One of the things that people who are against same-sex marriage often bring up is that it will ruin the meaning of marriage. People who support the marriage equality dismiss the argument, as it doesn't seem to even make any sense to them. I am starting to wonder if it might be true . . . but in a good way.
For many years, marriage was a merger of resources and a commitment between two people. This allowed for them to pool money and energy to create a safe home for themselves and any possible children. Sometimes, other family members would be involved as well, most often older parents who needed care. Romantic love didn't have to be part of the equation though often people liked the idea of it.
With same-sex marriage, none of this has to change. It can still be about a merging of households, money, and energy. Children and other family members can also be involved. It is the romantic love part that doesn't really have to be there.
People don't have to marry for love. And while that may seem sad and cold, it doesn't have to be. Some people never fall in love, but that doesn't mean they have no important or significant relationships in their lives. This could allow best friends of the same gender a chance to have a legal contract to bind them together. Maybe this wouldn't involve sex with each other, but it would have all the other aspects of commitment and security. For people who are asexual or sexually traumatized or incapable of being near the other gender, it would open up a way for them to experience the non-sexual, non-romantic benefits of marriage.
We could very well see straight-presenting people participate in same-sex marriages. We might see them create new types of families and new definitions of what it means to be joined in matrimony. I know this will make some people balk. Consider the joy it could bring to people though, especially ones who don't wish to live alone, but find the idea of sex to be repulsive.
No comments:
Post a Comment