ARE ALL COUPLES ALIKE? Dale v. Dan

I have not argued, and I do not argue, that the dynamics of same-sex coupling are exactly like the dynamics of opposite-sex coupling. What I have argued (supported by research and, I think, common sense) is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples share significant common traits -- the desire for coupling, the importance of the sexual bond, the need for intimacy with one other person, the desire for social recognition and affirmation, and others. Contra Dan, these traits are not all shared by other human relationships, like those of siblings. Jon and I have also argued that gay marriage will help accomplish the social goods marriage is thought to accomplish: caretaking, sexual settling, and raising children. Because of this, we must have some persuasive reason for treating gay couples differently.

Dan offers what he calls "fundamental facets of life" to justify the different legal treatment of gay and straight couples: (1) "the fact of sexual difference;" (2) "the significance of sexual complementarity;" (3) "the important place of male/female bonding in human life;" (4) "the procreativity of heterosexual bonding;" (5) "the unique social ecology of heterosexual parenting which bonds children to their biological parents;" and (6) "the rich genealogical nature of heterosexual family ties."

This list has the stale air of natural law arguments about it, arguments that have often seemed to me to assert their conclusions as arguments. "Sexual complementarity," for example, is a description, not an argument. The list is less impressive than it seems at first. In fact, each seems largely a restatement of the one before: opposite-sex couples alone can procreate. But why are these differences adequate to justify different treatment? We need arguments, not conclusions. Males and females will continue to marry and continue to procreate. They will still bond with each other, still be bonded to their children, still bridge the sexual divide.

The more I hear from the opponents of gay marriage the more I suspect they operate from a genuine but profoundly mistaken view: that marriage is a finite resource that cannot be shared, even with couples who can fulfill what Maggie has identified as the 3 basic purposes of marriage. If we give it to gay couples, there won't be enough left for us straight folks, with our special ecologies and genealogical charts. But it isn't that. Just because Joe and Bob can marry doesn't mean Mike and Sally can't or won't. Come on Dan and Maggie, don't you believe in marriage anymore? Malaise indeed.


posted by maggie at 9:52 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home