SSM AND PARENTING: Elizabeth Marquardt replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Gabriel Rosenberg writes: "Anyone who is going to argue about 'defending families' needs to at the very least demonstrate that they have taken these families into consideration. The standard response I have seen is that the welfare of these children, who they claim are already in a less than ideal
situation, is not sufficient reason to harm all of those other children who would
be affected by this change in marriage. But when asked how those other
children will be affected all I hear is that same-sex marriage will change
marriage so that it is not about children. This makes no sense to me. We can't
allow people to marry even though it could help their children, because
people might somehow get the idea that marriage doesn't help children."

My response: I don't use language like "defending families," but I am one of
those Gabriel Rosenberg refers to who says that whatever possible benefit might accrue to children of same-sex couples if SSM is legalized is not worth the risk it poses for undermining the norm of marriage and thereby harming the vast majority of children who are born of heteros. SSM will not "change marriage so that it is not about children," as Rosenberg summarizes the argument of people like me. What it will do is change marriage so that it is no longer, at its core, about uniting the man and the woman who made the baby to one another, for the sake of the baby. With SSM our language of marriage has to become gender neutral. We can't say that children need mothers and fathers, only "parents." Once we do that, the idea that when a man and a woman have a baby it's a good idea for them to attempt to get married and stay married will be greatly weakened. That weakened norm of marriage, resulting from legalized SSM, will lead to more children of heteros growing up without their married mother and father, and suffering the consequences.
posted by Eve at 4:22 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home