Back
Gay Marriage, Grasshoppers, and Thinking Reeds
Essay by Lisa A. Flowers, Contributing Editor
The fact that gay marriage is being met with such overwhelming opposition, and in the 21st century, is simply another example of the intellectual limitations of humankind in general.
Nothing on earth is so overrated as human intelligence. The mind of human consciousness has shrunken progressively over the centuries, inferior to the perpetually superb functionality/harmony of the natural world. One thinks of the Greek legend of Tithonus and Aurora. Aurora, a goddess, falls in love with Tithonus, a mortal, and begs her "higher ups" to grant him immortality. But she does not think to ask that he remain young, so he ages through the centuries, shriveling steadily, until, out of pity, she turns him into a grasshopper; a kind of reverse evolution, mythologically speaking. I don't know if humankind should be hoping for a similar mercy, or we are already there.
The evidence: simply, numbers define "acceptable" reality. The thing that has the greatest appeal is the thing that will become widespread. The market is determined by popularity. Because huge numbers of people accept "tradition" (not to be confused with simple decency) without question, something perfectly logical and self evident is being met with a wall of mindless opposition. If mankind is indeed a "thinking reed," as Pascal said, he is a reed clogged with the most impenetrable figurative cholesterol.
Debate is rooted in logic. Fanaticism (be it extreme/aggressive or benign/subtle) is not conducive to meaningful debate. It's that simple. As far as I'm concerned, attempting to engage on an intellectual level with the religious right, pro-lifers, et al, is absolutely no different than arguing with a child who petulantly insists they shouldn't have to brush their teeth. It is not the place of the rational mind to engage the cerebrally deluded as if they had an equally valid but differing point.
"If we allow this, what's to stop us from allowing that?" The anti-gay marriage movement's "give an inch, take a mile" counterargument is baffling to a point that would be downright whimsical, if it weren't so sinister. Comparing same-sex unions to polygamy and bestiality is the height of obscurity. Doing so is the stuff of psychoanalytic private association, of dream logic; the dish running away with the spoon; great Uncle Frank morphing into Queen Elizabeth I. Still more curiously, those opposed to gay marriage seem compelled to imply that long-term, committed homosexual unions, indeed, homosexuality itself, is somehow "contemporary;" rooted primarily in an emerging New Age and/or activist movement. In fact, there is nothing "emerging" or political about it. Heterosexuality and homosexuality have grown up alongside each other since the dawn of functional homo sapiens-ism (I guess I just coined a word.)
Finally, as someone who finds left-wing liberals and left-wing ideology even more irritating and intellectually childish than the conservative religious right, I would propose not to expect such unassailably humungous numbers of stupid people to bring about "positive change" anytime soon. Change can happen in small doses, of course; but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it will ever move past a certain circumference. I applaud the efforts of certain segments of the activist movements (those working in the field of living, working reality as opposed to insouciance, that is.) Nevertheless, above all things it must always be remembered that there is a difference between the Ideal and the permanent, unchangeable condition of everyday reality at its worst. Education and social change will never be accomplished by dwelling on wistful "what if scenarios" that give humankind's collective intelligence more credit than it deserves.
Take that as you will. In the meantime, I will continue to cast my vote, and my opinion, akin to my asshole as it is, in full support of the national legalization of homosexual marriage.
Back
