WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie writes,

To assert that there are no important differences, legally or socially, between same and opposite-sex couples IS to assert that the fact that only opposite-sex couples can a. create new life and b. connect that new babies to the man and woman who made them, is not a very important difference, legally, socially, and morally.

This, in my opinion, is the gist of this debate. The acknowledgment that this debate IS about the legal and social/moral equating of same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples. (I think that social and moral can be lumpedtogether in the context of this debate.)

For example, it is true that some of the same argument SSM advocates are using can also be applied to support legal legitimization of polygamy and even incestuous relationships. Certainly, these are adult relationships that can result in children and giving these legal status does promote stability and provide legal and social support for the children born out of them. In other words, there are clear benefits to giving legal acknowledgment to those relationships.

Yet the reason we do not is primarily that people have decided that giving legal acknowledgment to those relationships has a greater societal cost in terms of morality and social culture than the benefits to the adults and children in those relationships. Even the issue of the potential disabilities of relatives having biological children is not really enough to justify exclusion of legally accepting those relationships.

My point being is that Maggie is being honest here in saying that this issue for her is the cost of acknowledging and hence, normalizing same-sex relationships so that they have the same legal status of opposite-sex relationships.

Where I feel she is being a little disingenuous is where she--and other SSM opponents--say that this is about children. That is not and has never been true. If marriage laws were about children, even primarily but not solely, then why not support polygamy? It would be in the best interests of children if their biological parents were legally linked together--as in a family--regardless of the existence of a pre-existing relationship between one of the parents and someone else. Again, society has decided that the costs of giving legal acknowledgment to non-monogamous relationships are greater than the obvious benefits to the children.

Also, the "mother-father preference" reasoning is also disingenuous to a point. Obviously, there are a number of marriage arrangements that are not "preferable," such as ones where there is a significant age difference or ones where one of the persons is incarcerated--or even allowing and giving legal status to divorce. But we allow these because we have decided as a culture that giving adults the freedom to do it outweighs the costs of allowing these.

Ultimately, my point is that this is about defining the legal and social/moral differences between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. We have made decisions that there are reasons to acknowledge the differences between men who marry one woman and men who have multiple wives--and brother-sister couplings and unrelated couplings.

I happen to feel that we can and should draw the line after same-sex relationships. I feel that the costs (in terms of social/moral basis) of excluding them from legal acknowledgment are outweighed by the freedom factor for adults. Or in other words, I don't think there is a moral reason to exclude them.

Having said that, I think the debate should revolve around the costs/benefits issue of giving legal status to same-sex relationships--because I feel that is ultimately what the debate is about.

posted by Eve at 9:08 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home