SSM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

Before I address R.K.'s specific points, I'd like to clarify something.

Many SSM opponents argue that SSM advocates believe that there should be no limits to civil marriage or sexual freedom. The argument is something like, "If SSM is allowed then why not allow polygamy, bestiality or incestuous relationships." For me, the question is not whether any lines should be drawn. They should be. This debate is about where the line should be drawn.

R.K. writes: With SSM causing more and more people to be open to the idea of homosexuality or bisexuality, could SSM not result in increasingly strong misgivings from heterosexuals regarding their spouses SAME-gender friendships?

I do not accept his premise that SSM will cause more people to become homosexual or bisexual. The only way in which his 'logic' holds is if one assumes that SSM will create new relationships among same-gender people that previously did not exist. I agree that the legitimization and legal acceptance of same sex relationships may result in increased worrying about spouses behavior with same-gender friendships. But to use that as an argument against the legitimization of gay relationships is no different from arguing against the legitimization of interracial relationships because spouses may have misgivings about friendships with members of a different race.

Romantic and intimate relationships already exist among same-sex couples. R.K. may argue that the same logic also applies to polygamous and incestuous relationships. It is true that regardless of the legal and moral consequences, those types of relationships do presently exist. So why don't I support the "legitimization" of those? Because that would send the wrong message to society about the types of relationships which are condoned. I don't believe there is a societal (or as R.K. calls it, 'cultural') interest in discouraging homosexuality, while I do think those interests exist for discouraging polygamy and incest.

The gist of R.K.'s argument seems to be that legitimizing same-sex relationships would invite more of them. I agree. Where we disagree is that I do not believe that is the cultural disaster that he does.

Finally, regarding my comment that SSM does change the definition of marriage and that will affect those growing up in the future, and R.K.'s reply, "[I]n his earlier reply, he disputed my contention that SSM was 'radical,' and stated that all it did was extend marriage": SSM does change the definition of marriage; marriage has historically referred to opposite sex relationships. But I still dispute the accuracy of the word "radical." All changes in definition are not necessarily "radical." For example, the word "governor" has historically referred to a male. Yet, as we know, there are women governors; they are not referred to as "governesses." Is this change of definition "radical," by R.K.'s definition?
posted by Eve at 12:04 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home