Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society
now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal
advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself from
commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would
foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Since
there’s no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster
parents, it could also help nurture children. And its introduction would
not be some sort of radical break with social custom. As it has become
more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more
and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view
of their families and their friends, A law institutionalizing gay
marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also,
in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those
conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be
among the first to support it. Burke could have written a powerful case
for it.
The argument that gay marriage would subtly undermine the unique legitimacy of straight marriage is based upon a fallacy. For heterosexuals, straight marriage would remain the most significant—and only legal—social bond. Gay marriage could only delegitimize straight marriage if it were a real alternative to it, and this is clearly not true. To put it bluntly, there’s precious little evidence that straights could be persuaded by any law to have sex with—let alone marry—someone of their own sex. The only possible effect of this sort would be to persuade gay men and women who force themselves into heterosexual marriage (often at appalling cost to themselves and their families) to find a focus for their family instincts in a more personally positive environment. But this is clearly a plus, not a minus: Gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It’s an extension of them.
Of course, some would claim that any legal recognition of homosexuality is a de facto attack upon heterosexuality. But even the most hardened conservatives recognize that gays are a permanent minority and aren’t likely to go away. Since persecution is not an option in a civilized society, why not coax gays into traditional values rather than rail incoherently against them?
- That was Andrew Sullivan's eloquence in 1989 which started the "new" thinking amongst homo sapiens and here's Andrew's reflections now after his dream became a reality within his lifetime.
The argument that gay marriage would subtly undermine the unique legitimacy of straight marriage is based upon a fallacy. For heterosexuals, straight marriage would remain the most significant—and only legal—social bond. Gay marriage could only delegitimize straight marriage if it were a real alternative to it, and this is clearly not true. To put it bluntly, there’s precious little evidence that straights could be persuaded by any law to have sex with—let alone marry—someone of their own sex. The only possible effect of this sort would be to persuade gay men and women who force themselves into heterosexual marriage (often at appalling cost to themselves and their families) to find a focus for their family instincts in a more personally positive environment. But this is clearly a plus, not a minus: Gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It’s an extension of them.
Of course, some would claim that any legal recognition of homosexuality is a de facto attack upon heterosexuality. But even the most hardened conservatives recognize that gays are a permanent minority and aren’t likely to go away. Since persecution is not an option in a civilized society, why not coax gays into traditional values rather than rail incoherently against them?
- That was Andrew Sullivan's eloquence in 1989 which started the "new" thinking amongst homo sapiens and here's Andrew's reflections now after his dream became a reality within his lifetime.
I think of the gay kids in the future who, when they figure out they are
different, will never know the deep psychic wound my generation—and
every one before mine—lived through: the pain of knowing they could
never be fully part of their own family, never be fully
a citizen of their own country. I think, more acutely, of the decades
and centuries of human shame and darkness and waste and terror that
defined gay people’s lives for so long. And I think of all those who
supported this movement who never lived to see this day; who died in the
ashes from which this phoenix of a movement emerged. This momentous
achievement is their victory too—for marriage, as Kennedy argued,
endures past death.
No comments:
Post a Comment