I was looking at the Family Research Council's website today, and I came across their list of why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Of course every single reason is stupid and false, but I was particularly surprised by the last two.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
The organization states that "women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income" and "couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning." So... basically women are better off being the passive housewife of the 1950's while men should be the hardworking, money earners. Hm, and I thought these ideas were outdated.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
The FRC argues that "it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does" and "gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope."
Ok, so I never realized that men had to be domesticated. My dog, yes. But I've never considered trying to domesticate a man. But I mean, when you think about it, it's just so clear. I mean, all men are obviously wild savages who must be housebroken by the merciful, naturally tame essence of a woman... or the controlling, manipulative one, depending on which stereotype you interpret from this argument.
And I've never heard a gay activist argue that that same-sex marriage would domesticate gay men. That's just... weird. I think UR da fools, FRC!
The idea that marriage 'domesticates' men actually comes from the social construction of gender. As we learned in my history class, towards the beginning of United States history it was believed that women were overtly sexual creatures, and that they had to be married to a man to be 'controlled' - however, that stereotype was changed at some point to the idea that women were naturally inclined to be sober beings whereas men were wild. The thing that's interesting about that is it points out how much of a fallacy the 'men must be domesticated' argument is. Aside from its initial ridiculousness, there is no scientific evidence to back it up, only social, and the social feeling about the issue has changed with time, so you can't even say it's natural or cite historical precedent. Gender is entirely socially constructed, so these arguments are irrelevant. Moreover, the social construction of gender and how the household functions should have nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The way that straight, nuclear-family households function will not be changed even a little bit by the inclusion of gay couples into the institution of marriage.
ReplyDeleteLet me preface this comment by stating that if there was an equally qualified heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, I believe that children would benefit more from being raised in a heterosexual household. I personally do believe there are benefits that one is able to provide for their children in a heterosexual couple as opposed to a homosexual one. I’m not opposed same sex marriage, but I do believe that children would benefit more from having the opportunity to have the help, guidance, and perspective of different sex parents. I believe that a girl would benefit more with the support of a mom when going through puberty, similarly a guy would benefit more if he had a dad during his puberty stages.
ReplyDeleteSo... basically women are better off being the passive housewife of the 1950's while men should be the hardworking, money earners. private tutor
ReplyDelete