Arguing with myself

Last night, I wrote that we shouldn't lump all those who oppose same-sex marriage under the umbrella "homophobia." And, while that is valid when your concept of homophobia carries the implication of hostile and demeaning attitudes, it is a limited analysis.

From a deeper psychological perspective, "homophobia" is thought to arise from a fear about one's own identity. We denounce in others that which we cannot tolerate within ourselves -- a way of reassuring oneself that "I'm not like that." Our macho culture has one purpose: proving that men are not feminine and weak -- and it stems not from strength but from fear and insecurity about masculinity.

So, perhaps, those who accept gay people in every other way but marriage are doing something similar -- reassuring themselves about the insecurity we as a culture have about marriage. Missing is a focus on what marriage really is, what it means to two people and to a culture. Is it about the man-woman thing? Or is it about two people building a life together and taking care of each other?

If it's the former, then allowing same-sex couples to "be married" does indeed threaten the institution, because it's reason for being is challenged. But if it is about the latter, then there is no threat at all. And that latter is what is proving to be the case.

So they are right. It is a threat -- not to the institution of marriage but to the shallow definition. It will change that definition but not the institution. And that would be a good change -- to a more meaningful concept of two people building a life together and promising to take care of each other.

Ralph