|
 |
 |
 Sunday, October 23, 2005
The Equal Protection Lock Box/Maggie Gallagher
So, take this adoption thing. Some people reason like this: "If adopted children are better off with married moms and dads, then that shows biology isn't everything, which means children of gay parents would also be better off if their parents were married, which means given that you allow married parents to adopt, you have to let gay parents get married." Clink! Q.E.D. Brainlock. 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
This really does nothing to explain why you think marriage isn't beneficial to children, whether or not they're the biological children of both spouses.
It just tells me that you find absurd the reasoning that marriage is beneficial to children: which I knew already.
This really does nothing to explain why you think marriage isn't beneficial to children, whether or not they're the biological children of both spouses.
Um, what?
I'm pretty sure that she thinks that actual *marriage* (the real deal, man and woman) is beneficial for children.
That's what I call a Socratic equivocation, since the reasoning relies on pretending that the marriage that you'd "allow" between same sex couples, is the same sort of marriage that actually confers the measured benefit. Biology isn't everything, but the child still needs a mother and father, even if it's not the child's biological mother and father. If the gay parents really married (i.e. two men married the same woman in a polyandrous relationship), that would be strange as anything, but probably a healthier situation for the kid than the status quo, since the kid would at least now have a mother as well as father figures.
Holmegn: I'm pretty sure that she thinks that actual *marriage* (the real deal, man and woman) is beneficial for children.
Maggie has explicitly said that when children are adopted, or when only the mother is the biological parent, and her partner isn't, marriage has no benefits for children. I deduce from this that she does not believe in any benefits of marriage as a nurturing/stable environment within which to bring up children.
Of course, if she did believe in the benefits of marriage as a nurturing/stable environment within which to bring up children, she would have to explain why she feels those benefits should be denied to the children of same-sex couples.
Maggie has explicitly said that when children are adopted, or when only the mother is the biological parent, and her partner isn't, marriage has no benefits for children.
Could you please point me to where she said this? I'd like to read that.
Could you please point me to where she said this? I'd like to read that.
On Volokh.
Where, on Volokh?
Guess nowhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home