by Helen
Conor Friedersdorf (last seen stealing microphones from undergraduates) posed a good question during his tenure as Megan McArdle's guestblogger:
There are non-bigoted arguments against gay marriage—basically the view that any change to a vitally important, long held institution should be resisted. But I never quite grasp why some conservatives find the notion of gay people getting married a bigger threat to traditional family norms than the alternative—that is, gay people who aren't married living together and having sex, raising children, etc., within a gay culture where monogamy is a less powerful norm. Isn't that a more transgressive lifestyle, by the lights of conservatism, than gay people being married? And isn't it obvious that is the choice that society faces?If Friedersdorf thinks that social conservatives would ever consider using gay marriage to bring socially conservative norms to the gay community . . . he's right. Traditionalists think it's a bad idea for long-term romantic relationships to take place outside the limits of marriage, and reinforcing marriage as a norm is more important than any (quickly disappearing) homophobia. Making the marriage norm stronger is great; it's the changes to what "marriage" means that are objectionable.
I've argued before that integrating gay couplehood into the tradition of marriage will necessarily lead to the elimination of gender roles. This was some time a paradox (who cares more about gender roles than butches and femmes?), but now the Times gives it proof:
A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.Saying that gender is a cultural construct is fine, but there's a difference between performance (which, like ritual, is both real and unreal) and fiction (which is entirely unreal), and saying that man-woman is equivalent to butch-femme or top-bottom turns gender from a performance to a fiction. This casual attitude is bound to spread—if gender doesn't matter in your lifelong sexual relationship, where else would it?The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.
. . . While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.
To get back to Conor's point, he's right that gay marriage reinforces the idea that long-term relationships should culminate in marriage, with all the constraints implied. That's important, but that's not the only marriage norm that matters. Noah Millman on the subject:
. . . Marriage is articulated not as an achievement, but as a stage in life that everyone, more or less, is expected to achieve; like learning to walk, learning to read, getting a driver's license, graduating high school, getting a job. Sure, some people will never learn to drive and some people will never marry. But they will be understood by all to be exceptions, in some sense, to a general rule.The quotes from NYT's coverage of Massachusetts gay marriages ("There are no role models for gay marriage," "marriage isn't for everybody") suggest to me that these concerns are true. If Conor wants "non-bigoted arguments against gay marriage," there are two.. . . if what we observe about gay sexuality is at all representative of essential natures (as I believe it is in part) then most gay men will not choose to marry. More to the point: those who marry will do so because they chose to, not because they understood it was expected of them.
Hrmm. I'm not sure 'keep gays out of wedlock to keep women in the kitchen!' is really such an advance in the debate, if I may be forgiven the glibness.
Posted by: X. Trapnel | June 17, 2008 at 05:13 PM
I had great difficulty following your arguments in this post. Perhaps my difficulties are my own fault - maybe I lack powerful reading comprehension skills or my mind is just not that sharp or educated? I must admit that I am not well read on these issues. You claim to have offered two non-biogted arguments against gay marriage, and I found those arguments difficult to decipher in the post. Your last paragraph, in particular, was most puzzling - Are you implying that the understanding of marriage "as a stage in life that everyone is expected to achieve" is going to change to "marriage is a choice and not everyone is expected to marry" simply because of legalizing gay marriage? I find that statement quite vague. First, one might ask why set up a dicotomy between choice and expectation? Secondly, I do not see why it would be such a tragedy that if idea of marriage "as a stage in life that everyone is expected to achieve" were no longer held by a large part of the population. Thirdly, I'm not convinced that a large part of the population holds to this belief even now. I suspect that, even before there was a single gay marriage performed in the world, many people held the belief that "marriage is a choice and not everyone is expected to marry". One 2,000 year old institution that holds the view that 'marriage is a choice and not everyone is expected to marry' is the Catholic Church. In fact, I suspect that a marriage that was not freely chosen by the spouses is actually grounds for an annulment these days. So, I really disagree that allowing for gay marriages will cause a large part of the population to suddenly think of marriage as choice, not expected of everyone. A large part of the population already thinks that way. The view that marriage is a choice and that marriage is not meant for everyone has already been around for a long time, and allowing for gay marriages has not suddenly put it into people's minds.
Posted by: new urbanist critic | June 20, 2008 at 05:39 PM
maybe it is about the gender roles... but most gays i know don't play those antiquated roles. most straights i know don't seem to either for that matter. Its pretty much just religious folks or older people that seem to buy into the whole role thing. it was interesting in gender studies class years ago but people are people and unless your calling a haircut or tight clothing a gender role its a ludicrous argument.
Posted by: blahblah | March 07, 2009 at 08:55 AM
i think they shoud let gays marry. if they want to be gay thats fine with me.
Posted by: rate my body | April 22, 2009 at 01:48 PM
I'm pretty Hobbesian.. I think that the reason that many gay (males) don't accept more traditional social morals (especially concerning sex) is that they feel that those morals aren't for their flourishing and in fact are antagonistic against them intrinsically. (And they/we throw the baby out with the bathwater; rebelling against the mores which say we can't be sexual at all leads to excess and nonchalance about being irresponsible.)
One of my acquaintances told me he doesn't wear condoms because "that's just puritanism"... Which is silly.
I personally think that growing social acceptance of gay marriages would lead to more gay people getting monogamous.
Interesting post.
Posted by: Stephen R. | June 12, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Many people when they get married have this silly idea that their spouse will cater to their every whim and that they will continually be swept off their feet. But this notion is a misconception and totally false.
Posted by: las vegas divorce | January 18, 2011 at 01:14 AM
Damn I am old and doesnt anybody see through the bullshit. It is simply about sex. Are our morals and choices in regards to orientation and sex going to change if homosexuality is accepted? Do we accept our children may have a choice in their sexual orientation? If we accept homosexuality as a social norm will it lead to creating a bi-sexual society? These are the type questions that need to be discussed.
Posted by: Julie Pannell | August 22, 2011 at 09:26 PM