Heterosexuals Do Not Have Superior Sex

To the editors:

The arguments against gay marriage have gotten a lot dumber. Apparently now it's about how good the sex is.

In her letter "Vermont Decision Ignores Tradition," (Letters, Feb. 28) Melissa Moschella attempts to argue that heterosexual intercourse is somehow "distinct" from homosexual intercourse because only man and woman can experience "unique two-in-one-flesh communion," in which the spouses are "truly united." The fact that heterosexual sex is thus superior, she concludes, means that only opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry, in order to encourage this superior and socially useful form of sex.

Where is this "privileged" position for heterosexual sex coming from? While there may be a figurative or emotional joining of two people in the sex act, this is just as much true of same-sex as of opposite-sex couples. I fail to see the distinction Moschella considers so obvious.

Underlying this silly "two-in-one-flesh" argument, however, is a more troubling notion--the idea that the feelings of same-sex couples are somehow inferior to those experienced by heterosexual couples, mere imperfect replicas of "real" love. Yet, the emotional intimacy between two men or two women can be just as real, and felt just as strongly, as that between a man and a woman. It's sad that people like Moschella won't acknowledge that.

Luke C. Platzer '00

Feb. 28, 2000