Friday, June 20, 2008

Why do homosexual relationships need to be stabilized if they're already stable?

I didn't catch this when it was posted, but Richard John Neuhaus (Why, you ask, is he not on my list of Modern Wise Men, the answer to which is, "I have no idea) had an insightful comment on the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex "marriage".

In one part of the post, Neuhaus criticizes Father Thomas Reese, former editor of the Catholic magazine America, for floating the assertion that allowing homosexuals to "marry" would "stabilize" their relationships, a position Neuhaus mentions that Andrew Sullivan often espouses.

One thing Neuhaus doesn't mention is how totally inconsistent this view--of the desirability of marriage for stabilizing homosexual relationships--is with what homosexuals are always saying about their relationships. On the one hand, gay rights advocates frequently deny that their relationships are unstable (i.e., that they are inordinately promiscuous); on the hand, they say that allowing same-sex marriage would "stabilize" their relationships (i.e. reduce their penchant for promiscuity).

If their relationships are already stable, then why do they need to be stabilized?

No comments: