|
 |
 |
 Friday, October 28, 2005
Cathy Talk on Gender/Maggie Gallagher
Cathy raises another interesting point: how can Andrew Sullivan talk so eloquently about the difference between men and women and then declare that no rational person can imagine any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that matters? But the paradox goes even deeper. Another point I made on Volokh.com, that no-one has yet picked up on: sexual orientation as a category presumes that gender is a real and significant category--so significant all institutions must be remade to accomdate people who are uniquely attracted only to their own gender. If gender doesn't matter, then Andrew Sullivan can marry a woman. What's his problem? SSM as a civil right is based on the idea that gender really really matters, but only for gay people, and not for children. 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
SSM as a civil right is based on the idea that gender really really matters, but only for gay people, and not for children.
Marriage as a civil right is based (among other things) on the idea that it's better for children to be reared by happy couples who love each other.
Opposition to marriage as a civil right is based (among other things) that it's better for children to be deprived of the benefits of having married parents than it is to support marriage as meaning committing to someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with.
Perhaps gender matters for some things, but not for others?
I mean, it doesn't matter to me what gender my grocer is, but it does matter to me what gender my spouse is.
The relationship between spouses is, among many other things, a sexual and erotic relationship. For most, gender matters in sexual relationships.
On the other hand, in healthy families parent/child relationships aren't sexual. Just because gender matters for sexual relationships, it doesn't follow that gender must matter for parent-child relationships.
SSM has no sexual componet or result that rises to the level of signficance as does procreation with mating relationships.
If marriage did not already exist (and SSM did not circle back to the supposed claim of unjust sex discrimination), what would be the proposed purpose of state endorsement of the arrangement that lacks one of the sexes?
Does gender really matter to children? Not a shred of the social science research you base most of you assumptions on support this Freudian notion.
Chairm, you didn't address my argument whatsoever. Do you support Maggie's claim that it's inconsistent to believe that gender matters in some situations (such as an erotic relationship), but not others (such as a parent/child relationship)?
I'll answer your question. Why does the state have an interest in facilitating same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriages? To paraphrase a statement signed by many current SSM opponents, the state has an interest in marriage because:
1. Marriage protects the well-being of children;
2. Unwed parenting generates large taxpayer costs;
3. Marriage is a unique generator of social and human capital, as important as education in building the wealth of individuals and communities; and
4. Only marriage creates a reasonable hope of permanence.
All of those reasons apply to same-sex couples, many of whom are raising children (and many more of whom will be raising children in the future).
?Marriage as a civil right is based (among other things) on the idea that it's better for children to be reared by happy couples who love each other"
This is the heart of a divorce culture, BTW. Marriage is about happy couples. If you are unhappy you find someone who makes you happier.
SSM advocates often recapitulate key ideas of the family diversity crowd while imagining they are making a conservative case for marriage or supporting commitment.
Maggie: This is the heart of a divorce culture, BTW. Marriage is about happy couples. If you are unhappy you find someone who makes you happier.
*blinks*
So, wait a minute. You actually think it's wrong for married couples to be happy together and love each other? Your vision of marriage is one where two miserable people stay together out of a sense of duty?
Good grief. You really are anti-marriage.
I think both Maggie and Jesurgislac are being unfair.
Maggie wrote, This is the heart of a divorce culture, BTW. Marriage is about happy couples. If you are unhappy you find someone who makes you happier.
But surely divorce and remarriage isn't the inevitable outcome of thinking that marriages ought ideally be happy. Another option is that unhappy couples should work at improving their marriage relationship.
Jesurgislac said So, wait a minute. You actually think it's wrong for married couples to be happy together and love each other?
I don't think Maggie said that it's wrong for married couples to be happy. Assuming I've understand her correctly, she's saying that happiness shouldn't be a requirement of marriage. It's good if a marriage is happy, but merely being unhappy isn't reason to end the marriage, in Maggie's view.
This post on Gideon's blog explains this view in more detail. Here's a quote from it: But many, many people I know did not marry for "love" in the sense that you see in the movies. They married because they were ready to get married. If they were in a "relationship" of one sort or another, they proposed to their girlfriend - or, in one case, ditched her and quickly found someone more marriageable. If they were not, they actively sought out the right sort of man or woman - the sort they could imagine living with even after they grew wrinkled or fat - and, if the other party was willing, married them.
What does "ready" mean? It means I'm lonely too much, and I don't want to get so used to being lonely that I miss my chance to have companionship. It means I want to have children, if only to comfort me with some notion of continuity when death approaches, and I want them now, before I am too old to enjoy them. It means I'm tired of the dating scene, tired of change, of getting to know new people and having to impress them, of having to pretend to be somebody more interesting than I am. It means I'm no longer waiting for perfection. It means I know I'm not fully grown yet, and I want to be.
This is the unromantic perspective that marriage is made of, far more than of love, sex or romance - far more, even, than of friendship.
It's an interesting point of view - and entirely counter to the way mainstream American understands marriage.
Whoops! I forgot to include the link to the post on Gideon's Blog. Here it is.
Ampersand, if Maggie's kneejerk response to "happy couples" is OMG!DIVORCE! then I think she has a deeply unhappy view of marriage. (Then again, I speak as a person whose parents just celebrated their 43rd wedding anniversary, and who numbers many happy long-term couples among my friends. Possibly Maggie's experience of marriage is more negative.)
Post a Comment
<< Home