For whatever reason, I was thinking about same-sex marriage on the way to lunch today and I had a thought that hadn't occurred to me before (though I don't presume my thought is unique): One of the common arguments against marriage equality is the "complementarity" argument: That men and women are different and "complement" each other and thus a relationship between two people of the same sex lack this "complementarity" and can't possibly be a "real" relationship.
Yes, it's complete bull, the idea that only women can be nurturing, only men can be strong, and that somehow two people who are both X can't find ways to capitalize on that are quite pessimistic about the nature of love and relationships. And yes, I understand that it's all a smoke screen for what they really want to say: "EWWW! You mean you don't put your penis in a vagina? EWWW!"
But, I wanted to take on the argument from another angle.
The claim is that there is something about being female that results in certain personality traits and vice versa for men. It also insists that the only way a stable relationship can possibly exist is if the unique-to-women traits are paired with the unique-to-men traits so that you somehow have the full set of traits required. Let's even give the benefit of the doubt and say that the traits are not unique but rather strongly favored within one gender. And let's even give the benefit of the doubt and say that they aren't biologically controlled or even supernaturally decreed but are socially driven. That is, let's assume that it's society that is the primary driver that has women being the "nurturers" and men being the "providers."
OK...so where does that leave race? For the longest time, we prevented white people from marrying outside their race. But surely the traits that we claim exist between the sexes are also present among the races. We've heard an awful lot from those who argue for "racial purity" that there are inborn traits among the races. And those traits sound an awful lot like the distinction we hear (usually from the same people) regarding the sexes: Whites are powerful, non-whites subservient. Whites are more intellectual, non-whites more emotional. Whites think about the future, non-whites think about the present. On and on.
So that would seem to say that we should be outlawing same-race marriage. If the "complementarity" argument holds water, then it would be ludicrous to pair people of the same race together. How can they possibly understand love and what it means to be part of a team when they're both trying to do the same thing? Two white people together will both be trying to dominate the relationship because white people were meant to be in charge. Two white people will resent letting their partner be in control. Two white people will both try to provide and be resentful of the other for taking their place in the relationship. It's all doomed to failure.
No, the only legitimate relationship has to be between people of different races. They "complement" each other.
Yeah, I know...way too esoteric and intellectual an argument to be of any use. But, I thought it was fun to consider.
[ABE: Fixed a typo.]