What would gay marriage look like? Science fiction provides some
answers
Many people seem unable to imagine a
world in which gays can routinely marry, but children are protected in stable
married homes. The science fiction novels of Lois McMaster
Bujold illustrate such a
society.
Most conservatives take it for granted that
legalizing gay marriage would result in devastating societal changes that would
destroy the stitution of marriage and leave innocent children bereft of stable
homes. I personally have never been able to see why that should be the case,
but I realized that this is in large part because I have already had plenty of
time to get used to the concept. As a regular reader of science fiction, I have
experienced enough societies where same-sex couples marry and have children,
that it simply doesn’t seem that odd to me any more.
Science fiction has devoted much effort over the past few decades to reimagining sex and gender roles, at times to the point of tedium, but often to fascinating effect. Some of these explorations, such as Ursula LeGuin’s ambisexual Gethenians, or John Varley’s future of routine, reversible sex changes, are greatly interesting but lack immediate relevance to modern life, as humans are unlikely to develope the ability to alter our sex on a regular basis any time soon. Thus I will stick to a discussion of Lois Bujold’s society on Beta Colony, as depicted in her novels Shards of Honor and Barrayar (also released as a compendium volume, Cordelia’s Honor).
In brief, the novels concern Cordelia Naismith, a former starship captain who has left her home to marry Lord Admiral Vorkosigan, recently on the opposite side of an interplanetary war. A constant theme in the novels is Cordelia’s adaptation to the society and customs of her new home world. While her husband’s world, Barrayar, is a feudal, patriarchical, militaristic society, still technologically backwards in many areas, Cordelia’s homeworld of Beta Colony is in many ways the idealized liberal society. There is universal access to computer-linked education and training; the lowest stratum of society corresponds to lower-middle class; and crime is treated by psychiatry (an aspect of Betan society which turns out to have somewhat sinister aspects, and is in part responsible for Cordelia’s hasty departure).
In particular, Beta Colony has distinctly liberal sexual mores. Girls have parties to celebrate their first menstrual periods, following which their hymens are cut and they are given birth control implants. Licensed sexual therapists provide training to young people who want to explore their sexuality. And “co-parents” can be parings in any combination of males, females, or hermaphrodites (the latter the result of genetic engineering).
Yet there are also some aspects of this society that recognize conservative values, particularly as regards the importance of providing stable homes for children. While gay marriage is acceptable and routine, single parenthood does not appear to be an option -- in the first novel, Cordelia regrets that she has been too socially inept to find a suitable partner, and thus has been unable to have children. The controls on reproduction go beyond mere social censure, as women are not permitted to even remove their contraceptive implants without government approval. Prospective co-parents must pass physical, psychological, and economic tests in order to qualify for a parent’s license, as well as taking a parental training course. These measures appear to work. Unwanted, neglected, or abused children don’t seem to exist on Beta Colony.
In short, while marriage on Beta Colony is purely a personal matter, reproduction is not. Our society takes the opposite approach, insisting that the government define which combinations of people are permitted to officially marry, but considering it an inalienable right to have as many children as we want, regardless of our ability to care for them. It seems obvious which approach better protects the welfare of children. Despite the furor over gay marriage, there exists no evidence so far that children raised by gay couples do any worse than average. On the other hand, there are undisputed piles of evidence that being raised by an unwed mother, for example, is an increased risk factor for just about every negative outcome. Why then have conservatives been focusing on preserving a traditional definition of marriage, as an indirect route to providing stable homes for children, when the real problem is that so many people are having children without even bothering to marry in the first place?
The obvious answer is that questioning the right of gays to marry, while increasingly controversial, remains vastly less controversial than questioning the absolute right to have children. A program which pays drug addicts who volunteer for sterilization or long-term birth control has been denounced as violating “a woman’s right to choose.” A judge ordered that David Oakley, a man who had fathered nine children by four different mothers and had fallen thousands of dollars behind in his child support payments, not father any additional children unless he demonstrated that he could support the ones he already had. The NOW Legal Defense fund took the lead in defending Oakley’s “right to have children.”
Nonetheless, this issue cannot be evaded forever, and Bujold’s novels provide an illustration of how it fits within one possible resolution to today’s cultural wars over sex, marriage, and family. In Betan society, the “right to choose” to have children has been traded for the right to do pretty much whatever else they want in their consensual sexual relationships without censure. At the same time, any attempt to preserve a traditional definition of marriage appears to have been traded for an official government policy of providing stable, two parent homes for all children. These trade-offs may not be to the liking of either liberals or conservatives (in particular, one does wonder how they ever agreed on the criteria for attaining parenting licenses), but thinking about them does help to clarify which issues are most fundamental. Considering such alternate worlds can be a useful supplement to continuing to fight the same tired battles.
Science fiction has devoted much effort over the past few decades to reimagining sex and gender roles, at times to the point of tedium, but often to fascinating effect. Some of these explorations, such as Ursula LeGuin’s ambisexual Gethenians, or John Varley’s future of routine, reversible sex changes, are greatly interesting but lack immediate relevance to modern life, as humans are unlikely to develope the ability to alter our sex on a regular basis any time soon. Thus I will stick to a discussion of Lois Bujold’s society on Beta Colony, as depicted in her novels Shards of Honor and Barrayar (also released as a compendium volume, Cordelia’s Honor).
In brief, the novels concern Cordelia Naismith, a former starship captain who has left her home to marry Lord Admiral Vorkosigan, recently on the opposite side of an interplanetary war. A constant theme in the novels is Cordelia’s adaptation to the society and customs of her new home world. While her husband’s world, Barrayar, is a feudal, patriarchical, militaristic society, still technologically backwards in many areas, Cordelia’s homeworld of Beta Colony is in many ways the idealized liberal society. There is universal access to computer-linked education and training; the lowest stratum of society corresponds to lower-middle class; and crime is treated by psychiatry (an aspect of Betan society which turns out to have somewhat sinister aspects, and is in part responsible for Cordelia’s hasty departure).
In particular, Beta Colony has distinctly liberal sexual mores. Girls have parties to celebrate their first menstrual periods, following which their hymens are cut and they are given birth control implants. Licensed sexual therapists provide training to young people who want to explore their sexuality. And “co-parents” can be parings in any combination of males, females, or hermaphrodites (the latter the result of genetic engineering).
Yet there are also some aspects of this society that recognize conservative values, particularly as regards the importance of providing stable homes for children. While gay marriage is acceptable and routine, single parenthood does not appear to be an option -- in the first novel, Cordelia regrets that she has been too socially inept to find a suitable partner, and thus has been unable to have children. The controls on reproduction go beyond mere social censure, as women are not permitted to even remove their contraceptive implants without government approval. Prospective co-parents must pass physical, psychological, and economic tests in order to qualify for a parent’s license, as well as taking a parental training course. These measures appear to work. Unwanted, neglected, or abused children don’t seem to exist on Beta Colony.
In short, while marriage on Beta Colony is purely a personal matter, reproduction is not. Our society takes the opposite approach, insisting that the government define which combinations of people are permitted to officially marry, but considering it an inalienable right to have as many children as we want, regardless of our ability to care for them. It seems obvious which approach better protects the welfare of children. Despite the furor over gay marriage, there exists no evidence so far that children raised by gay couples do any worse than average. On the other hand, there are undisputed piles of evidence that being raised by an unwed mother, for example, is an increased risk factor for just about every negative outcome. Why then have conservatives been focusing on preserving a traditional definition of marriage, as an indirect route to providing stable homes for children, when the real problem is that so many people are having children without even bothering to marry in the first place?
The obvious answer is that questioning the right of gays to marry, while increasingly controversial, remains vastly less controversial than questioning the absolute right to have children. A program which pays drug addicts who volunteer for sterilization or long-term birth control has been denounced as violating “a woman’s right to choose.” A judge ordered that David Oakley, a man who had fathered nine children by four different mothers and had fallen thousands of dollars behind in his child support payments, not father any additional children unless he demonstrated that he could support the ones he already had. The NOW Legal Defense fund took the lead in defending Oakley’s “right to have children.”
Nonetheless, this issue cannot be evaded forever, and Bujold’s novels provide an illustration of how it fits within one possible resolution to today’s cultural wars over sex, marriage, and family. In Betan society, the “right to choose” to have children has been traded for the right to do pretty much whatever else they want in their consensual sexual relationships without censure. At the same time, any attempt to preserve a traditional definition of marriage appears to have been traded for an official government policy of providing stable, two parent homes for all children. These trade-offs may not be to the liking of either liberals or conservatives (in particular, one does wonder how they ever agreed on the criteria for attaining parenting licenses), but thinking about them does help to clarify which issues are most fundamental. Considering such alternate worlds can be a useful supplement to continuing to fight the same tired battles.
Posted: Sat - August 2, 2003 at 03:30 PM
Quick Links
Select a Topic
Stories This Month
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Past Stories
XML/RSS Feed
Interesting Reads
BeoBlog
Bear Left On Unnamed Road
U.S.S. Clueless
Bear Left On Unnamed Road
U.S.S. Clueless
Visitors
Test
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 16, 2003 06:43 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 16, 2003 06:43 PM