|
 |
 |
 Thursday, October 27, 2005
CATHY YOUNG--MORE STUFF
Complementarity: ...So here's a question. Is it bigoted to regard same-sex relationships -- even aside from the issue of procreation -- as different to male-female relationships? ... I admire Andrew's writings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and I find a lot of his arguments very powerful and persuasive. But I see a basic contradiction between his strong belief in deep, important, innate differences between the sexes and his equally passionate belief that same-sex relationships should be treated as fully equivalent to male-female ones. After all, if men and women are so different, then isn't there at least some rational basis for believing that one goal and one essential element of marriage is to bring these two profoundly different halves of humanity together in family units based on a mix, and a balance, of male and female traits? more Closing thoughts: ...Equal treatment for gay men and women is a laudable goal; dismantling "heteronormative" culture is a socially divisive utopia. As various polls show, the vast majority of Americans now support full equality for gays in most areas of life. What's being debated now is equality not just for gays and lesbians as individuals, but also for same-sex relationships. On one level, I believe this is a question of basic equality. When a gay man is barred from making medical decisions on behalf of his longtime partner; when a lesbian who wants to be a stay-at-home mom cannot get coverage under her partner's health insurance plan; when a same-sex couple is not allowed to pool their credit the way a married straight couple would be -- the injustice is obvious. What's more, for some gay couples, the unavailability of marriage effectively amounts to denying them the opportunity to live together. If I go to Russia, meet the perfect guy and decide to bring him home, I'm allowed to do that. If the same thing happens to a gay man, he's not. I would like to know how any non-homophobic opponent of equal rights for same-sex couples can explain to a gay man or a lesbian why this is right and why this is "moral." ... 3. Secrets and lies. The anti-SSM right routinely trafficks in misinformation about gays and "the homosexual lifestyle," from "studies" showing that gays have an average life expectancy of 43 years to claims about the success of "reparative therapy." At the same time, some real facts relevant to this debate tend to be surrounded by taboos. ... I think a University of Vermont study reported on Vermont's premier LGBT website, Out in the Mountains, should pass the smell test: Seventy-nine percent of married heterosexual men felt non-monogamy was not okay, compared with only 34 percent of gay men not in civil unions and 50 percent of gay men in civil unions. Over 82 percent of the women in the study, regardless of sexual orientation, said monogamy was important. ...If a substantial number of legally partnered gay men do not regard sexual fidelity as an essential feature of marriage (and the 50% figure in the Vermont study is consistent with other studies I have seen), is this a problem worth discussing? Is there a need for a conscious effort in the gay community to deal with this issue as we head toward some form of same-sex marriage (whether as formal marriage or marriage-like legal partnerships)? If not, is it possible that as SSM gains more widespread acceptance, there will be a push for greater acceptance of open marriage as well? (Which, in my opinion, would qualify as a negative.) I have absolutely no doubt that a lot of gay men have relationships as loving and as committed as the strongest of heterosexual marriages. But it won't do to simply sweep the non-monogamy issue under the rug as an anti-gay slur. ... As I said in my earlier post, preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage is not going to reverse the trends Gallagher and other social conservatives deplore. But social conservatives do want to reverse them at least somewhat and to return to a more marriage-centric culture and a more traditional vision of marriage; and I do think that, for better or worse, legalizing same-sex marriage will make that goal more difficult. I also think it's possible that SSM will lead to greater cultural and legal acceptance of other alternative family forms -- from polygamy and polyamory to child-rearing partnerships between straight women -- and while a part of me feels that society is resilient enough to survive such a development, the other part sees the proverbial handbasket headed to hell. Perhaps the best response to Gallagher & Co. is that vague concerns about the possible social repercussions of SSM, and even vaguer hopes to roll back some of the cultural changes that conservatives believe have harmed families, are a pretty poor reason to deny a minority equal rights (i.e., at the very least, civil unions with all the basic "incidents of marriage"). On the other hand, the claims of some conservative SSM advocates such as Jonathan Rauch that legalizing SSM will strengthen the marriage culture strike me as rather strained. quite a bit more 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Is it bigoted to regard same-sex relationships -- even aside from the issue of procreation -- as different to male-female relationships?
It is bigoted to feel that same-sex relationships are inferior to mixed-sex relationships, and/or same-sex couples do not deserve the same right to legally formalize their relationship as mixed-sex relationships.
I think the second is stronger evidence of bigotry, actually: people cannot help their feelings, but they can choose how to express them: and certainly actively expressing the feeling that a group of people should have lesser civil rights because you think they're inferior - even if you express "inferior" as "different" - is pretty strong evidence of bigotry.
The idea that legalizing SSM will strengthen the marriage culture might seem rather strained, but consider this: Suppose we have a young couple who have lived together for several years and are thinking about starting a family. They wonder whether or not they should marry first.
The way it is now, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. They are successful in living their lives and raising their family without being married, so why should we bother?"
Were the situation different, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. Why, they can't even have a baby together! Yet they thought it important enough for themselves and their children to get married anyway. We should consider doing the same."
Here's more about how Gay marriage reenforces straight marriage.
If I go to Russia, meet the perfect guy and decide to bring him home, I'm allowed to do that. If the same thing happens to a gay man, he's not. I would like to know how any non-homophobic opponent of equal rights for same-sex couples can explain to a gay man or a lesbian why this is right and why this is "moral."
I think you have to marry that guy before you can "bring him home", right? So even if he was not perfect, of course you would have to bring your husband with you, because now that you are married, you might be carrying his child, or at least you have made the commmitment to give yourselves exclusively to each other to have children. Marriage is internationally recognized, because pregnancy is internationally recognized. You're not bringing a best friend in, you're not bringing him because you really like him, your bringing him because you are married and now might be pregnant or have children already.
Post a Comment
<< Home