In a 2000 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert D. Kaplan said that in evaluating a developing nation’s government, we should focus not on elections but freedoms. Hasty elections in impoverished nations often results in anti-democratic totalitarians taking power, whether it be Germany in the 1930s or Algeria in the 1990s. He listed China as one example of an authoritarian state that is liberalizing in a good way. “It may not be a democracy, but it’s got a predictable tax system, gay and unmarried couples can live together, and so on.” He’s right—China repealed its sodomy laws in the early 1990s.
Tolerance of homosexuality is a side effect of modernization. England repealed anti-homosexual laws in 1967; France in 1982; Germany in 1994; and in the United States, 46 out of 50 states repealed anti-homosexual conduct laws and 36 repealed sodomy laws before the remaining were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas.
What countries still have laws outlawing homosexual conduct? It turns out those countries are almost the same thing as Barnett’s gap. (See Wikipedia for more details.)
This is of course a simplified take on national views towards homosexuality. As the Wikipedia article notes:
Many nations which retained negative laws for a lengthy period of time, or even retain them today may in practice be societies that are not oppressive of homosexuality, with such laws simply being unenforced anachronisms. Similarly, a country which lacks formal laws against it may possess a culture which is openly hostile and may chose to persecute individuals by other means.
Nonetheless, if you hear that “borderline Core” nations such as Malaysia, Tunisia, or Botswana plan to revoke laws outlawing homosexual conduct, it’s probably a telling sign that the country is joining the ranks of the developed nations in the core.
ENDNOTE: Don’t confuse the cause and effect relationship—granting civil unions in Bolivia won’t make it a developed nation. Rather, more liberal views towards homosexual conduct is a byproduct of modernization.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Shay
March 8, 2006
7:52 pm
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
March 8, 2006
9:38 pm
Curtis Gale Weeks
March 8, 2006
11:38 pm
Your endnote is a little misleading, however. First, countries such as "Iran":http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2005/12/direland.php are not going to spontaneously grant civil unions, so the note is a bit of a non sequitur. Second, state endorsement -- and enforcement -- of civil liberties is a large part of why Americans are so free today; so, while civil unions are not, per se, an example of more liberty, non-discrimination laws and a lack of criminal punishments may have a trickle-down effect over time.
Still, "connecting individuals within their own societies":http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2005/11/a_future_worth.php will, I think, be important in connecting people between societies, as a general principle. For instance, many gay rights groups are cross-national; the Internet facilitates the communication of gays between nations, and similar gay rights groups have sprung up around the world, with common symbols, aspirations, etc. (So..."modernization" can mean something besides only technology and economics, although those factors shape modern communications. Dialog itself can be "modernized.") Plus, fewer malcontents or disconnected means less perturbation within the system and even more efficiency and productivity for the system.
Kirk H. Sowell
March 9, 2006
2:56 am
Personally I don't view private sexual behavior has a matter of public interest, and therefore something to be regulated by government, but to argue that "civil unions" or some other explicit legitimization is a byproduct of modernization bodes ill for the future of "modern" societies (modern in quotes here because Western societies didn't accept homosexuality during the Liberal Age). Societies maintain thesmelves by means of social norms that standardize certain responsibilities that make society function - bearing and raising children, men undergoing socialization through the responsibilities of being a husband and father. These responsibilities are specifically heterosexual because, in the first case, of the need children have a father and mother, and in the latter, of the socializing effect that marriage to a woman has on a man. None of the societies which have accepted homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality are even sustainable by the standard indicia of family formation (replacment level fertility rate, marriage rate, divorce and illegitimacy). If current demographic trends in Sweeden, the Netherlands, et. al. continue for a few generations, these countries will literally be facing collapse.
It is not that homosexuality per se causes the problems in question, but that the family is constituted by a bundle of social norms which are all undermined once homosexuality is legitimated.
Curtis Gale Weeks
March 9, 2006
6:49 am
This, of course, is complete bullshit. Heterosexuals are doing very well undermining the family dynamic themselves.
But you are right to say that the old economic system was very dependent on the close, insular family unit -- and this is why Islamists hate homosexuality. The conduits of power expressed in their patriarchal societies would be greatly disturbed if homosexuality were accepted as a norm for some people (as well as equal rights for women.) Society would not function as before, since their economies and political systems are outgrowths of the tribal, patriarchal societies they have had.
In fact, liberalization in education and free-market capitalism are two of the most influential factors in delegitimizing the central role of the traditional family unit. A "universal" and liberal education creates opportunities for children to leave their families on career paths about which their parents have little understanding or experience -- so, traditions holding families together are weakened -- while capitalism makes possible the exodus. These two factors, along with a quickly operating (and freer) communications system, allow new conduits to be created, shifting the flow of power within a society. _This_ has understandably terrified the old status quo, but the cat's already out of the bag, and nothing short of an extreme retaliation -- and extreme regression -- can halt the process.
One last point, Kirk. You mentioned "the socializing effect that marriage to a woman has on a man" which could be interpreted in multiple ways. (I'm thinking that besides the obvious one, there is also the enthronement principle -- y'know, all those wife-beaters and infant-killers we hear about in the news.) What do you think would be "the socializing effect that marriage to a man" might have for another man? I think that you are right to say that most modern, traditional societies have not yet determined a status quo set of responsibilities for gays, beyond all the normal responsibilities of law-abiding citizens; but it's curious that on the one hand you think private sexual behavior should not be a matter of public interest while on the other hand heterosexual procreation (and the subsequent guidance of progeny) _should_ be.
Curzon
March 9, 2006
9:10 am
Two notes: first, Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and has essentially no openly gay people. Second, "this article on 'Brokeback marriages.'":http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/health/07broke.html
Elizabeth
March 9, 2006
10:21 am
I find it fascinating that legal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle*, as understoon in the west, is here said to be a byproduct of development. The United States did not develop a whole 15 - 30 years after France- why the delay?
I think that Kirk is right on one point. It's a matter of liberalization, not development. Liberalization often follows development. Once people don't have to worry about food, they get a lot less uptight about keeping order. But not always, and not directly. If you have prolonged development without liberalization. For example, in the Soviet Union, where living standards rose rapidly without any additional freedoms, you didn't see much social or even legal acceptance for the homosexual lifestyle. That actually became more acceptable once living standards plummeted with the end of the monolithic state.
*I hesitate to say "homosexuality" since many accept that men may have sex with men while believing that it would be totally wrong for men and men to live together as partners.
Catholicgauze
March 9, 2006
2:38 pm
Curzon
March 9, 2006
3:04 pm
Curtis Gale Weeks
March 9, 2006
3:51 pm
Kirk H. Sowell
March 10, 2006
4:57 am
Curtis: Heterosexuals are doing very well undermining the family dynamic themselves.
Certainly true, I never suggested otherwise, and in fact quite complementary to my point. This is actually what I mean in referring to a "bundle of social norms" - homosexual conduct doesn't cause illegitimacy or divorce, for example, heterosexual misconduct causes the first and contributes to the second. But if a society high rates of illegitimacy, it is likely to have higher acceptance of homosexuality.
The causation runs both ways, so I'll try to make the argument clearer by arguing the other direction: If a society legitimizes heterosexual cohabitation and adopts no-fault divorce, this will lead to higher acceptance for homosexuality. Why? Because once you devalue the functions of marriage that make society work, why not accept homosexuality? What would be the point?
In looking at social fragmentation of our society and the pathologies it engenders, the causal relationship between a specific behavior and family breakdown is sometimes direct (e.g. heterosexual promiscuity = out-of-wedlock births) but in this case, and many others, is collateral. A society cannot hold men generally to any sense of responsibility when it is explicitly sanctioning something which is a 180 degree perversion of that which allows for family formation and maintenance. This point can be tested empirically in any society which adopts the policy you are advocating here.
It is not simply that they "would not function as before," eventually they would not function at all.
Curtis: But you are right to say that the old economic system was very dependent on the close, insular family unit"”?and this is why Islamists hate homosexuality.
This is what one might call an argument based on guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy. The question of whether or not Western societies should accept homosexuality is entirely unrelated to Islamism, although associating the two might bring partisan advantage to the Left.
Of course, one might say that there is an attenuated relationship between the two factors to the extent that undermining Western societies makes them more vulnerable to Islamism, but that argument goes the other direction.
Curtis: In fact, liberalization in education and free-market capitalism are two of the most influential factors in delegitimizing the central role of the traditional family unit.
This is true, and to an extent inevitable, but I don't see any reason to go out of our way to destroy the social fabric by giving some sort of legitimacy to various forms of deviancy from family responsibility, whether in a hetero- or homosexual form. The degree of social pathology which we have experienced thus far was largely avoidable.
Curtis: What do you think would be "the socializing effect that marriage to a man"Â? might have for another man? ... while on the other hand [you think] heterosexual procreation (and the subsequent guidance of progeny) should be.
Two issues here. Regarding the first, to the extent that there is any socializing effect in male-male relatinships it is extremely negative. But heterosexual males with no intention of getting married and accepting family responsibility have such a high pathology rate that I think that it is an open question whether the pathology of homosexual lifestyles is due to homosexuality itself or to the mere fact that no woman is involved.
Regarding the last issue you raise, there isnt a contradiction because in both cases it depends on whether the conduct affects the public interest. I don't really view heterosexuality as a matter of public interest except to the limited degree to which the state should enforce legal vows freely made because investment in a marriage - by the man or the woman - depends on the expectation of continuity. Marriage, like a business partnership, becomes dysfunctional real quick when both partners are thinking that the other might leave at any moment, so they better not invest too much into it.
But private behavior generally - heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise - I don't generally view as a matter of public interest. It has to actually have some affect on the public.
Curzon: In regard to the Japanese example, my argument is not that below replacement-level fertility is always caused by legitimization of homosexuality, but that the legitimization of homosexuality - along with a variety of other factors, including those listed above - will depress the marriage and fertility rates. Japan has its own social problems which are quite different from those of the West. But that example is not going to affect my point.
Also, I think that the reason that the U.S. never had a national law forbidding sodomy has more to do with federalism than anything.
Kirk H. Sowell
March 10, 2006
6:15 am
Curzon
March 10, 2006
12:03 pm
The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » The Council has spoken!
March 10, 2006
2:05 pm
Joe
March 10, 2006
4:42 pm
Joe
March 10, 2006
5:01 pm
I think one of the problems with Curzon's characterization is his use of "openly gay." There are plenty of gay people in Japan, but the country doesn't have a "gay culture" the same way we understand it in the West. If you go to Tokyo's most famous gay district, Shinjuku-nichome, it's full of coffee shops and bars that look completely normal. They just happen to be packed with gay men, who are completely indistinguishable from straight men, and apparently choose to stay that way.
Now, if only foreigners could integrate as easily as gay people...
Curtis Gale Weeks
March 11, 2006
4:33 pm
You include too many unexplained "truisms" in your theory:
_Because once you devalue the functions of marriage that make society work,_
My point, broadly restated, is that modern society depends _much less_ on marriage and the formation of large familial bases than previous forms of society. I used the Islamist society as an example of the old system, but in America and everywhere liberal education and capitalism strongly influence the society, the change has already occurred. A much smaller example: Senior citizens in traditional societies depended much more on their many children for support when they grew older, but nowadays retirement plans, government subsidies, savings accounts, etc., fulfill the role once filled by a close-knit family group. When you state things like, "functions of marriage that make society work," you are assuming that the organizing principles of marriage are the most important organizing principles in society. Families are important and will continue to be important, but the influence of the family system on society has been degrading for centuries now -- at least, in comparison to the organizing principles behind liberal education, capitalism, and modern communications.
_A society cannot hold men generally to any sense of responsibility when it is explicitly sanctioning something which is a 180 degree perversion of that which allows for family formation and maintenance._
This, also, appears to come from a false sense of the organizing principles of marriage; but also, I detect a commonly believed myth in your statement. Social conservatives seem peculiarly bothered by the possibility that heterosexual men will spontaneously become homosexual, leaving their families behind or in fact never having families in the first place, if homosexual relationships become a norm for some people. But there is also a circular argument being created: first, homosexual relationships are denied official sanction; second, homosexuals _must_ therefore continue to live outside of formal commitments; last, heterosexual men, seeing the "freedom from marriage" experienced by gays, will want the same lack of formal commitment.
But, generally, I think you have an extremely negative opinion of men. Men are beasts, prone to asocial behavior, without the, er, "influence of women" to civilize them.
_I don't see any reason to go out of our way to destroy the social fabric by giving some sort of legitimacy to various forms of deviancy from family responsibility_
The "social fabric" you seem to be referencing is an antiquated view of society. That fabric has been fairly destroyed already by the things already mentioned (education, communications, capitalism -- plus, globalism in general will play a role), and the effort to move backward in time will likely be futile for the foreseeable future. In fact, the subject and comments to this thread have given me a new idea, or clarified an idea I've been vaguely pondering: that a new social dynamic has been trying to form within the West -- perhaps, globally -- and that societies unable to adapt will eventually break utterly. I.e., the forces of liberal education, capitalism, and global communications (and other global relationships) are already establishing the means of survival, and any society unable to adapt to these realities, or unable to utilize these forces fully, may implode.
_to the extent that there is any socializing effect in male-male relationships it is extremely negative_
Another assumption. This is patently false, since male-male relationships have played a very large role in the development of not only Western societies but also Eastern societies. True, many of the relationships were not sexual in nature (I'm thinking of various orders of knighthood, plus general business, military, and scientific relationships), but the union of men in endeavors should prove, beyond doubt, that two men working together can achieve a great deal.
You mention "a high pathology rate." Although you use the term vaguely, I think I understand part of what you mean. The disconnected within a society often suffer more greatly than the connected, and in fact may turn toward self-destructive activities if they have no focus toward a goal. This affects everyone, gay or straight or bi. Having a legally-recognized family gives heterosexual men a focus; they're less likely to waste their money and energy, in general, when they have a family to support and goals for that family. But this should suggest that the way to make the "pathological" men -- gay or straight -- more productive is to offer opportunities for connection rather than legislating against connectivity.
TM Lutas
March 12, 2006
2:45 am
By introducing a slightly better scale, you get rid of the problem of Globalization I Core nations being relatively unfriendly to homosexuals but not killing them. They had ant-sodomy laws but not brutal ones. Any "gay unfriendly countries are in the Gap" have to deal with the fact that the Globalization I Core was gay unfriendly by any modern standard yet it was Core.
My question is whether the high point of Core utility is in the accepted or the tolerated spot. Will those nations who go beyond tolerance to full acceptance maintain their Core status or are they going to be the new backsliders a half-century hence? It's too soon to tell as far as I can determine. The changeover *is* a state change. It might not matter in the long run. But full acceptance may shift so many unexamined assumptions right out from below society's feet that the end result may not be long-term sustainable. Both sides, pro and con, are guessing what the long-term results are including sustainability.
The really scary part is that nobody knows. The changes are happening fast and without deep examination for the consequences. Did the PRC really want to get grey before it got rich? Its one child policy has virtually guaranteed it but I doubt that anybody ran the numbers properly. Nobody is running the numbers properly today with homosexuality policy. It's almost entirely a judicially driven development, the branch of government least likely to properly make social policy decisions that may have individual victims but high social utility. Justice is all about individual fairness in a particular case.
The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » The Wave Theory of Core and Gap
March 28, 2006
4:38 pm
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive »
May 3, 2006
9:34 pm