ACCOUNTABILITY AND REDEFINING MARRIAGE: Matt Taylor

Opponents of SSM seem to have settled on a common argument. Robert George's recent piece in National Review, as well as past writing by Maggie Gallagher, Elizabeth Marquardt, and others, follow a similar line of reasoning:

1) The traditional definition of marriage encourages responsible behavior in adults.

2) Legalizing SSM changes the definition of marriage.

3) Therefore, SSM will result in less responsible behavior from adults.

4) The irresponsible behavior of adults is detrimental to children.

5) Therefore SSM is detrimental to children.

6) SSM improves the personal freedom of adults.

7) However, the welfare of children is more important than the freedom
of adults.

8) Therefore, SSM should not be legalized.

Some of these propositions are questionable, especially (2) and (3), as seen recently in the debate over Stanley Kurtz's research, but let's assume for the moment that Kurtz is right ... SSM would ultimately be to the detriment of children. The logical conclusion, then, is that SSM
is an undesirable policy.

That would appear to be the end of the debate, except that it misses a fundamental issue of accountability; the (heterosexual) parent is treated as a mere statistical effect, rather than a conscious adult with responsibilities of their own. Redefining marriage doesn't change
adult behavior by magic; such causation requires a moral lapse on the part of parents. Somewhere in this argument, the decisions made by
heterosexual adults should also be treated as "policy choices," even though the choices are individual and not social.
posted by Eve at 7:05 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home