So it wasn't so much about the father taking responsibility as the father having some certainty that his child was actually his.
All too true. I guess I was thinking about some philosophical writings (Aquinas springs to mind) that build on that historical reality. I've studied several texts that basically say, yes, marriage was originally for making sure the kid is really yours but you can use it as a tool to help you treat your wife like a person and not something to be used. For all their chauvinism, some of these medieval philosophers were pretty far ahead of their time in some ways. Anyway I didn't mean it as an either/or thing.
homophobia vs. sexism:
Yeah, I think you're on to something. An even bigger problem is the fact that homosexuality turns the typical idea of the role of women on its head. If you think women are naturally best at certain tasks and men at others (which is the way many people I grew up around made sense of the idea there were some things best left to the guys), then what do you make of homosexuality? Either they can never be as fulfilled, or else they're divying up things in some way that resists that idea for gender division of labor.
So even if you think this is sexism and wrong (and I'm sympathetic there!), it's a much bigger issue than simple homophobia. My basic point was we need to recognize that gay marriage does affect more than just homosexuals. The thing is, realizing those changes in your thought is scary and takes work, and I really don't see it happening if we just keep talking about whether people voting down for these laws hate gay people. Because that whole question rather misses the point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-05-14 03:32 pm (UTC)All too true. I guess I was thinking about some philosophical writings (Aquinas springs to mind) that build on that historical reality. I've studied several texts that basically say, yes, marriage was originally for making sure the kid is really yours but you can use it as a tool to help you treat your wife like a person and not something to be used. For all their chauvinism, some of these medieval philosophers were pretty far ahead of their time in some ways. Anyway I didn't mean it as an either/or thing.
homophobia vs. sexism:
Yeah, I think you're on to something. An even bigger problem is the fact that homosexuality turns the typical idea of the role of women on its head. If you think women are naturally best at certain tasks and men at others (which is the way many people I grew up around made sense of the idea there were some things best left to the guys), then what do you make of homosexuality? Either they can never be as fulfilled, or else they're divying up things in some way that resists that idea for gender division of labor.
So even if you think this is sexism and wrong (and I'm sympathetic there!), it's a much bigger issue than simple homophobia. My basic point was we need to recognize that gay marriage does affect more than just homosexuals. The thing is, realizing those changes in your thought is scary and takes work, and I really don't see it happening if we just keep talking about whether people voting down for these laws hate gay people. Because that whole question rather misses the point.