|
 |
 |
 Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Love, Sex, Babies/Maggie Gallagher
Barry, I do understand. Your post recapitulates the problem I just described with Andrew's. He thinks of the pieces of marriage as separate, a checklist. So that if I think marriage is "about" procreation, I must mean it is a factory for only procreation. To speak of any other dimensions of marriage is to "prove" that you do not consider uniting babies, sex and love to be the purpose of marriage. Marriage is an attempt to unite: sex, love, babies, to bridge the divide between men and women, mothers and fathers. Same-sex marriage advocates seek (unbeknownst to themselves) to fragment marriage into a checklist of things, without acknowledging how central the "form" of marrige as the union of husband and wife is (and always has been) to its core social function. If sex between men and women did not make babies, marriage would not be a universal human institution. Can marriage continue to play the role as the core manager of generativity and the disparate sexual interests of men and women (a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon), while being forced to take on this new burden of addressing the social alienation caused by orientation (as Eve Tushnet puts it)? I see no signs that marriage can be burdened in this way and be expected to "do fine," much less recover (which is what it needs to do). What you perceive as a change in emphasis, is a natural result of being asked repeatedly to explain, why would SSM hurt marriage? But we have been working very hard for years to move this culture away from "marriage as primarily a love relationship between two adults" which is the mantra of a divorce culture to "marriage as a key social institution that connects children with mothers and fathers." To make marriage less about adults' intimacy needs and more about children's needs, when there is a conflict between these two things. SSM is a prime example of such a conflict. Which do we as a culture perceive as more urgent: Adults' rights to legal benefits and social affirmations of sexually diverse intimacy needs? Or the need for a social institution that connects children to their moms and dads? The pretense that we do not have to choose, that SSM represents a tiny incremental change, and not a dramatic transformation in the legal form with clear social implications for the underlying institution, is intellectually and morally irresponsible, in my view. SSM advocates want to advocate dramatic change, on the grounds it isn't really change, and then claim they can't understand why anyone would object. It's a closed circle. If you want to stay there, in the dark, I can't make you leave. |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
" So that if I think marriage is "about" procreation, I must mean it is a factory for only procreation. To speak of any other dimensions of marriage is to "prove" that you do not consider uniting babies, sex and love to be _the_ purpose of marriage." [emphasis added]
Well, duh, yes. And highlighting the change in your rhetoric over the years is intended to make the point that this is so basic that at some instinctive level even you understand it.
SSM advocates want to advocate
dramatic change, on the grounds it isn't
really change, and then claim they can't
understand why anyone would object.
This is an excellent point. We are reassured that nothing really is changed by this, yet it is at the same time absolutely necessary.
Marriage was created to address social alientation--the alienation of women from the economic, political, and social world. It was only through marriage that women gained this social blessing.
Social alienation is still at the core of marriage with heterosexuals. One is not "adult" and "responsible" until they marry. Unmarried heterosexuals are considered "suspect." Single mothers are considered "immoral." Why do you think people have large weddings? In order to celebrate the end of social alienation and gain the blessing of the community.
Maggie, that vague word "about" can be replaced. The specific phrase you are looking for is "the right to" - marriage is "the right to" procreate. That right is often exercised, and so it comes with obligations and responsibilities, and is rewarded with benefits and protections.
Do you think that same-sex couples should have the right to use technology to procreate or not? I think they should not have the right, I think that all people should be forced to choose someone of the other sex if they want to procreate.
The problem I see in your assertion is not in that SSM represents a tiny incremental change and is not a significant change in the legal definition of marriage. I believe it is a significant change. But where I would challenge you is where you assume that SSM or any legal acknowledgement of gay relationships results in the conflicting choice between adults’ intimacy and children’s needs. In many cases, allowing SSM or some legal acknowledgement would result in a net positive for the children involved.
You may point out that the studies that say children are better with opposite sex parents. But why only apply those studies to this issue ? Why not apply that same logic and existing studies to religious, racial, economic or age differences that could be used to screen out marriage applicants ? It seems arbitrary to only apply that to the ‘gender’ condition when pulling out the ‘best interests of the child’ card.
Legally recognizing gay relationships, including in marriage, does mot change the fact that marriage connects children to their moms and dads anymore than allowing people to marry who have children with others does that.
Exactly Mark. It's time for another change of tune, time to forget about what "children need" and go for the jugular. People should not have the right to procreate with a person of the same sex, it is unethical and unsafe.
Can marriage continue to play the role as the core manager of generativity and the disparate sexual interests of men and women (a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon), while being forced to take on this new burden of addressing the social alienation caused by orientation (as Eve Tushnet puts it)?
Certainly not if you believe that marriage is all about procreation, and about nothing but procreation, and has no other function.
If marriage has other functions besides getting a couple together to make babies together, then it can still carry those functions out when a couple can marry who can't make babies together.
Of course, right now, sterile heterosexual couples aren't allowed to marry, so I understand your confusion.
What I don't understand is why you keep first trying to claim that you're not saying marriage "is a factory for only procreation" .... and then using arguments that depend on the assumption that marriage's only function is procreation.
Surely you must have noticed that you're not getting away with this kind of broken logic with anyone who doesn't already share your feeling that same-sex couples mustn't be allowed to get married because, er, the Roman Empire will fall! if we do?
I don't agree with your assertion of 'unethical' - but we've already been there done that. But I do admire that that you accept that the 'children's needs' argument is a poor one.
The moral argument is a legit one - I have a different opinion than you on that but I acknowledge its legitimacy.
SSM is an invention presented as the reinvention of marriage. Some SSM advocates basically say, why reinvent the wheel when it can serve non-wheel purposes? And then they proceed to argue for reinvention, anyway.
Chairm: SSM is an invention presented as the reinvention of marriage.
Yes, by those who oppose state recognition of same-sex couples getting married. They claim (without evidence) that such state recognition will somehow mean marriage is transformed into something else.
When you ask them what that "something else" is, they say it will mean marriage is no longer linked to procreation, if couples who can't have children can marry.
When you point out that couples who can't have children can marry, and many same-sex couples do have children, they explode into details about how it matters how a couple make love, or some mystic stuff about male/female principles, or that marriage only matters for the conception of a child and not at all for the rearing... and so forth.
they say it will mean marriage is no longer linked to procreation, if couples who can't have children can marry.
Jesu, we say it will no longer contain an intrinsic right to procreate if any couples that are prohibited from procreating by law are allowed to be married.
Do you see the distinction between a couple not procreating for whatever reason, and a couple not having the right to procreate?
“Which do we as a culture perceive as more urgent: Adults' rights to legal benefits and social affirmations of sexually diverse intimacy needs? Or the need for a social institution that connects children to their moms and dads?
The pretense that we do not have to choose ... is intellectually and morally irresponsible, in my view.”
This argument would be greatly strengthened by examples. What aspect of my marriage linking me to my wife and kids would be altered if same sex couples are also allowed to marry?
Without examples, the pretense that we DO have to choose is intellectually and morally dishonest. In my view.
Jesurgislac, you would redefine the social institution that has always been integrative of the sexes. A redefinition replaces the previously established definition. Accept that or not, this means SSM is your proposed reinvention.
Like I said, SSMers like to promise they are not reinventing the wheel, but then go ahead and argue for reinvention anyway.
Your comment includes the shortlist of the SSM dependance on confused categories. It is a dog's breakfast.
SSM in Massachusetts provides the legal underpinnings which aid SS couples in raising their children successfully. Since the successful raising of children is a societal goal, more couples who have or intend to have children, whether gay or straight, should be encouraged to marry.
Since SS couples in Massachusetts were raising families already, providing these couples and their children with the same rights and protections that OS couples have had little outward effect. Yet the acknowledgement that citizens cannot be treated unequally just because they are different is a great step forward in providing liberty and justice for all in our country.
By far, most of those children are children of broken families and have migrated with parents who left previously procreative relationships and now live with housemates of the same sex. These children have the same protections as all children of divorced or estranged parents.
The SSMers really need to reconsider dragging these children into center stage when the underpinning of SSM is not childcentric.
Second-parent adoption provides direct legal benefits to the child-adult relationship in these obviously blended families. SSM legal incidents of marriage are not as important to the child-adult relationship. If you disagree, please precisley explain how so.
Second parent adoption requires that the second parent be married to the child's biological or originally adopting parent in many states and would greatly facilitate these adoptions in others.
Having two legally obliged parents is better than having just one.
Chairm said... you would redefine the social institution that has always been integrative of the sexes. A redefinition replaces the previously established definition.
First, you have to show that marriage has "always been integrative of the sexes", Chairm. I don't believe you've done that, and given that the traditional basis of marriage is one where the wife is her husband's property, I don't believe that you can.
Your assertion that marriage provides no benefits to children is noted. I find it interesting that opponents of same-sex marriage have to keep reiterating their belief that children do not benefit from being raised by a married couple.
Were wives and husbands other than women and men in the darkness of the distant past?
Please demonstrate that sex integration did not occur, even where a rich mas was the supposed owner of his wife.
Your assertion that marriage provides no benefits to children is noted.
Sometimes notetaking is helpful. Please quote where the above assertion was supposedly made.
Please demonstrate that sex integration did not occur, even where a rich mas was the supposed owner of his wife.
"Supposed" owner? In past centuries, traditional marriage allowed a man to claim every penny his wife earned, to take her property for himself, to beat her, to rape her, and to divorce her if she had sex with anyone other than himself. She had no reciprocal rights. This was the case whether the man was rich or poor: he could still treat his wife as his property.
Please quote where the above assertion was supposedly made.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying that children do benefit from marriage - but that the children of same-sex couples ought to be deprived of these benefits?
Well, even if the law and the rich man supposed his wife to be his property, that is still a suppose. You and I would agree that people are not chattel.
But you have yet to demonstrate the sexes were not integrated.
---
The parent seems to do the depriving in the scenario you are describing. But, as yet, you have not provided your baseline for how the legal incidents of marital status directly benefit the child-parent relationship in this scenario.
Post a Comment
<< Home