WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Mark Miller replies to Eve

I agree that much of this debate does revolve around the 'two worlds'. The world view has changed in most societies and cultures and there is a legitimate debate about whether these changes have been good or bad. (Obviously, some have been good and some have been bad).

But I do object to the view--or maybe my perception of the view--that those who support SSM are less interested in 'the best interest of the children'. I don't remember any same-sex advocate referring to children as 'distractions' in a marriage. Of course children are aspirations and the fulfillment of unions. But using that in the context of this debate seems disingenuous to me. First, one of the arguments for same-sex advocates is that allowing them to marry will be beneficial to the stability of their own family. I guess you could say that the government has no interest in the stability of a family not biologically but that goes against the 'best interests of child' argument. (and comes across as sort of mean-spirited too).

Second, the truth is that children are 'optional extras'. If this issue were only about children, then the SSM foes could support laws where there is one legal status for couples with children and another status for couples without children. In other words, if it is about the children involved, then change the laws accordingly as the situation warrants.

If the same-sex marriage foes are going to argue that 'same-sex marriage' means that children are NOT important, then they must also be willing to say they oppose other 'freedoms' that also send that same message--such as divorce where children are involved, adoption by single parents, even the ability to keep your children if you are unwed.

Otherwise, the argument seems arbitrary since it is only used in the case of same-sex marriage.
posted by Eve at 1:48 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home