The sexist argument against marriage equality
There's a code that the opponents of same-sex marriage use, that, at even just below the surface, should offend almost anyone with a modern sensibility. They argue that a family is best when marriage is a man and a woman. Beyond the "tradition" argument (which is saying "this is the way it's always been, this is the way it should always be", which basically saying "it's right just because it is," just as slavery was once tradition, or women not having the right to vote was once tradition), they argue that a family is raised best when it has a mother and a father.
First off, marriage is not for procreation. Nowhere on the marriage license do you sign a contract to say you will produce children. No one is given a fertility test to make sure they can have children before marriage, and who doesn't swoon when an elderly couple finds each other and marry each other long after their child-rearing years?
And for those couples who do have children, who is to say to the estimated one million children that are being raised by couples in a same sex relationship, you don't deserve to have married parents? I would think all children would benefit from the stability of marriage. Few would argue that.
No, there's a deeper sexism to this. Why do parents have to be one male and one female? Surely to create a child, you do need certain physical parts, but as I mentioned previously, one million children were produced by other means. So beyond creating children, what is it?
The argument is that a child deserves a mother and a father. And herein lies the subtext. So the idea is that there must be a woman to play the part of the mother and a male to play the part of a father. The subtext is that a woman should play a certain role, i.e., cooks and cleans and changes the diapers, and the man should play a certain role, i.e., who goes out and earns the living, and comes home to expect dinner on the table. After all, if the woman started doing father's work, like going out and earning a living and coming home to find her hubby already had dinner on the table, then why couldn't you have a lesbian couple where a woman stayed at home at took care of the kids and the other went out and earned a living and coming home to find dinner on the table? And that would just be weird, no?
The answer is, that's actually the best way to do it. Studies have shown that heterosexual couples do best when they don't assume such gender roles, and that the role of parents are divided evenly between the two along areas of interest, not necessarily along lines of gender. And since same sex couples don't have such predefined roles, they tend to split their roles along where they're most comfortable, and tend to be even more successful at it than heterosexual couples.
Can you just imagine the scene otherwise?
A woman walks into the nursery. She finds her husband changing the baby's diaper.
"What are you doing?" she asks, looking puzzled.
"Oh, you were busy, so I'm changing the baby's diaper?"
"You're what? That's my job."
"Excuse me?"
"Well, marriage is between a man and a woman."
"Right."
"And a child needs a father and a mother."
"Right." He's trying to figure out where she's going with this.
Showing with her hands on one side, "Well, so a man is needed to do the role of the father, " and moving her hands to the other side, "and a woman is needed to do the role of the mother."
The man pauses for a second before it hits him. "Oh my god. I'm destroying marriage! What do I do?" he asks.
"I don't know... do something manly!"
"Uh, uh, get in the kitchen and make me something to eat!" he points the way out.
"Okay!" she runs out. Then runs back in, looking at the baby. "Uh, I'll change the...."
"Um, I'll go mow the lawn or something," and he walks out.
------
No, the answer is, it doesn't take a man and a woman to raise a family. Just love. And as long as someone takes out the garbage, does it really matter who?
First off, marriage is not for procreation. Nowhere on the marriage license do you sign a contract to say you will produce children. No one is given a fertility test to make sure they can have children before marriage, and who doesn't swoon when an elderly couple finds each other and marry each other long after their child-rearing years?
And for those couples who do have children, who is to say to the estimated one million children that are being raised by couples in a same sex relationship, you don't deserve to have married parents? I would think all children would benefit from the stability of marriage. Few would argue that.
No, there's a deeper sexism to this. Why do parents have to be one male and one female? Surely to create a child, you do need certain physical parts, but as I mentioned previously, one million children were produced by other means. So beyond creating children, what is it?
The argument is that a child deserves a mother and a father. And herein lies the subtext. So the idea is that there must be a woman to play the part of the mother and a male to play the part of a father. The subtext is that a woman should play a certain role, i.e., cooks and cleans and changes the diapers, and the man should play a certain role, i.e., who goes out and earns the living, and comes home to expect dinner on the table. After all, if the woman started doing father's work, like going out and earning a living and coming home to find her hubby already had dinner on the table, then why couldn't you have a lesbian couple where a woman stayed at home at took care of the kids and the other went out and earned a living and coming home to find dinner on the table? And that would just be weird, no?
The answer is, that's actually the best way to do it. Studies have shown that heterosexual couples do best when they don't assume such gender roles, and that the role of parents are divided evenly between the two along areas of interest, not necessarily along lines of gender. And since same sex couples don't have such predefined roles, they tend to split their roles along where they're most comfortable, and tend to be even more successful at it than heterosexual couples.
Can you just imagine the scene otherwise?
A woman walks into the nursery. She finds her husband changing the baby's diaper.
"What are you doing?" she asks, looking puzzled.
"Oh, you were busy, so I'm changing the baby's diaper?"
"You're what? That's my job."
"Excuse me?"
"Well, marriage is between a man and a woman."
"Right."
"And a child needs a father and a mother."
"Right." He's trying to figure out where she's going with this.
Showing with her hands on one side, "Well, so a man is needed to do the role of the father, " and moving her hands to the other side, "and a woman is needed to do the role of the mother."
The man pauses for a second before it hits him. "Oh my god. I'm destroying marriage! What do I do?" he asks.
"I don't know... do something manly!"
"Uh, uh, get in the kitchen and make me something to eat!" he points the way out.
"Okay!" she runs out. Then runs back in, looking at the baby. "Uh, I'll change the...."
"Um, I'll go mow the lawn or something," and he walks out.
------
No, the answer is, it doesn't take a man and a woman to raise a family. Just love. And as long as someone takes out the garbage, does it really matter who?
posted by Joe Carlin at 2:44 AM
10 Comments:
Excellent essay, Joe!
Yes Joe - well said!
Nicely done.
For a long time I have believed that the main thrust behind anti-homosexual sentiment is also anti-woman. I won't be as eloquent as you, but the general gist is that in a homosexual relationship, at least one of the men is playing the role of a woman. They are giving up their manhood. Nothing could be more frightening than a man who is so sick that he would willingly give up his position of power. That is also why "fuck you" is an insult. Fucking is good, getting fucked is bad...
And between the lines of this explanation is the absence of any mention of women, which points to Lesbian invisibility and that woman are not important... It's sick, complicated, and twisted.
I too have heard the argument over and over that a 'family is best when it is a marriage between a man and a woman'. If this is really true where is the outcry from the 'natural man/woman marriage' supporters against single parents? The assumption here is that all families have two actively involved parents.
I still dont understand the gay marriage movement.
If your in a loving committed relationship and its cheaper to draw up power of attorney papers (in the state of CA it is, power of attorney is $150 at we the people, $250 for marriage) why do you need the state to validate that relationship?
I mean equality or whatever but at the root of everything... what does marriage do. The root cause of marriage is to create a family unit, thats its benefit to society. Society no longer really needs the family unit so its only real function now is to have the state say 'we recognize your relationship'. i dont know about you, but i dont need anyone to validate my relationship but me.
Most people who fight for gay marriage will never be in a relationship long enough to be close thinking about marriage (except with the gay preoccupation for diva worship then the timelines shrink and divorce rates go up). I still dont understand the whole fight unless its just to thumb your nose at religious organizations which is really just a massive waste of resources. You never once say how marriage is better than power of attorney, and with the collapse of marriage as a viable option and most straight couples going with power of attorney, why the fight for that outdated mode?
Skippy, no one stands on bended knee, offers a ring and says "Will you be my power of attorney?" There are enormous social and spiritual, as well as legal, benefits to marriage, many of which cannot be enacted simply by a POA. To simplify it just purely as a POA is negating all the other benefits of marriage. Those benefits include forming a family which may or may not include children, and may include children not procreated by you (including the 6-10 million adopted children in the US). To say marriage is simply about procreation is to ignore all the things that truly make a family.
And by the way Skippy, you comment that "most people who fight for gay marriage will never be in a relationship long enough to be close thinking about marriage." Many of my friends who have since married have been together for decades. My partner and I have been together longer than my heterosexual brother and his wife were married. Will all gay people marry? No. Do all straight people marry? No. Neither would be a reason to broadly deny any group the right to make that decision for themselves, and especially not by the government.
Thank you for this. This argument has been on the tip of my tongue for a while, and you've put it into words quite nicely. I think homophobes get so worked up over marriage in particular because it's one of the last places in modern society where you have - or should have, in their minds - designated gender roles.
I like this argument. It would be interesting to flesh it out and submit it as an op-ed piece!
And Skippy, a marriage license in California costs between $50 and $80, not $250 as you mentioned.
Post a Comment
<< Home