ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE: Paul Nathanson

Paul is a researcher at McGill University and the co-author of an interesting book Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (get it here.):

As for the question of today, I can't really make a powerful argument.

Though gay myself, I'm really, deeply ambivalent about civil unions for gay people. I approve, on the one hand, because I believe that all citizens should have access to basic financial or legal benefits. Everyone has access to medicare in Canada, for instance. If access to that in the United States depends on marriage, then the argument against gay marriage is much weaker there. On the other hand, I believe that marriage should be a privileged relationship; those who take the responsibility for children (which is the first premise of and ultimate rationale for marriage) should be rewarded for doing so. And not only in financial terms. They really should have higher status than other people. Not because they're straight, but because they're parents and thus contribute something essential to the entire community.

I see no reason for the state to become involved with those who have no intention of producing and rearing children, and these would include both gay and straight couples. Nor, for that matter, do I see any reason for the state to encourage single parenthood. What about the children of adults in those categories? That's a serious problem, and I don't have the solution. But encouraging irresponsible adults to produce more of them would certainly not be an acceptable one.

posted by maggie at 9:51 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home