"WHAT TO DO WITH GAYS": Mark Miller vs. Eve and Maggie

I admit that I don't understand what it is about same-sex sexual relationships that refers to an "ad-hoc, Chinese-menu approach" to marriage.

I do agree with Eve that the third party benefits of marriage are very much different (and less in some ways) for same-sex relationships than they are for opposite-sex relationships.

But I argue that the third party benefits are irrelevant to the debate. I use the analogy of affirmative action in education. The argument of those who support affirmative action is the third party benefit of having a "diverse" group of educated people. But the more important question is .... is it fair to discriminate to support this "third party benefit"? As a conservative, I am not in favor of the government deciding that a specific group is not entitled to a certain benefit based on any "third party benefit" analysis.

Also, regarding the comment "... seeking governmental sanction and guidance for your relationship when you don't have to ...." -- based on this view, then why should the government sanction ANY relationship that does not produce kids? I'll concede that gay relationships cannot produce children, so to be fair -- why not support that the government get out of the business of "guidance and sanction" until there are children involved? And then, you can say that the government only sanction those relationships with children in which there is both a mother and father. Does that work for you?

Ultimately, people such as Andrew and myself just want one thing -- for the government to treat (i.e.: guidance, sanction, etc.) gays the same way they treat everyone else.

Finally, Maggie referred to Andrew Sullivan's conservativeness consisting of calling for government to make emotional pets of gay people by developing "programs" and "social policies" towards "integrating" them, poor dears. First, in what world is allowing people to get married or join the military a "program" or "social policy"? (other than Iraq or Cuba...) Also, can we substitute "black" or "female" or "disabled" for "gay" in your statement? Does it still apply (especially the "emotional pets" and "poor dears" parts) Why not? And speaking of condescending, the truth comes out in your statement regarding how you feel about gays.
posted by maggie at 4:49 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home