SSM AND POLYGAMY: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher

You seem to be saying that it is inconsistent or 'unprincipled' to support legal acknowledgment of gay couples but not polygamous couples. This is not the case. Why can't I draw a line between giving legal acknowledgment to one form of family over another for, in this case, moral reasons?

In my case, I believe that we should not give legal acknowledgement to polygamous families because, in my view, the practice of polygamy should be discouraged. Or put another way, I see the process of 'legitimizing' homosexual relationships as a positive thing for society as opposed to 'legitimizing' polygamous ones. I am drawing a moral line between polygamy and homosexuality. I also feel it is appropriate for the law to draw moral lines in the context of legal acknowledgment.

No one wants to break up existing families. I am against polygamy but do not wish to remove children from their polygamous parents. You are against children being raised without both a mom and dad but I doubt you support removing children from all homes where that is not the case.

My argument in support of legal acknowledgment of gay couples is not because those couples already exist and are raising children with love and care. I support it because I feel that gay couples should have the same legal protections and acknowledgment as opposite sex couples.
posted by Eve at 11:39 PM VOTE

1 Comments:

At 11/14/2006 4:08 PM,  Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

"Why can't I draw a line between giving legal acknowledgement to one form of family over another for, in this case, moral reasons?"

Mark, you are pro-gay-union. The argument you have just given against legal acknowledgement of polygamous unions is the same one heterosexuals have been making against homosexual unions for many years. This makes your case inconsistent, as Maggie alleges. Marriage is about family formation (even when no children are present). The law does draw a line, on behalf of the society, encouraging some forms of family formation and discouraging others. Currently, you do not like where the line has been drawn.

You do not offer any rationales or undergirding principles for your belief that "legitimizing homosexual unions is positive," which in and of itself, is like saying "Oreo cookies are positive." The statement is unqualified, unsupported, and essentially a matter of personal preference--though you do use the term "moral" numerous times. Later, your basis of support is that you feel gay couples should have the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, which is a circular argument. You support gay union based on the feeling that gay union should be supported.

I think Maggie's characterization of your argument as unprincipled and inconsistent is, in terms of critical thinking, kind. I suspect that what you mean by moral is "that which the majority of society approves of," which means that polygamy will be immoral until more people feel that it is okay--and for no other reason. Gay union will be immoral until more people feel that it is okay. This fluid definition of morality certainly doesn't advance a solid or principled argument.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home