WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher

I had not known that you were on record that saying gay marriage is worse for the institution of marriage than polygamy for the reasons you describe.

I, myself, am on record saying that the gay marriage debate is far more complicated than just a civil rights or equality issue. I do not believe this debate can be reduced to 'bigotry' vs. 'equality'. That is an unfair and oversimplistic accusation just as those who say advocates of SSM are not interested in the needs of children.

Also, I never said that being opposed to both polygamy and same-sex marriage did not make sense or was inconsistent. My point was that the 'mother and father' grounds for opposition does not apply to both and that the central argument for opposition to both is on moral grounds.

Your comment that you do not see marriage as a 'right' but a 'social norm' is interesting. I guess what you are saying is that opposite-sex attractions are the social norm and same-sex attractions are not. And the next step is that there should be an institution (legal and social) that encourages, legitimizes and upholds that 'normal' standard over others. Marriage has historically always referred only to opposite-sex relationships. I certainly acknowledge that. Where we disagree is that I think there should be an institution that does encourage and legitimize the value of stability and building a family for those with same-sex attractions. And why should there be a different institution for same-sex partners as there already exists one which currently applies to opposite-sex partners? I don't feel there is a societal value for giving legal acknowledgment to polygamy or incestuous relationships. In other words, I feel homosexuality is not on the same moral level and that the law should recognize that.

In my view, the fact that same-sex relationships are not the social norm in no way justifies disallowing their relationships from being legally acknowledged. There are a number of opposite-sex relationships that do not fit in the social norm--as I described earlier--yet the people in those relationships have the institution of marriage available to them.

The question then becomes, is the opposite-sex nature of marriage primary--as far as its legal and civil definition?

posted by Eve at 5:58 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home