Andrew Sullivan has a reasonable post arguing that gay couples can be just as responsible and monogamous in marriage as straight couples. And even if they aren't, that isn't a sufficient reason to exclude them from marriage as an identity group. He argues this because he believes that "the core resistance to marriage equality stems from a deep suspicion that gay men are incapable of the responsibilities of marriage and will taint it if allowed to own the name."
Nice argument Andrew, but I don't buy it. The core reason why people oppose gay couples is not because gays and lesbians might not be "responsible," but because they're homosexual. Period. The Bible tells me so, end of story.
So I don't see rational arguments making too much of a dent in the hard-core opposition to gay marriage. But perhaps it could work on the non-Christianist margins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with both of you. Underlying cause is religion, but public rhetoric can morph into "responsibility".
Note the unwarranted assumption that a successful marriage requires monogomy.
I liked Sullivan's honesty. He doesn't deny or ignore the open nature of many gay relationships. He simply balances it against lesbian relationships. Honest & clever, but as an argument, will only make gay-haters bigger gay-haters.
An Obama victory coupled with a passing of Prop 8 will be a very bittersweet night. Prop 8 is entirely fueled by relgion. Moderate churches bear responsibility for their silence on this.
Post a Comment