A Broken Analogy

Race and Sexual Preference There is quite a discussion about Same Sex Marriage going on at Bound by Gravity. This is the post that started it all, and this is a brief follow up. In the thread to the first post, Robert McClelland makes the claim that not recognizing SSM is as much discrimination as apartheid or Jim Crow (he's always subtle, that Robert). Teresa from Heart of Canada jumps in on a similar line, saying that the civil union idea that Andrew suggests is like separate doors for people based on their skin colour: "you saying that a door is a door, and it doesn't matter if one building entrance is labeled "white" and the other, "black?" I think that is a broken analogy, for a number of reasons. The real question here is not whether or not there are differences between gay and straight and any pair of races you care to name. Of course there are. The real question is whether or not those differences are relevant to the issue at hand. In most cases, even though there may be aggregate differences between races, those differences tell us very little if anything about any individual who comes before us. Therefore, it would be wrong to judge someone simply because of their race. Similarly, there are many instances in which a person's sexual preference is not relevant to the question at hand. When that is the case, it would be wrong to judge on that basis. On the issue of marriage, sexual preference does matter. Only men and women can create children, and only men and women can display positive domestic interactions between men and women. A heterosexual couple may well fail to do so, but they have the opportunity, where gays do not, no matter how well intentioned. I must take exception to Robert's claim that "there can be no compromise on issues of equality." Equality is a value that Canadians embrace, but it must be balanced against others. Equality before the law is not the same thing as using the law to make unequal things equal. I think the term discrimination is very much overused in our society and it pays to think very hard about its merit whenever it is brought up. Too often it is used simply as a brickbat, a trump card from which it is expected that there is no response. I would like to see debate on SSM move away from arguments about the motives of the two sides, which are not relevant. It is the merits of the proposals that should be the focus of attention. For example, has anyone else noticed that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its reference to Parliament, did not once mention children? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, don't you think marriage's impact on future generations ought to rank very high in any debate? For myself, I would put that higher than the self fulfillment of the adults in question.