FUN WITH PROCREATION (isn't it supposed to always be fun?): Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

I really wanted this to be short. It isn't. Please don't kill me.

My exec-summary of Gabriel's post: 1) What's the point of saying marriage only exists because of procreation?
2) You're treating all men and all women as if they were interchangeable.
3) Since opposite-sex couples can marry when they won't be parenting (e.g. old people), why can't same-sex couples?
4) If we "send the message" that fathers are unnecessary, what is the real effect going to be? And, is the presumed harm of more same-sex parenting more important than the benefits of solidifying legal relationships in gay-couple-headed families that are already raising children?
5) "Fathers are necessary but any guy will do" means guys can still abandon their kids because mom can always pick up some other random guy to be daddy.
6) Men who don't marry their babies' mommas are schmucks; don't blame SSM for their actions.
7) Men aren't necessary for families, but if you father a child you have "a responsibility" to that child. Couples raising kids should be married. Intercourse can lead to babies, and thus can lead to lasting responsibility.

Enough summary. Let me burrow in. I apologize in advance for the length!!!!

1) I wanted to point out that marriage isn't a catchall term for "chosen emotional relationships that society honors." That's the point of talking about the cultures that created social roles for male homosexuality without considering those relationships "marriages." It's possible to argue that the distinction between "marriage" and "honored chosen relationship" is out of date, that the former is now entirely coterminous with the latter, but a) realize that this is a big change!, and b) that does mean that society now can only honor relationships by calling them marriages. Where does that leave the recovery of friendship, a topic where I know Gabriel and I have a lot in common?
posted by Eve at 8:27 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home