IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? George McAllister

Obviously the debate exists only when same-sex--which is to say, homosexual--couples exist. No homosexuality, no debate. But the debate hasn't always existed, while same-sex attraction, it seems, has. Which leads to a deeper sense: The debate exists because of the historical facts about homosexuality right now. Because a large number of homosexual
couples are capable of speaking openly about themselves, because they tend to construct their relationships in about the same way that heterosexual couples do, because there are same-sex couples with children--the debate exists because of these and related facts and is therefore about homosexuality.
Finally, the debate exists because people are concerned on a personal level about homosexuality. I would probably be uninvolved in this forum if not for the fact that I am homosexual. The folks at the Family Research Council would probably see it as a minor issue if not for their distinctive religious views. And so on. So yes, it is about homosexuality.

But of course, on a purely logical level it's not. There is no necessary connection between one's position on same-sex genital activity and SSM. The proof that this is true is in the existence of those (a la Stanley Kurtz) whose approval of romantic same-sex relationships exists alongside a disapproval of SSM, and vice versa. So no, it's not about homosexuality.

Where does that leave us? Moving into purely opinion mode, I think a major theme is (forgive the pejorative term) irrationality. For example, I think it is certainly true that in practice there is a strong connection between opinions about homosexuality and opinions about SSM. Polls have consistently shown that conservative Protestants, for example, overwhelmingly disapprove of SSM. With all due respect to conservative Protestants, I doubt that's because they all have a shelf full of books on homosexuality alongside their subscription to the Journal of Social History. More likely, their pastor says that homosexuality is bad, there are those passages in Leviticus, and so it follows that same-sex marriage must be bad too. An analogous point can be made about the great mass of Green Party members who support SSM; most likely they're of the opinion that
homosexuals are just fine, and why would you be opposed to SSM anyway? So, while there is no logical connection between opinions of homosexuality and opinions of SSM, practically there most certainly is. (This explains why a highly successful political strategy for supporters of SSM has been simply exposing heterosexuals to homosexuals.)

Of course, there's the phenomenon of broad(-ish) social tolerance for homosexuality along with lower support for same-sex marriage. This is, though, the exception that proves the rule. I suspect that for most people whose opinion is divided on the two issues, the cause of this divide is again not introspection but knee-jerk thinking: That gay guy at work is funny, but marriage is about a man and a woman, dammit. So, as in everything in politics, we must divide the political elites (read: the people on this board) from the mass of folks (read: the people on the street).
posted by Eve at 10:30 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home