BISEXUALITY AND SSM: R.K. Becker

I agree with Justin Katz that "it is actually the advocates for same-sex marriage who 'seek to reduce this emotional and complex issue to straight versus gay.'" For SSM advocates, bisexuals throw a monkey wrench into the debate because once they are added in, it becomes much more clear what the SSM debate is really about.

A sizeable minority of heterosexuals (anywhere from 25 to 40 %, depending on how the question is phrased) now seem to support marriage for gays. But what most of them appear to mean by this is that they support marriage for gays who simply cannot feel sexual attraction toward the opposite sex. This is not the same thing as saying that they support the idea that any person, gay, straight, or bisexual, may marry someone of either sex, and that the concept of marriage should be changed to reflect this idea.

In other words, there are two different perceptions of what SSM means:

1. That marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman, except for gay people, who can marry their own gender.

2. That marriage is defined as between any two individuals, regardless of gender. And, ultimately, regardless of orientation.

The former is the perception more acceptable to heterosexuals, and even to many advocates of SSM.

Hence, it is understandable that SSM advocates would try to persuade the public with arguments and individual cases that stress the former perception rather than the latter. And the issue of bisexuality shifts the perception too much in the wrong direction.

The question for SSM advocates is whether there is any way that, once legalized, it cannot inevitably lead to the second perception--that marriage is between any two persons regardless of gender or orientation. Do any proponents of SSM wish to argue that it will not lead to this? And why they believe that it will not?

Or, they may argue that there is nothing wrong with the second perception.

posted by Eve at 4:17 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home