IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? Mark Barton

[Questions from the initial post in bold, Mark's replies in plain text.]

"So: What's the deal? Is it possible to support SSM and disapprove of homosexual acts, or vice versa?"

It's probably possible but it's a bit of a stretch. There are three main camps in this debate:

(i) "liberals," who see no problem with gay sex (at least between consenting adults not encumbered by commitments to other relationships),

(ii) "libertarians," who disapprove of gay sex but disapprove even more strongly of the government passing laws that require invading people's bedrooms to enforce,

(iii) "social conservatives," who'd like to see the government actively discouraging gay sex.

The reason that public opinion on SSM is lagging so far behind that on other gay rights issues is that most libertarians make an
active/passive distinction: they're not unhappy for the government to passively condone
gay sex by not passing laws against it, but they draw the line at any active recognition or endorsement of it, such as, arguably, SSM.
Conceivably a sufficiently gung-ho "libertarian" might go further and make the "liberal" argument that, some form of marriage having been established, it's the withholding of SSM that's the active course needing extra justification, and end up deciding to weigh the equal protection argument more heavily than their personal disapproval. However, as far
as I know I've never encountered such a position.

The "vice versa" is of course the position that Eve in her role as advocate is trying to put. I just don't agree that Eve's efforts have been
successful or are likely to be, given real-world practicalities.

"Is Sullivan right about the bottom line of the debate, or am I right?"

I think Sullivan is certainly right when he says, "...gay and lesbian citizens are regarded as beneath responsibility. There is no need for a social policy toward them, since they have no human needs or aspirations." He was talking about the Bush administration, but it's the
sense I get from conservative religious people generally and Eve in particular, even when she's trying her hardest to make a non-sectarian case. For example, she says, "Yet there is some evidence that the SSM debate is not--or need not be--about homosexuality and gay relationships." If she'd said the opening statement in a case against SSM need not be about homosexuality (same-sex attraction), I'd agree. An opening statement against SSM could theoretically dwell on some supposed
adverse consequence of the mere fact of two guys in a "marriage."

But how can the debate as a whole possibly not be about gay relationships when it is the entire opening statement of the pro-SSM
side that because committed gay relationships are highly analogous to traditional marriages, in large part precisely because of the gay
(same-sex attraction) aspect of the relationship, they ought to be legally formalizable as marriages?

After all, this isn't arbitrary pursuit of legal symmetry for its own sake. This is about the fact that the needs and aspirations of gay
couples are so analogous with those of straight couples that they are well-served by the same package of rights and responsibilities. Committed gay relationships are very much more like marriages than any other relationship, socially approved or not. They naturally express themselves in physical intimacy, cohabitation, financial entanglement, etc, etc, just like marriages. They throw up pretty much exactly the same set of legal issues as marriages. They are just as central to the lives of the people in them as marriages.

Now if Eve wanted to argue that that needs and aspirations of gay and lesbian people had to take a back seat to the needs of say children, then I could at least agree to disagree. But I don't get the impression that
the needs and aspirations of gay and lesbian people are on her radar at all.

"If this is a debate about homosexuality, what are the crucial questions that need to be addressed?"

The one and only crucial question is how much weight do you give the fact that gay marriage would admirably serve the needs and aspirations of gay couples.
posted by Eve at 4:28 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home