I was looking for statistics* about same-sex marriage opposition when I ran across
this precious article posted back in June. (Warning for extreme sexism and various other acts of privilege.)
The author--Sam Schulman--goes on at length about what he objects to about same sex marriage, and what he thinks marriage really is. Bolded sections are emphasis added.
The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one's soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues. These qualities are awfully nice, but they are emphatically not what marriage fosters, and, even when they do exist, are only a small part of why marriage evolved and what it does.
Got that? It's important. He's tackling the key issue of
what is marriage, which is absolutely crucial to any non-religious discussion of
and why same-sex couples can't have it. Brace yourself... 'cos he hits the same conclusion about "traditional marriage" that I got, only he thinks it's a good thing.
Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.
Marriage is not about raising children, or living together and sharing resources, or being a unit in the community. Marriage is about
female sexuality--and the control thereof. In case that wasn't obvious from his earlier quotes, he makes sure you understand:
This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.
He also points out that "
A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships." He seems to think they are important--nay, mandatory, because, "
without social disapproval of unmarried sex--what kind of madman would seek marriage?" He then goes on to talk about the "kinship" that marriage creates:
Even in modern romantic marriages, a 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. There can, of course, 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. 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.
This kinship is important to him--he says
In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.
That latter seems like a bit of a red herring, and he doesn't explain it well. But it does tie into some of his other points, about marriage and illicit sexuality and the importance of at least giving lip service to the idea of virginity.
Marriage, to him, is all about men getting access to women's sexuality, and since same-sex marriage turns that concept on its head, it is wrong.And he doesn't even spend much time grumbling about the "wrongness"--he's bitching about how the inevitible failure of same-sex marriage (because marriage can't survive without illicit sexuality and forced kinship) will destroy the last vestiges of men-owning-women marriage.
Umm.
Yay?
* Stats: Specifically, I was trying to find out if the opposition splits equally along gender lines, or if more men oppose same-sex marriage than women. Any relevant research info would be welcome.
This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/280002.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far: 
*facepalm*![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
florahart)
tired![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
daily_deviant. For something I wrote quickly (having been obsessed with A Confusion of Will and Desire for the last two months), I'm pretty happy with it, except for the title, which is lame. 
Just a few points today:![[info]](http://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
orlando_mcnally to come home from his Poker gig to play. I should've taken a nap like I usually do. It's usually a late night.
exhausted![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small}
spnstoryfinders asking for hurt Dean or something like that. Anyway, the topic interests me and there were a ton of links. I'm going through them. Some are really good. I'm still working through so there may be more to come.
hopeful