NEW QUESTION: IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

This seems like an obvious question at first! Of course the SSM debate is about homosexuality--it's about homosexual relationships, no?

And many writers, on this site and elsewhere, have argued that no matter what the stated reasons for opposing SSM, the real, bedrock reasons have to do with homosexuality: As Andrew Sullivan put it recently, "[F]or this administration, 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. If gays try to build responsible lives, and families, the important thing is not to help or encourage or reach out to them, but to prevent their relationships at all costs and in any way possible--even if we have to amend the constitution to keep them excluded from families and society."

Yet there is some evidence that the SSM debate is not--or need not be--about homosexuality and gay relationships. First, as Maggie and I have pointed out a few times, some past societies have developed socially-approved roles for (male) homosexual relationships, yet these societies have never considered such relationships to be marriages. (Not to mention that there are all kinds of socially-approved relationships today that are not considered marriages.)

Second, I don't think Elizabeth Marquardt (who supports civil unions, but not SSM) is alone when she says, "I've always known gays and lesbians--school, workplaces, neighbors. I find really repellent those who think it is a sinful lifestyle, and I don't want to be identified with them."

Third, there are people like me: For religious reasons, I don't think homosexual relationships are good (...sorry Elizabeth), but I also don't think you need to share that belief to share my reasons for opposing SSM. I'm pretty sure none of my posts here have addressed that belief--nor do I think that's the main issue, the bedrock issue, or even a wildly relevant issue. (After all, there are all kinds of things that I think are immoral that I don't think should be illegal!)

So: What's the deal? Is it possible to support SSM and disapprove of homosexual acts, or vice versa? Is Sullivan right about the bottom line of the debate, or am I right? If this is a debate about homosexuality, what are the crucial questions that need to be addressed?

Click that email link and let's get started....
posted by Eve at 2:51 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home