Love, actually

Is this conservative column right?

The column is a review of Brokeback Mountain, the story of two gay cowboys whose love for each other tears apart their family lives. In it, the reviewer, true to his political nature, paints the movie with the broad brush of "liberal vs. conservative":

If cultural liberalism is to work on an emotional level, the struggle — for civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, the environment, gay rights, or all of the above in a righteous amalgamation — must go on. If that means pretending that nothing changes and success perpetually remains a tiny dot on the horizon, so be it.

The implication is that liberalism requires a wrong to right, another quest to fight for, a neverending struggle. And after gay people are accepted, what will be the next struggle? The conservative reviewer has an idea of what he thinks it might be, citing a Village Voice writer who says:

"Not everyone wants to be in a family or a 'relationship,' or any kind of marriage," [the Village Voice writer] scribbles. "And not everyone wants to love whomever he or she happens to be having sex with. It's often easier to do things you enjoy with somebody you merely like, or don't know." He puts the word love in quotes wherever it appears. He concludes the movie is "propaganda on behalf of gay couplehood."

Thus, the conservative reviewer says,

[T]he monster [against which liberalism fights] changes. Pervasive homophobia is replaced by insufferable, propagandizing ideologues intent on ramming the idea of "love" down everyone's throats. The struggle to make society recognize homosexuals, and treat them on equal terms, becomes the fight to make sure no one ever even implies judgment about society's next heroically misunderstood victims; those who choose to live a life of meaningless sex.

Can this be true? As a rule, I never trust what conservatives say about liberalism, and I hope this man is just engaging in typical generaliztion/ranting, but this allegation is so disturbing that I can't help but consider it on its merits. When I read columns like this one (free registration required), I wonder if liberalism as a credo will be used in the future to fight against the idea of love - or, more specifically, against the connection between love and sex.

Now, I'm not actually against sex-without-love; if people for their entire life attempt to have sex only with people they love, it can often lead to unhealthy sex obsession, guilt, etc. But I can't help but believe, from experience and from observation of other people, that sex with someone one loves is better, more fulfilling, and more necessary for long-term happiness than casual sex, which, frankly, gets boring and empty for most people after a little while. Also, and more importantly, repeated sex can be a powerful tool in building love (that's why they call it "making love"), and love is one of the foundations not only of a happy human life but of a well-functioning society itself.

So woe betide us liberals if we ever fulfill this conservative's prediction, if we ever fight against the idea (and the ideal) of love between human beings. If we ever begin to denigrate the idea of a love-sex connection, as this man (hopefully wrongly) believes we will do, that will be a dark day indeed. We cannot forsake our support for human health, for honesty and positive human relationships - if we did so, we would cease to be liberals and become career agitators. At some point, liberals must hold the line, supporting forever the things we believe render fundamental human good. Love, as far as I know, is chief among those.