Sam Schulman, writer for The Weekly Standard, argues that there are more than just the religious and homophobic that are opposed to gay marriage. He says simply that gay marriage will not work, which is why he is opposed to it. It threatens the sanctity of regular marriage. Why? Well, according to him, marriage plays a major role in "kinship." Whatever the hell that means.
Here are four of the "most profound effects" of marriage on kinship:
1. Schulman explains that marriage "is concerned above all with female sexuality." He says that marriage between men and women has been necessary in "virtually every socierty ever known" for the "protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage." Yea... uhmmm I guess females are worthless without big, strong men to be there for them. Moving on..
2. He says that "kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry... but whom one may not marry." He goes on to describe how incest is illegal and gay marriage is "blissfully free" of these constraints because there is "no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter." While that is all fine and dandy, there is a reason to make that illegal. It is called equality. Why would gay people get more freedoms than straight people? If straight people can't marry within the family, then gay people shouldn't be allowed to.
3. This one is obvious, but I don't think marriage is the only thing that does this. He says that "marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman." He goes on to describe how sex outside of marriage is "illicit sex" that isn't sanctioned in the "moral universe." What year is this? 1941? He also groups children in this category, you know, depending on if they were born in or out of wedlock. He says that the legitimacy of a child is based on the "metaphysical category" of th parents' relationship. Seriously, this guy has just about lost me.
4. If that wasn't enough for you, he even gave a fourth reason. He says that "marriage defines the end of childhood, sets a boundary between generations within the same family and between families, and establishes the rules in any given society for crossing those boundaries." He says how often the "groom becomes the hunting or business partner of his father-in-law and a member of his clubs; a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law in controlling her husband."
Let's not stop there. He does say that there "can be warm relations between families and their children's same-sex partners, but these come about because of liking, sympathy, and the inherent kindness of many people." AND THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART. "A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin."
I'm not an extremist by any means, but this is just absoluting disrespectful in my opinion. How could someone say that they are not antigay but then make all of these erroneous claims? A same-sex marriage only brings people together out of sympathy and "inherent kindness" of people. RIIIGHT. This guy is stuck back in the days when a man controlled every aspect of his wife's life. Women do not need men for protection and children do not get labeled "illegitamate" just because their parents did not wait until they were married.
While most reasons for marriage are the same, the definition of marriage has changed. People need to start realizing that. A fear of incest and lack of "kinship" are not good reasons to deny people the right to be recognized under the law with the person they love.
Here is an excerpt from his article:
"When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people--not rights, but rather onerous obligations--which do not apply to same-sex love."
Get a link to the full story after the jump...
For the full story click here.