Rob McGee
Rob McGee
Aug 8, 2017 · 2 min read

Commitment is important, but I did feel this section of your article was a little heteronormative — it didn’t really address how gay men, trans men, or asexual men, for example, might fit into that dynamic.

Oh ye gods, HOW was it “a little heteronormative”? You would have to use some sort of gas chromatography equipment to detect even trace quantities of heteronormativity in what he wrote. I mean, the guy pointedly and conscientiously avoided gender-loaded terms like “girlfriend” or “woman” or “wife” or “there shall be no sodomites among the sons of Israel” — instead speaking of a commitment to someone and the benefits of finding a spouse. (If anything, his rather fastidious use of gender-inclusive language might be apt to set off some people’s gaydar. Statistics show that when a man says, “My life-partner enjoys doing embroidery in their spare time,” approximately zero-point-zero percent of listeners will assume the man is straight.)

Anyway, part of his argument is that long-term commitment to a spouse is beneficial because it’s challenging: “I’m challenged to think beyond my own needs and to learn patience, humility and love.” Why would you assume that this speaks any less to gay men or transmen in their relationships than it does to heterosexual men? (I suppose self-identified asexual men might object that the section on Commitment is libido-normative or romance-normative, but that certainly doesn’t make it hetero-normative. Honestly, I think you just threw in “heteronormative” because it turned up your Word-A-Day calendar.)

That said, I agree with your general point that there is more to “commitment” than romantic coupling. The Apostle Paul likened the relationship between the pastor and the congregation to a marriage, and various faith traditions have recognized the validity of monastic celibacy, in which individuals opt out of family life and instead make a lifelong commitment to the religious order. Marriage and parenthood are not the only way to demonstrate total commitment to other persons.

But I’m afraid you wildly missed the point by saying that instead of a spousal relationship, one might have a commitment to “art,” as an alternative. Art is not a person. Art has no feelings. Art doesn’t love you back, nor does art go through bewildering phases of spitefulness. When you get bored with an artwork, you can in good conscience toss it in the dumpster.

“Commitment to art” can be commendable, but ultimately it means a commitment to the artistic temperament in oneself. Some artists may be filled with patience, humility, and love — but “commitment to art” has no intrinsic tendency to foster these traits; not in the way that commitment to PERSONS does.

Of course, I’m not picking on art specifically; I mention it only because you mentioned it. There are many other endeavors that require commitment in the sense of “tireless dedication to the craft,” but not the sort of self-abnegating commitment required of a spouse (or a celibate clergyperson).

    Rob McGee

    Written by

    Rob McGee

    Openly homosexual man, but “gay” sounds stupid. Anti-anal, pro-Frot. Bible-believing atheist. Non-Randroid libertarian. Can “гаварить па-рюсски” a little.