THE UNBEATABLE INFERTILITY ARGUMENT: Maggie Gallagher

Mark, you sound like certain far-right conspiracy theorists, with this talk of my "agenda." You seem to think my arguments are a cover for my real arguments.

I have found that, by contrast, if you assume a minimal amount of good will this kind of radical disagreement, when arguments made by one person sound so totally opaque to the other, it is usually an indication of some deeper disagreement further back which is making it hard to even "achieve disagreement."

What could it be in this case? I think it is the increasing characterization of marriage as a "rite" that confers "rights."--a ceremony that confers legal benefits. This is what the lawyers have made of marriage. You create a category of "inclusion and exclusion" and conclude that because certain "exceptions" are made others can be made without damage.

I start with the social institution. Marriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children. This is no longer written anywhere in the law, when we got rid of provisions restricting the sexual license to marriage and also giving special privileges to children born within marriage.

But regardless of whether or not the law is articulate about this purpose, it is still one of the things that marriage is (marriage not being the sum of its legal incidents).

Therefore, in giving marriage to unisex couples, we are saying that we think it is a great idea of unisex couples to acquire children. We are saying children do not need mothers and fathers.

None of that is true with any male-female union.
posted by maggie at 5:13 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home