality is immoral." - WOW. How profound that a majority of America (and the world) has been castigated as unreasonable. Now that we all know the right path, I'm glad we can move forward with reason.

As for the original question, I think it goes a bit deeper into the idea of whether our representatives should be merely an example of a constituent voting their own conscience or actually vote with the will of the majority of the actual constituency. In his own mind, Ashburn might actually have believed the second ideal was more important. In an effort to keep his job, make his constituents happy, and because that's the votes they would want, he voted that way.

If he believes the first ideal, he either voted against the legislation because he believed it immoral or wrong for one reason or another, or was simply a hypocrite.
My point is this, there are alot more reasons for him to vote the way he did that make the choice "moral", "efficient," or "right,"(in his mind) rather than him just being a liar and a hypocrite.

Is it wrong to just give him the benefit of the doubt?...I don't know where I fall on that because I also believe he got caught and answered like he did in haste. He may not even understand the interesting question posed here depending on how smart he really is. Maybe he just never really asked himself the same?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I think this case illustrates the danger that attends condemnation as a political agenda.

Also, I think Waco Farmer got this spot-on:

"When these stories come out--and that is a fairly regular occurrence--I always want to interject the possibility that gay politicians vote against gay rights because in their heart of hearts they may sincerely believe homosexuality to be wrong."
 

First time poster but long time follower.

When it comes to social equality and corresonding freedom and liberty interests, a representative should always vote for equality and freedom regardless of pressure from one's constituents.

For example, southern legislators should have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was the right/moral/ethical thing to do, regardless of what their constituents wanted, even knowing full well it would have been political suicide.

As Victor Hugo exclaimed after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the Senate, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

As to whether or not it's reasonable to believe homosexuality is immoral reminds me of those who claimed that intermingling of the races would lead to the downfall of the United States. Just as time has shown the faulty and dim-witted logic that those who espoused that type of thinking, time will once again show the arguments and suggestions that homosexuality and homosexuals are immoral is just as pathetic.
 

As an aside, that is a snappy shirt and tie he's got on in the picture.
 

RRL - very well stated.

~*~*~
 

There are lots of gay Republicans. I don't get it either, because I generally assume people do not act against their own interest, but there you have it.

I think it's perfectly plausible that a legislator could seem herself as merely a channel for the will of her constituents. That seems rational.

Except for the fact that hardly is there ever a uniform constituency. Even saying that you represent the "majority" view is dangerous, because as lawyers well know, the generality with which you state a proposition often influences whether people will agree with it.

However, I recognize that stance as philosophically valid, and even commendable to a certain degree. A legislator that ignores the will of the people is not being a good steward of democracy.

On the other hand, how do we draw the line between being an honest and ethical person (two qualities we ought to seek in our representatives) that must at times vote in accord with personal principles rather tan the will of the populace? If, for example, the constituency of a particularly racist district somewhere in the South wanted that Representative to sponsor a bill to remove the 13th Amendment, would we impute a duty to that representative to follow through, even if she found the action morally repugnant?

This is where a little more hypocrisy creeps in. I'm sure liberals will paint Ashburn (like they did with Craig and Haggard) as hypocritical and deceptive, all without realizing the irony that they are largely the same group criticizing professionals like pharmacists that refuse to dispense contraceptives.

There is an interesting intersection between "doing your job" (e.g., representing your district, dispensing medication) and "living with your values" that people, especially lawyers, ought to be more sensitive to. Ultimately, as autonomous moral beings, we must determine for ourselves if our actions represent something that could be willed as universal law. We have, to use the vernacular, to look at ourselves in the mirror every morning.

And it's tough; I think anyone that doesn't agonize over the conflict between professional conduct and personal ethics does not follow the Socratic dictum of living an analyzed life.

So no, I won't condemn Ashburn for his legislative philosophy, and certainly not for his homosexuality. But I would suggest that he ask himself this question in the future: why is it that I have first-hand experience of the oppression homosexuals suffer at the expense of the law and our culture by being one myself, and still work to support a system I know is unjust, just because some of the people who elected me might feel that way? Am I bound to represent the will of people that I know in my heart to be wrong?
 

I like all of those thoughts Lane, though i question whether or not Ashburn "knowns in his heart" that what he was doing was wrong.
he might have thought he was doing right or never really thought about it at all.

Working with the kinds of people I do, I tend to believe in the stupidity of people as a starting point. This forces me to believe that, in this situation, he never asked himself any questions, and never realized he had a moral obligation to be introspective with his decisions.

Granted, my philosophy isn't one that sees the best in humanity, but I think it explains alot.

Like for instance, why anyone would attend UT.
 

Since I already responded to the (again, a really complex, wonderful) prompt, I do want to respond to the secondary question here. From the simplest point to the more messy ones:

Dallas_ADA:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't truly believe that a majority determines moral rectitude. A majority of Hutus believed that the Tutsis of Rwanda were not fully deserving of life, and so slaughtered between a 1/2 million and a million Tutsis in 100 days in 1994. A majority of people in the south, if not in the whole country, believed that blacks didn't deserve basic rights and equal protection, but they were wrong. I would never say we know the right path -- but as we realize historical wrongs, we can work towards redressing them. Reason is not static.

RRL:
I never said that one has to allow their homosexuality to be the dominant force in their voting/political philosophy; as one of my brilliant former students said, "ANYone whose sexuality is the dominant force of their identity is boring" -- straight or gay -- so I certainly don't think that one's sexuality should guide their political philosophy (straight or gay). I think I made that clear when I said that I see plenty of reasons why a homosexual would be a Republican, even if I don't see why they would vote against gay *rights* legislation.

AWF:
The broader point here is that homosexuality has historically been discriminated against. We are working towards a community mores that redress that injustice; my statement was a declaration that there is no reasonable moral position that adheres to this historic discrimination. Perhaps I should have said there is *no longer* a reasonable position that judges homosexuality as immoral. I recognize, as I think you suggest, that there HAS been, but there no longer is. Just as, in the 1960s, there was no longer any reasonable position that adhered to the historical position that racism could be moral. I won't judge Jefferson for holding slaves because he lived in a community with a different moral consensus (to use your words). I would argue that since the 1970s (maybe Stonewall), but certainly by now, the position that homosexuality is immoral is no longer reasonable.

In my discipline, one of the hot topics is theories of the post-human and animal studies, which question what is human and what is non-human. What I said in my previous post was that I can imagine that the question of killing an elephant or polar bear (as charismatic mega-fauna -- we already protect dogs!), let alone a gnat catcher, holds a range of reasonable moral positions. But -- just as HoustonADA eloquently posts -- the position that homosexuality is immoral is only akin to any stance that inter-racial marriage, let alone limiting voting rights or equal access to basic citizenship rights by race or ethnicity, is immoral: it is outdated.

So I don't disagree with 99% of what you say (as usual), but I DO disagree that it is *still* reasonable to hold the position that homosexuality is immoral. In your second post you blur the line between homosexuality, as a choice of who you sleep with and/or love, and policies that seek to ensure equal rights homosexuals. I would separate these, but use the first to guide the policy decisions that are working toward bettering our society.
 

Just a quick further clarification: I definitely hold to the position that there is nothing reasonable about the position that *homosexuality* is immoral.

I'll accept that the policy process toward redressing the historical discrimination against homosexuals will entail some debate and take some more time. But my first post responded to AWF's statement that homosexuality itself could be reasonably viewed as immoral.
 

Dallas_ADA (Dada?) -- while I sympathize with your views on human stupidity (who couldn't, doing what we do), I tend to believe/hope that elected representatives are of a higher intellectual class than common street thugs. Then again, maybe I'm being unfair to common street thugs.

I don't know Ashburn's personal life, just like I don't know Craig's or Haggard's... but their public life is very at odds with their private behavior, which saddens me. Not simply because I disagree with their public sentiment, but because I think they'd probably be living a happier life if they felt like they didn't have to repress parts of who they are to conform to a social expectation. I wonder how much of their public condemnation of homosexuality stems from the shame that they ought not to feel about having homosexual desires and feelings (whether they truly are homosexual, bisexual, asexual or another part of the great, uncategorifiable mess we call sexuality), and how much better they and others might feel if they were honest with themselves and their feelings.

Septimus:

I agree with you that in terms of the rational space of ethics, it is difficult to argue on any basis, for example, consequential or deontological, that homosexuality is morally wrong. However, from a cultural perspective (which is decidedly not rational/analytic) homosexuality is, if not a moral wrong, at least a taboo or subject to highly ritualized forms of expression.

While among people who are analyzing a subject rationally/philosophically, it becomes difficult to defend the position that homosexuality is a moral or ethical offense, among a more general section of the populace, and considering cultural factors like religion, the claim that "homosexuality is immoral" changes from a normative statement that we might employ in ethical reasoning to a cultural affirmation of a value, and I always hesitate when criticizing a culture from my vantage point of the college-educated modern professional. For some people, the cultural influences that lead them to claim that homosexuality is immoral are stronger than rational persuasion, and nothing can be done about that except to wait for the times to a'change and our culture to rid itself of taboos against homosexuality.
 

I'm a fairly simple guy who tends to think in fairly simple terms-- a natural consequence of being a fairly simple guy.
Thus, my initial reaction to the question posed-- should he vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents or based on his own moral stance?-- is that he is the representative of his constituency, and should, therefore, vote in accordance to their wishes.
Because I know I'm at least a little stupid, I did some (read: very little) digging to see if state senators' responsibilities were clearly outlined anywhere.
I didn't find anything about state senators, specifically, but did find this, written by Alexander Goldfinger, who spoke with a U.S. senator on this very question:

"In the course of my conversation with the U.S. senator, whom I had known for a number of years, I asked about some pending legislation which would vest more power and control in the Federal government and curtail individual freedom of choice. The senator frankly told me that his personal convictions were opposed to such legislation, but that the overwhelming ratio of letters and telegrams from his constituents was in favor, so he would vote in favor on a roll-call.

This led us into a philosophical discussion as to the role of an elected representative, as to whether the duty of the representative was to voice the wishes of his constituents which the elected representative deemed harmful to all citizens or to vote in accordance with his own convictions as to what is best and right.

The senator confessed that this problem weighed heavily upon him, but that he conceived his duty to be the representation of his constituents under the form of government we embrace. He cited the New England Town Meeting precedent where all policy matters were determined by a majority of the voters assembled at the meeting. The senator then commented that with our large population, such Town Meetings are not possible but that our representative form of government imposed an obligation upon the elected representative to vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of his constituents, even though, as an individual, he disagreed."

I don't necessarily think it makes a senator or representative a hypocrite to vote against or in favor of bills that their constituents oppose/favor, even if it contradicts their own beliefs.
He may have been a hypocrite as he ran for election, misrepresenting himself to be more like his constituency, but my take is that elected officials are charged with the responsibility of carrying out the wishes of those who elect them.
If he were to run as a openly gay man in that district, would he have been elected? Probably not.
I think he did his job, though.
And, like RRL-- who I love to disagree with, but can't here-- I think people can hold personal beliefs or feelings about an issue that are different from what they think is best for the whole of society. That may be worded weird, but I'm referring to RRL's fear and loathing of guns, but his desire for them to remain available to those who wish to own them.
That's all. Too long. Sorry if you read this whole thing.
 

Gee it's not like the majority ever got anything right.

And yes I will say that a majority does define morality. When it comes to laws and, obviously, not what you believe are absolute truths. I'll point you to the wonderful discussion we had here about that when Ken Starr was brought in as president at BU.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33679745&postID=6765154939822028486

At one point it was immoral to marry a person of a different race because the majority said so. The majority opinion changed and so did the laws.

But to claim that there is "now" not a rational and/or reasonable basis for the belief that homosexuality is immoral is also on the verge of faith and religion.

I at least understand the opposing viewpoint, and for purposes of the original question, even could see myself voting that way, if I felt it was the right thing to do.(maybe that is what Ashburn did)
But I wouldn't ever characterize a moral position (that I could comprehend) as unreasonable or irrational simply because it offended me or I disagreed with it.

You can use the miscegenation laws as the obvious counterpart to laws against homosexualtiy, while I'll go down the slope and make the analogy one of polygamy or incest with regard to morality and the intersection of laws.

Like I've mentioned before, I don't know what this guys motives are, and I bet he really hasn't had the thoughts to amount to 1/100th of the intelligent thought brought up here by everyone. But can it be possible that he sees value in both positions? or is anything restricting homosexuality immoral and we can just move on to calling this guy as such?
 

Two More Things:

1. Finally. If all else fails--address the real prompt. The question of whether elected officials should adhere to a "delegate" or "trustee" model of representation is in play here. It is a perennial dilemma for good reason (there is no definitive answer that works in every case). The only correct answer to this either/or question is "yes." Reps should feel the tension of those two poles and make the best decision on a case by case basis depending on a whole host of factors.

2. Back to the ancillary stream of argument. There are plenty of moral arguments against homosexuality that plenty of smart people of good will embrace. Aside from the religious-based moralities that informs billions of citizens of the planet earth--there is also a secular argument to be made that homosexuality is "unnatural" and destructive to individuals and society (albeit almost always made by religious intellectuals).

You can dismiss the religious traditions and disagree with the non-religious argument--but, again, I am not sure that you can pronounce a moral argument reasonable until I understand on what authority we are basing morality.

If not revelation, tradition, or community consensus--what?
 

Wow. A civil discussion of homosexuality. What's next, disagreeing in a calm and moderate manner on health care reform?
 

In re Micah's comment:

this reminds me--whatever happened to the liberal guy masquerading as the irate conservative guy in all caps????
 

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. ALL GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE BURNED BECAUSE THEY ARE, UH, DIFFERENT. SO WERE ALL THOSE GUYS WHO WANTED US TO PULL OUT OF VIETNAM THAT WE NEEDED TO NUKE, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM, OH YEAH, HIPPIES! AND LOOK WHERE THEY ARE NOW. ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE NOW, BUT LAST NIGHT I WAS LOOKING AT WIKIPEDIA FOR SOME REASON, AND THE ARTICLE ON LSD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ITS USE DECLINING AFTER THE '60S. YEAH.

SO, IN CONCLUSION, GAY PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND HEALTHCARE IS THE DEVIL.

--ALL CAPS GUY
 

Excellent
 

RE WACO RANCHER (FARMS ARE LIBERAL AND EVIL):

I AM AN IRATE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, NOT JUST AN IRATE CONSERVATIVE. JEEZ. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. PLUS, YESTERDAY I WAS IN MY OFFICE PRAYING FOR OBAMA TO REVEAL HIS TRUE FORM AS THE ANTICHRIST AND GOD TOLD ME THAT ALL LIBERALS ARE SOCIALIST COMMIE TERRORISTS. THOSE WERE HIS EXACT WORDS, I BELIEVE. AMAZING REVELATION, HUH?

STAY CONSERVATIVE, STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN, AND REPUBLICAN,

ALL CAPS GUY
 

Even better...
 

Waco, I'll definitely concede that an argument can't be pronounced reasonable until we know what ground one is standing in regards to morality, which indirectly was my point. Saying outright the opposite, that the argument is unreasonable just cause it's so, is just as tricky. I don't have any real doubt that this kind of thinking does not occur amongst our representatives. Hence, my opinion about Ashburn.

Maybe cause I'm a lawyer, I believe I only really see it happening when people are forced to put their beliefs to paper, much like everyone does here. Even all caps guy makes more sense than he would if he was standing on the side of university parks yelling the things he types.
I guess that's why I like the law and discussions about it and actually like to read opinions...like Scalia's! (even Lane's, especially when I almost agree with him...like today)

I guess that puts me in a good mood, thus Congrats to the Bears for beating the horns yet again. So much for that number 1 thing.
 

I got busy at the end of the day yesterday, but let just add this postscript a day later:

A) I'm so glad that Micah viewed the conversation as civil; I felt it was too, so it's good to know it would be viewed that way from the outside.
B) I'm not so naive as to think that my stance is shared (yet) by a plurality, let alone majority, of Americans, but I do think that's the trajectory. My comments were really an exercise in projection, a declaration of where we will be. I think the analogy to racism is absolutely appropriate.
C) AWF: As you know, 100% respect...but are you really going to drop the "natural" word? That concept has been so bastardized for the last 30 years or so that it lacks all meaning. If you mean that homosexuals can't procreate together, and so their behaviour is "unnatural," you forget that i) sexuality is more fluid -- one can sleep with both men and women, have a relationship with a woman, and then a man, and then a woman; ii) it only takes once to conceive; sex can happen multiple times a day; iii) maybe most theoretically: there's NOTHING natural about the world in which we live today...you live in Texas, and I live in Wisconsin, and we both regulate the spaces in which we live to make it more comfortable to live; even if you are a real farmer, I'm guessing you don't grow all of your own food...and this is just if these are definitions of "natural." So the idea that every human relationship need be about procreation is absurd: how many heterosexual couples can't, or choose not to, procreate? Why should every human relationship be about producing babies? Isn't it about love, friendship, and community?

Lastly, I just have to say (to the no one who will read this): I love debating things with lawyers! Y'all are well trained to think through questions...even if you're wrong on this issue still!
 

Septimus--

Thank you. Sometimes the training works. And for what it is worth, you are often brilliant, and always a great writer. It is an honor to have you on board.

Also, for the record, on this one I agreed almost entirely with RRL (almost).
 

A couple of (or maybe several) things for Septimus:

1. Let me reciprocate your kind personal remarks and associate myself with Mark's assessment of your writing and thinking. You are a pleasure to interact with.

In fact, I was gratified and also frightened (I didn't realize anybody was actually listening) to hear that you have formed a favorable impression of me over the years.

2. In re racism: I think it is a terribly self-serving analogy and, in my view, only obscures the key questions in the debate. The societal bias against homosexuality is a phenomenon much more deep-seated and far-ranging than the localized racial caste system Americans confronted during the twentieth century.

3. Playing the "natural" card. First, I should say that I have spent hours writing and thinking, and consuming countless gallons of metaphorical ink, arguing YOUR point on my now defunct blog. That is, I find the "natural" argument lacking.

Having said that, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural goes way beyond the mere question of procreation. You are absolutely right. If procreation is the basis of relationship (or, as more generally argued, marriage), then why do we allow barren heterosexual couples to wed?

I agree also that "natural" is way too ambiguous: women shave their legs--isn't this unnatural? And, even more problematic, tainted by religious teaching. Even when social conservatives make their case against homosexuality without the support of religious doctrine--they inevitably lean on their assumptions informed by their relgion.

For example, social conservatives argue that homosexuality is unnatural in the same way adultery or fornication is unnatural; that is, these behaviors lie outside of a summum bonum model for utmost emotional, physical, and societal health.

BTW, would you allow some in our society to see adultery and fornication as immoral? Or is that stance similarly unreasonable?

Now, Septimus, you surely might say that we don't punish or ostracize or legislate against fornicators and adulterers in the same way we do homosexuals. I agree.

And I think the trend you speak of in society is toward seeing homosexuality as an acceptable (dare I say) "deviation from the norm," but I think you make a mistake in attempting to deprive individuals or groups within that society from classifying homosexuality as immoral. As a community, we tolerate plenty of things that various groups see as immoral while simultaneously tolerating those who make moral judgments against those behaviors.

Why can't we allow for civil disagreement on morality in this case?
 

I guess what's really at issue in this discussion, aside from the issue of whether homosexuality if moral or not, is the issue of how someone can vote against what we would assume to be their self-interest. It's one thing to vote the way your constituents want you to . . . and I'm conflicted about the extent to which one should do that.

For me (and I think for Septimus), it's hard to imagine how a gay person could vote for legislation which would limit his freedoms. I have the same disbelief at why poor people vote Republican, frankly, but that's another discussion . . .

What I mean is, it's hard to imagine how someone can vote against legislation that affects their very identity, that affects the core of who they are. I also admit, however, that as hard as it is to believe, people still do it, occasionally: perhaps for a gay person there are things more important than being allowed to get married, or than punishing hate crimes more severely, although it's really hard to imagine how.

RRL gives the example of an overarching principle--i.e. limited government--that could be simuntaneously held with a conflicting indivual belief or practice.

It's just hard for me to see, though, how a person who's part of a population that still experiences discrimination and hate could have any overarching principle that would trump the state of his being gay.

It happens, sure, that gay people vote against their self-interest, and Christians vote for the death penalty, and poor people vote Republican. I would like to understand these things better, but I admit it's hard.
 

This is a great discussion of two (or more) issues. Relating to the first question posed, I do think members of Congress should vote the way the majority of their constituents would. They are not elected to represent their personal opinions and beliefs but to represent those of whom elected them. Of course, it would be ideal if those were symmetrical.
 

"gay people vote against their self-interest, and Christians vote for the death penalty, and poor people vote Republican. I would like to understand these things better, but I admit it's hard."

Hate to pick on you Swiss, but is it REALLY that hard? Is it so hard that people might have more going on than simple identifiers that you mention? I can list hundreds of reasons for each category, so why is it so hard for people to imagine that there might be more at play than a simple moniker.
I tend to categorize people conveniently as well (see my post above about stupidity) but I'd like to think that there are explainations for things that are a bit deeper than what you mentioned.
I know you weren't trying to generalize anyone in what I suspect was more of an off-hand comment, but isn't that the point we've been talking about in relationship to the original question? That there could be valid reasons to do as Ashburn did eventhough he is what he is?
Or do we choose not to accept those possible reasons because of our own beliefs?
And why do you assume that the votes affected his "identity" and the "core" of who he is? Maybe he's just not concerned with that part of his life, or maybe he's not defined by those things?

Wow, that sounded way to touchy-feely for me...I should stop! ;)
 

No, it's not too touchy-feely, Dallas ADA! I appreciate your comments; yes, I was generalizing too much about the other examples . . .

The example of a gay person voting against issues that affect gay people perhaps is a tough one for me because I have a lot of gay friends, and I see how negative public opinions affect them. Like I said, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who's gay and would vote against things that affect them directly, and even might hurt them directly . . .

It would have been much more interesting to hear what Ashburn said about that, rather than getting the impression that he was just voting how his constituents wanted. That seems like a cop-out explanation; that's all I'm saying. Maybe it isnt, but knowing that he was at least IN a gay bar seems to indicate the issue could be more complicated for him than just voting what his constituents wanted. But maybe not. For me, it's a story that begs for more information . . .