jamesq | Straight But Not Narrow

The Avacal Circus Yahoo group erupted into a furor of hand-wringing and arguing this week when the topic of same sex consorts (as heads of SCA regional groups) came up. As you would expect with a hot button topic it became quickly polarized.

The SCA's policy seems to be that regional groups (kingdoms, principalities, baronies etc.) are to be led by a male/female couple. Given the prevalence of same-sex marriage in the news of late, someone asked if a same sex consort was possible, or even required if imposed from without by changes in mundane law.

As an aside, the consort is a leadership pair, and though I use the shorthand "couple" to describe them, there is no requirement that they need to be a couple in the romantic sense. Former Baron Haldane and Baroness Cattea of Montengarde a few years ago were not a romantic couple for example.

The short answer seems to be that no; they can discriminate pretty much any way they choose. It's a private club and there are no mundane laws addressing who can be its head.

For example, I am discriminated against ever becoming King because I couldn't win the tournament required unless they changed the rules to allow shotguns. On a more general note, only Knights (well, not exactly – I suppose it's possible for a complete unknown to win the crown tournament, but I suspect it's exceedingly rare) can become Kings/Queens/Princes/Princesses because of the martial requirements – Laurels and Pelicans cannot. This is a rule I don't particularly like, and if it ever came up in a poll I know how I would respond. However, I have no legal recourse for this discrimination because I can always quit the group and set up my own alternate SCA with rules more to my liking (fat chance of me succeeding though).

To people who say "That's the way it is, so suck it up or quit", I'd remind them that there is no SCA requirement saying I have to like it, or that I can't voice my opinion or work to change the rules. Mo mo nanny boo boo.

This is a nice microcosm of the larger issue of same sex marriages and gay rights. The usual arguments for and against immediately got trotted out. Thus far I've seen exactly one reason (from Sue K) for keeping the current opposite sex arrangement – that there may be people who are uncomfortable addressing certain topics with a member of the inappropriate sex. It's not a particularly strong argument (One could apply it to not hiring minorities because it might make the customers nervous – frankly that should the customer's problem, not the person who needs the job), but it at least makes an effort.

Arguments against seem to fall into these categories:

God says it's wrong.

They're deviants.

They make me uncomfortable, stop reminding me they exist.

For the God Says It's Wrong argument, not a lot needs countering, other than to remind the person that just because their church says something, doesn't mean it's true or that I have to buy into it. The wonderful thing about living in the 21st century is that we heretics don't have to get stoned for being different anymore.

The deviant arguments are usually the easiest to counter. Arguing that it's not natural can be countered with numerous well documented examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Arguing that it's a slippery slope from allowing homosexuality to allowing pedophilia or bestiality or other clearly harmful behavior can be countered by pointing out that the former is between consenting adults and the latter is not. Arguing that it's not (physically or mentally) healthy leaves one open to the fact that anything a same sex couple can do sexually can also be done by opposite sex couples – and we don't typically ban what they do (anymore, unless you live in Georgia). Frankly the idea that two lesbians engaging in oral sex is less "healthy" than a heterosexual couple into flogging, coprophilia or erotic asphyxia is bizarre. To the shit-smearing, whipped chokers out there that I may have inadvertently insulted I can only say "Hey, whatever gets you through the night – at least you're not furries".

Finally there are the "Don't disturb my comfort zone" arguments. These start out with an apology and then move quickly to the censorship.

"I have no problem with gay people, but I don't want to have to see them holding hands in public".

You don't have a right to not be offended. On a deeper level I would have to ask "Why do you care". Two men kissing in public offends me about as much as a man and woman kissing in public. If it's a quick peck I barely notice it. If there is a definite exchange of tongues and saliva I think "Get a room", regardless of the genders involved. If it continues to the point of physical discomfort, I'll move.

Go ahead and be offended – then thank your lucky stars that we don't ban every possible offensive thing. Your insistence on wearing polyester offends me and I might want to have you stuck in jail for it after all.

The most bizarre argument I've ever heard remains "I'm being forced to accept it". No, you're being forced to tolerate it. Don't argue that you're being forced to accept it until the government sticks a gun to your head and says "Start sucking cocks".

Ultimately, our character is judged not by how we treat those who can help, hinder or hurt us, but by how we treat those who can't. Gays and lesbians affect my life in only the most peripheral way – Just one more data point in describing someone, like black/white or tall/short. Does gay marriage affect me? No, so why should I try to hinder it. My default position is let them do it – a little more happiness in the world is a good thing and it doesn't cost me anything.