NO PRESSURE?: Mark Miller replies to Eve

[my post is here--Eve]

First, I think we need to clarify that there is a distinction between the phrase 'social norm' and 'social expectation'. There is a clear social expectation that opposite sex couples will have children. This is because sexual relations, which is an expected part of marriage, normatively results in procreation unless there is manual intervention such as birth control or health related reasons. This is different for same-sex couples where sexual contact cannot result in procreation, therefore, it is not expected from a social standpoint. But I'm not sure that 'social norm' is an accurate phrase in this context because, in my opinion, the 'norm' of wanting to raise a family applies equally to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

But to answer your question, I think the answer is 'yes'. If same sex couples are granted legal recognition, with that should come the responsibility of being expected to raise children. To me, that comes with it just as the commitment of sexual fidelity does. I don't really see the problem with the 'mainstream'-ing of reproductive technologies that result in at least one of the partners being kept out of the biological drama. That technology is currently available to opposite sex couples and seems to me no different than adoption, where both partners are effectively kept out of the biological drama. I think that argument is being used arbitrarily against same sex couples. I've never seen any SSM opponent discourage the use of those technologies for opposite sex couples.

That brings up the argument of the idea that children need mothers and fathers. I agree that is a good idea to foster this, even for the government to foster using its resources and pulpit. But the fine line between fostering and/or encouraging it versus legally requiring it needs to be considered. The reality is that the government does not require it. The culture is making it less and less dishonorable, certainly less than it was 25 years ago. Divorce, re-marriage, single parenthood, children conceived through technology have all been normalized. The question is how far should the government go to foster the creation of the nuclear family
(mom-dad-children) and should that effort include the scarlet letter that seems to be legitimizing same sex relationships.

Also, I happen to share your concerns that we'd be "creating a class of marriages where we're neutral at best on whether they should raise kids, rather than encouraging it, when part of the point of marriage is that society expects and encourages married couples to bear and rear the next generation and also be contributing to the idea that everyone makes individually-tailored rules for marriage, there are no expectations or social norms that should be conformed to, and would expect that attitude to spill over into other areas, e.g. sexual fidelity." I feel those have more serious cultural consequences than the reproductive technology and mother-father idea areas.
posted by Eve at 4:45 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home