I came across this article about Margaret Somerville, a Canadian ethicist who opposes same-sex marriage (SSM), via Family Scholars Blog. Ms. Somerville is worried “that you will be able to make a baby probably in the future from two ovum, or two sperm”; in her view, admitting that same-sex couples have a right to marry would lead to a right to make a baby from two ovum or sperm. And that would be (she says) bad for children.
As usual, I object to the notion that in order to prevent __________ (whether you fill in the blank with group marriage, incest, or Artificial Reproductive Technology), it is justifiable to punish same-sex couples and their children by denying them equality. I call this line of thinking “queers are condoms.” Margaret Somerville’s argument assumes that queers and their kids, like condoms, are disposable things, useful only for preventing some unwanted outcome. I think that view is objectively less accurate than the view that queers and their kids are people, and their fundamental human rights are not disposable.
What struck me about this article, though, was this stunning piece of bad logic:
Somerville said society is ethically bound to a principle of non-malevolence, or of doing no harm when making such sweeping changes.
The burden of proof that same-sex marriage will not harm the rights of children rests with those making the change, not those who oppose it, she said.
Given her academic background, Ms. Somerville must be aware that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative – such as “same-sex marriage will not harm the rights of children.” I can no more logically prove that than I can logically prove that same-sex marriage will not cause the moon to fall out of its orbit.
If Ms. Somerville’s “principle of non-malevolence” had been applied historically, no advances in civil rights would have happened, ever. It would not have been possible, for example, to prove ahead of time that women’s right to vote wouldn’t “harm the rights of children”; presumably Ms. Somerville, had she been alive at the time, would have opposed suffrage.
It’s also striking, to me, that Ms. Somerville doesn’t call for a balance test; she doesn’t say we should consider the harms done to queers and their children by inequality, compare that to the harms she suspects SSM will cause children, and then choose the lesser harm. I might not agree with that approach, but it would at least show an awareness that queers and their children are human beings, and their rights have some value.
Instead, she says it’s up to advocates of SSM to prove that SSM will cause no harm to children, and if that can’t be proved than SSM isn’t justified. Her logic – at least, as it’s stated in this article – implicitly assumes that any amount of harm to “children” – however slight or inconsequential – automatically outweighs any harms done to queers and their children, however huge and important.
Pingback: What She Deserves
Hmmmm. I think the gay marriage campaign would probably get a lot further if they called it something other than marriage. Would it generate as much outrage as it does now if it was called a partnership? Probably not. In my mind, it is wrong to exclude a group of people from mating for life but I can’t help but think the gay rights movement isn’t doing itself any favors by clinging so tenaciously to that one word.
Get the rights, then the term. That’s a fight people might actually win.
I also can’t help but think that providing every piece of conservative agenda pushing with a commentary (not you specifically mind) is probably not the best thing to do. By commenting on it, it highlights a lot of what makes some afraid of homosexuality in the first place.
The fact is, it might harm children in the way that socialization could be difficult. There’s no real argument against that. The US is half crazy with very concrete definitions of god law and they will be the ones to make integration difficult. Like all civil rights, there would be a time of conflict.
What damage is the inability to marry doing? Is it benefits? Or just exclusion? I’d like to see these articulated instead of ‘because we should.’ Not to be argumentative mind but because I’d like to see something more concrete than the statement of oppression. (Which is subjective at best.)
Why do people opposing SSM and SS parenting always go back to this? Pretending that the majority of children raised by heterosexuals have both the mother and father in the household living peacefully is nonsense. I was raised solely by my mother, most of my friends had both parents, but yet they wanted to have my mother for their ‘parents’ when we were children and still feel that way as adults. Being happy, loved, and safe in any household is far more important to a child than who makes up the parental unit.
“She pointed to the growing evidence that children born as a result of donated sperm or ova, or “donor conceived adults” are “almost unanimously alleging that their needs, their well-being, their psychological development, even, has been ignored.”
Where is she getting this information from? I know there have been multiple studies that have shown otherwise. Sweeping generalizations such as this one show she is hardly sympathetic to members of the LGBT community.
But this is my favorite quote:
“Somerville pointed out that the right to marry is a complex right that includes the right to form a family. “So if it is wrongful discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, I would argue to you that it’s wrongful discrimination to prevent them from having a child in the only ways that would be possible for them,” she said. ”
So in order to prevent me from being discriminated against, you would deny me the right to marry. Gee thanks- I’m so glad that you’re looking out for my best interest here. What would I do without allies like you? Also, where is she getting this belief that SS couples would have to resort to cloning in order to have children? There are a variety of proven methods available ““adoption, IVF, and surrogate parenting. What she really is uncomfortable with is the development of a family unit outside the accepted norm- and she should just state this instead of hiding her bigotry in science.
It’s also striking, to me, that Ms. Somerville doesn’t call for a balance test; she doesn’t say we should consider the harms done to queers and their children by inequality
Boomshot.
And all this “it’s for the kids” nonsense is really making me tired. Is she also advocating wresting children away from single parents (like myself)? No? I guess that doesn’t play as well—not that she wouldn’t want to get around to that too, after queer folk are put in their place.
What’s striking about Ms. Somerville’s argument is that it can be used to argue against heterosexual marriage since we can document numerous cases in which that type of marriage HAS harmed the rights children (e.g., murder, incest, physical and emotional abuse, divorce and custody disputes).
… but queers are raising families now, w/o the benefits of SSM. I don’t see the ready connection between marriage and children. Is she assuming that queers just want to be mini-hets?
It also assume that gays and lesbians are just going to quit have kids if they can’t get married. It’s nonsensical.
The “principle of non-malevolence” sounds pretty much exactly like the “precautionary principle” that’s so popular among environmentalists.
AndiF: What’s striking about Ms. Somerville’s argument is that it can be used to argue against heterosexual marriage since we can document numerous cases in which that type of marriage HAS harmed the rights children (e.g., murder, incest, physical and emotional abuse, divorce and custody disputes).
But heaven forefend if you point out THAT logical flaw. But what really sucks is that people are going to read what she says and because she somehow managed to get a job as a law professor, they’re going to think she is a credible source of information. Just what we need- more misinformation and logical inconsistent arguments spread.
>>Hmmmm. I think the gay marriage campaign would probably get a lot further if they called it something other than marriage. Would it generate as much outrage as it does now if it was called a partnership? Probably not. In my mind, it is wrong to exclude a group of people from mating for life but I can’t help but think the gay rights movement isn’t doing itself any favors by clinging so tenaciously to that one word.>>
Yes, well, you’re completely wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ANTIGAY.html?pagewanted=print
(Hopefully, this link will work. If not, go to nytimes.com and search “antigay” or “gay marriage.”)
Here’s my favorite quote, about a woman who won’t let me make medical decisions for my future husband because she thinks it might eventually lead to us being permitted to marry:
“‘We had bills in our State Legislature last year to protect marriage,’ Laura said. ‘I didn’t understand why they didn’t go through, especially when polls show people in this state and in the country overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.’ With Stiegler’s encouragement, Laura got in her car one day and drove to Annapolis, where there was a bill before the Legislature that would give domestic partners in Maryland the right to make medical decisions for each other. She saw it as a back-door attempt to get government authorization of gay unions, and with the help of an aide to a conservative state legislator, she found herself testifying against it. ”
But even if you hadn’t already been proved wrong in fact, think about the reasoning behind what you’re saying. “They don’t really dislike you or feel bigoted towards you; they don’t really want to exclude you or deprive you of rights. All they’re asking is that you not demand inclusion or equality, or insist that you are anything like them.”
It’s sort of been touched on already, but one of the things that upsets me most in the ‘children’ argument is that it seems to focus on some children other than those that are directly affected – primarily the children of heterosexual’s, via exposure? Not sure – maybe I’m reading it wrong.
Either way, no studies back up any indication that children of gay parents do any worse or better than those of straight parents. As I’ve stated before, gut instinct tells me that it’s likely that children of gay parents might have a better time of it because planning must occur for a gay couple to have children (outside of children they may have brought into the relationship from previous relationships), so they are more likely to be prepared and ready for the change. That seems to me to be a far more stable environment than two biological parents that end up dealing with an unexpected and often times unwanted pregnancy (especially young parents who haven’t really gotten a chance to be an adult on their own, let alone with children).
How many children of gays and lesbians do they actually talk to? How many can they say are poorly adjusted or feel they were poorly parented because the parent was gay? I can say from personal experience that I talk to 1 person every day, and his siblings pretty frequently and they all are great people.
And yet again (broken record here), it’s still inappropriate to try to define child rearing and marriage as interchangeable when the two relationships do not rely on or require each other to occur.
The “principle of non-malevolence”? sounds pretty much exactly like the “precautionary principle”? that’s so popular among environmentalists.
Except, as has been pointed out, families consisting of same-sex couples and children already exist in large numbers. It’s not like introducing a new organism into an ecology. The family has already changed, through enormous efforts. We want to stop the repression of families that already exist.
That’s the trouble with the argument that tradition has a wisdom that must be respected, and that new ideas introduced abruptly cause havoc: it ignores how those “new ideas” are themselves centuries old, and people have been trying to make them work in defiance of repression and oppression.
“The “principle of non-malevolence”? sounds pretty much exactly like the “precautionary principle”? that’s so popular among environmentalists.”
Several people here have already pointed out that many children are already being raised by queer parents. So, can I skip that bit and go straight to the fact that the very idea that someone is pushing a line that queer-parent families might somehow “contaminate” other “normal” families is creeping me right out? I mean, wt-bloody-f?
And this doesn’t even touch on the fact that the concept of “nuclear family” that is being defended here is not only culturally-specific but also a relatively recent development.
Damn! The Abyss of Nothingness seems to have devoured my last post, in which I explained that when I wrote about the concept of family being defended “here”, the “here” was the article about Somerville, not this blog.
>>So, can I skip that bit and go straight to the fact that the very idea that someone is pushing a line that queer-parent families might somehow “contaminate”? other “normal”? families is creeping me right out? I mean, wt-bloody-f?>>
Why? Gays, radon, toxic mold–I see nothing potentially offensive or demeaning about the comparison. I kind of like zebra mussels.
Also, shut up about femme covert and polygamy already. Pointing out that marriage as “traditionalists” now define it is neither eternal, universal, or necessarily traditional is destructive to marriage. Marriage-dismantler!
The burden of proof that same-sex marriage will not harm the rights of children rests with those making the change, not those who oppose it, she said.
A family scholar she may be, but as a legal scholar she gets a big fat F.
Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are facially discriminatory. It is therefore incumbent on the government to prove why such discrimination is justifiable.
The burden of proof is on her.
If you want to deny a group of people equality and happiness, you’d better have a DAMN good reason for it.
I mean, even people suspected of violent crime get better treatment than this woman advocates: the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It’s innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. And that is as it should be.
No one should have to prove they are worthy of equality.
And if she can argue that “gay marriage harms children,” then it could also be argued that overzealous protection of children harms gays. Specifically, the banning of something that might or might not harm children, does harm gays, and there’s this legal concept called “balance of hardships” which basically chooses the option that would cause the least harm to the loser, and as gays would be harmed more by the banning of gay marriage than children would be harmed by the allowance of it, the balance of hardships would protect gay rights unless (guess who) the anti-gay-marriage crowd could prove that children would be harmed more by gay marriage than gays would be harmed by the lack of it.
Which, of course, makes my point all over again. Ms. Somerville? You want to interfere with other people’s lives? You want to limit other people’s options? YOU tell us why.
In addition to the other good points made here, I wonder aloud how Somerville feels about same-sex couples who can’t –or don’t intend to– have or raise children being permitted to marry ? I mean, two women in their fifties who have passed menopause and/or whose children are already grown could still fall in love with each other and desire marriage. What then ? Perhaps following Somerville’s logic, we could demand signed, stated affadavits from them both, in which they would promise not to adopt or get themselves cloned, or whatever. Perhaps they could promise not to associate with their own grown children or their grandchildren. After that, they could marry.
The mind reels. :/
I think the gay marriage campaign would probably get a lot further if they called it something other than marriage.
It wouldn’t be marriage, then. The law doesn’t work that way.
Amp, am I still persona non grata here? I hope you won’t mind if I come here from time to time to join the discussion on subjects that are dear to me.
Sydney write: “So in order to prevent me from being discriminated against, you would deny me the right to marry. ”
This is a terrible hurtful lie, of course no one is denying anyone the right to marry. The right exists for everyone, we all have a duty to marry and you are not exempt.
We are just trying to prevent you from claiming a right to attempt same-sex procreation. The right to procreate – to combine your gametes if you can – exists in every marriage, even same-sex marraiges. There should be no right to same-sex procreation, not just for the safety of the children created (though that is enough) but also because of the effect such a move would have on our attitudes toward designer babies and manufacture of people and on our appreciation of sexuality and the need for marriage to join the sexes and create equality.
>>It wouldn’t be marriage, then. The law doesn’t work that way. >>
Christ. THANK YOU.
Euphemisms would make for very bad law. “[Not marriage]” means not-marriage: other than, weaker than, less than. And if “[not marriage]” is written into the law as the just and proper term for what we have, gay people will be treated exactly as though they are not married.
I can show you a lot of children hurt by heterosexual relationships, inlcuding heterosexual church ordained marriages. I can’t say the same for children of same sex relationships. If parthenogenic reproduction (two sperm would present a lethal mutation as one X chromosome is necessary) were to become available for human use, it would be something developed at the insistance of straight couples who prefer to have a biological child over adoption. Pity these folks are willing to further penalize children that gay couples would be willing to adopt.
Part of the point of advocating gay marriage is that it’s a move to establish that same sex relationships are just as real and valuable as opposite sex relationships. Which is exactly why the right is opposed to gay marriage. Compromising on that point would be a surrender.
You know, as a child, I met lots of adults of both genders who were not my parents. Also, lots of other children of both genders. It’s not like it’s common for people to grow up in isolated farmsteads with no human contact outside their family anymore.
We are just trying to prevent you from claiming a right to attempt same-sex procreation.
More bargain-basement legal scholarship.
criminallyvulgar: If marriage were called something else for gays, then all the rights and responsibilities associated with the legal definition and contract of marriage would not apply. That would mean changing each of those laws. And each change would be a battle that would have to be won. The rights reside in the word.
“I wonder aloud how Somerville feels about same-sex couples who can’t ““or don’t intend to”“ have or raise children being permitted to marry ?”
Hell, what about straight couples who don’t intend to have or raise children? Is my marriage still “real” even though we have decided we want to remain childless? Or is it okay for us to make that decision and still be “really” married when it wouldn’t be for a same-sex couple?
None of this makes any damn sense, including, I might add, the notion that same-sex marriage will automatically lead to designer babies. I’m far more worried that the current American middle-class obsession with absolute perfection (including physical) and over-achievement in even the youngest of children will lead to this, or possibly those homophobics who would be delighted to find the “gay gene” so they can breed it out of humanity. Not same-sex parents.
Anyhoo, I already know same-sex parents who have managed to conceive by other means (hello, friendly Sperm Donor). It’s important to remember that not everyone insists on a child’s carrying their genes in order to consider that child worthy of love.
Mr. Sperm-and-eggs:
Oh, get real. If that were the intent, you’d be putting out laws blocking that, not blocking same sex marriages. Because if you block same sex marriages, there’s nothing stopping opposite sex marriages from using cloning. Or other odd fettility treatments, including lots of ones we already know have moral issues, like surrogate wombs. It’s heterosexuals who’re causing the harm. Not same sex couples.
If you really were against missuse of reproductive technology of this, you’d be focusing on the areas where damage is already being done, not on some hobgoblin of the future.
You’re just not credible.
PS. Sshh, dear, don’t cause a fuss. I’ll have your sperm. I love it. I’m having sperm sperm sperm sperm sperm sperm sperm beaked beans sperm sperm sperm and sperm!
PPS Sperm! Sperm! Sperm! Sperm! Lovely Sperm! Wonderful spam!
PPPS Bloody Vikings! Shut UP! Baked beans are off.
PPPPS Well could I have her sperm instead of the baked beans then?
Sorry, Amp. I couldn’t resist.
Argh. So eugenics is now one of the arguments in banning SSM? Isn’t that incredibly tunnel visioned? Eugenics is an issue regardless of SSM, and nothing that they do or don’t do is going to change that.
Kim:
They use the eugenics argument against PP as well because they know it raises red flags (it’s not a legitimate argument). Interestingly, these same people argue the need for heterosexual Americans to reproduce is because our population growth (like some European countries) is based on immigration and reproduction by immigrants, not by “Americans” having babies. Is there really a difference between Eugenics and preferential breeding?
>>Argh. So eugenics is now one of the arguments in banning SSM? Isn’t that incredibly tunnel visioned? Eugenics is an issue regardless of SSM, and nothing that they do or don’t do is going to change that. >>
Right. And what did Mary Daly used to call these kinds of arguments? Like when feminists were referred to as Nazis, or when women were described as the violent, rapine invaders?
Oh, right.
Reversals.
You’re trying to restrict our right to have and raise children by reducing us to second-class citizens, and we’re the fucking eugenicists?
>>Is there really a difference between Eugenics and preferential breeding?>>
Yes. It’s like the difference between natalism and white flight.
My sister had to write a paper for her senior English class wherein she chose one of the UN’s “universal human rights” and argued it was the most commonly violated. This is the one she chose:
My sister argued that not allowing same-sex marriage was a violation of this right. She received a B on the paper because her teacher believed that her argument was sound but her premise was wrong: the wording “men and women” was chosen to designate protection only for cross-sex couples.
That sounds to me like grade-A bullshit. But it got me thinking–legally speaking, who has the right to marry? Does each individual have a right to marry? Or does the right belong to the couple as a unit? This seems like it might be important in the legal battle for same-sex marriage. Any legal scholars out there to help me/us out with this?
In the strictly legal sense, in the US, nobody has an unrestricted right to marry. The long history of statutory restrictions on marriage basically upholds itself under our precedental system.
There’s no specific right to marry enumerated in the US constitution or in any state constitutions that I know of. The generalized right would doubtless be construed as flowing from the “pursuit of happiness” clause, which is an individual right.
In the strictly legal sense, no rights are “unrestricted.”
John Howard: “This is a terrible hurtful lie, of course no one is denying anyone the right to marry. The right exists for everyone, we all have a duty to marry and you are not exempt.
We are just trying to prevent you from claiming a right to attempt same-sex procreation. The right to procreate – to combine your gametes if you can – exists in every marriage, even same-sex marraiges. There should be no right to same-sex procreation, not just for the safety of the children created (though that is enough) but also because of the effect such a move would have on our attitudes toward designer babies and manufacture of people and on our appreciation of sexuality and the need for marriage to join the sexes and create equality.”?
I’m sorry, I didn’t see this response earlier. Although most of the others have already brought up the points I would have, there is one question I would like to pose to you John Howard. Do you really believe that a law should be passed, a law that restricts on an individual’s personal freedoms, because of what you’re worried could happen? Especially when it’s been shown by credible science that what you believe may happen is not only unlikely, but is more apt to happen within what’s already permitted in our current society? I honestly would like to hear your answer to this because it seems like every time the discussion on SSM comes up, the first reason I hear against it is “well, think about the potential of cloning children”? and I just don’t understand this mentality and how it’s based in our actual reality. If you come back to this post, please post a response- one that you would give to someone you were trying to convince, not someone whom you’re trying to annoy. I am genuinely intrigued to see how your though process is working here.
>>I honestly would like to hear your answer to this because it seems like every time the discussion on SSM comes up, the first reason I hear against it is “well, think about the potential of cloning children”? and I just don’t understand this mentality and how it’s based in our actual reality.>>
Yes, exactly. This argument is insane. It’s based on potential problems with a technology still in its infancy, not exclusive to same-sex partnerships, and only peripherally connected to the right to same-sex marriage. Preventing same-sex marriage won’t prevent same-sex couples from same-sex reproduction, and allowing same-sex marriage won’t prevent further laws against same-sex reproduction. It’s like arguing that full individual citizenship complete with bodily sovereignty is bad and dangerous because it’ll eventually result in people cloning _themselves_. Do you have some other real, sensible, non-loonball problem with same-sex marriage?
Thank you, Robert; the “pursuit of happiness” clause seems like a fruitful constitutional basis for the right to marry. And it’s true,mythago, that no right is really “unrestricted.” Those comments lead me to ask another question:
Does anyone know of any specific laws currently on the books that restrict marriage (other than those banning SSM, that is), on the state or federal level?
I mean restrictions either on getting married or on what rights/priveleges people have within a marriage. I have no doubt such laws exist, I just have no idea what they are. I’m looking for such laws in PA (my home state) right now.
Banning non egg and sprem procreation would of course apply to everyone regardless of their marital status and regardless of their sexual preferences. It certainly needs to be done, because there are indeed people who would try to do it. There is no harm in banning something in advance, no principle that says we have to wait for a problem to exist before we can address it. Global warming is a case in point.
Do you support a ban on non egg and sperm, none male-female reproduction or do you believe there is a right to try to combine the genes of two people of the same sex so they can have children together?
Somerville understands that there are people who want this right. Undoubtably some people here will say, like Galois did, that same-sex couples should have the equal right to procreate. They will apply the same logic used in the SSM debate to the SSP debate. Thus, we should address SSP now, and apply the same arguments against SSM that we apply to SSP, because procreation rights and marriage rights are synonymous at the very core. There is no couple allowed one but denied the other.
Piny, body sovereignity woudln’t be violated by a law against cloning. A ban on non egg and sperm procreation would ban cloning, and it wouldn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. Thre is no inherent right to clone in citizenship, but there is an inherent right to procreate in marriage.
Allowing SSM but banning same-sex couples from procreating would change the fundamental rights of marriage, because there can’t be some marriages more equal than others. It will have to mean that marriage doesn’t grant procreation rights any more. That will be another essential victory for Margeret Sanger eugenicists, who cringe at the thought of unfit people breeding.
You can’t marry a minor, so there’s that.
All states have consanguinity laws; no marrying your brother. In some states there are restrictions on cousin marriages.
Let me be the first to say, sure, why not. I think eugenics is an intimidating thing, but it isn’t necessarily all bad. My husband and I both agree that if we could ensure that we would have children that wouldn’t inherit some of our potential genes, we’d do it in a heartbeat (IE: Avoid diabetes, avoid scoliosis, avoid allergies etc.). If science can help people have children that want them but can’t have them without the assistance of science, yep, lets do it. My concern lies more in people becoming parents that aren’t fit parents. Not sure how to regulate that, however, since I think that more unfit parents come from the hetero camp since it’s easier in general for people actively having child producing types of sex to get pregnant, either intentionally or not.
Either way, eugenics has zero and zilch to do with SSM. Bad argument.
Umm, there is a right to procreate period. If your beef is with good parenting (which I would support!) then why not focus it in the correct direction, rather than trying to blame gays for what is primarily a straight person problem? Ehhhhh?
John Howard, do you want to ban marriage for everyone who can’t have biological children?
If yes, then you’re clearly advocating “chang[ing] the fundamental rights of marriage.” Suddenly current marriages would be null and void as soon as the woman reaches menopause. Suddenly current marriages in which one person is infertile would have to be broken apart. They literally don’t include “an inherent right to procreate.”
If no, well, your entire argument goes right out the window. You’d be saying, “We should ban marriage for people who can’t have a biological child–unless one of them is male and one is female.” Which is completely illogical and goes against your claim so far.
It will have to mean that marriage doesn’t grant procreation rights any more.
Just to be clear, marriage already doesn’t grant procreation rights. You can get married and not procreate; you can procreate and not marry; the two function independently.
>>There is no harm in banning something in advance, no principle that says we have to wait for a problem to exist before we can address it. Global warming is a case in point.>>
Actually, we do have to wait for some logical connection between two things. There is a sensible logical association between greenhouse gasses and global warming: pumping a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere _probably_ alters the chemical composition of the atmosphere. You have not proven or successfully argued any connection between SSP and SSM.
>>Do you support a ban on non egg and sperm, none male-female reproduction or do you believe there is a right to try to combine the genes of two people of the same sex so they can have children together?>>
They are separate questions, like whether my partner and I have the right to a marriage and whether any married couple has the right to conceive a child via IVF. They don’t have to be addressed at the same time; the legal right to one does not equal the legal right to the other.
>>Thus, we should address SSP now, and apply the same arguments against SSM that we apply to SSP, because procreation rights and marriage rights are synonymous at the very core. There is no couple allowed one but denied the other.>>
Actually, yes, there are couples allowed one but denied the other. Gay people are not currently forbidden the right to procreate via same-sex reproduction. They are completely forbidden the right to marry. It is entirely possible that they will be allowed to procreate via same-sex reproduction once it’s, you know, possible–since they currently have the right to bear and raise children under available technologies like IVF and surrogacy–but still not be allowed to call their partnerships marriages.
There are also lots of couples who have marriages but have no children or have children that aren’t biologically related to both of them, so marriage cannot be said to be synonymous with procreation or with a necessarily procreative arrangement.
>>Allowing SSM but banning same-sex couples from procreating would change the fundamental rights of marriage, because there can’t be some marriages more equal than others. It will have to mean that marriage doesn’t grant procreation rights any more. That will be another essential victory for Margeret Sanger eugenicists, who cringe at the thought of unfit people breeding.>>
So you’re actually doing me a favor! By preventing me from gaining _any kind_ of marriage, however partial or compromised, you’re…saving me from a slightly-less-equal kind of marriage.
Sigh.
Okay. First of all, eugenicists cringe at the idea of unfit people _passing on their genes_. Gay people can already do that, or were you unaware that there are plenty of ways for gay people to reproduce already, albeit not with each other? I can breed all I want; I just can’t have children that happen to also be my partner’s.
Second, preventing x technology from general use on the general grounds that any children created would be at greater risk of congenital health problems is not a homophobic rationale. Trust me. I’m actually queer, and I’m not offended. I appreciate your attempt at sensitivity, but you’re wrong. A general prohibition would happen to have a disparate impact on gay people who want to combine their genes, but that could be said of any regulation of any reproductive technology gay people happen to use in large numbers.
Preventing same-sex marriage per se, however, or insisting that same-sex marriages aren’t valid because Lance’s children will never have Bruce’s eyes, _is_ heterosexist. And it does have a real, terrible impact on same-sex marriages and the children that result from them.
To add to the list:
If you’re in prison, you have the right to marry or be married, but not to conceive a child with your spouse.
Dammit, I need to check this site more often! I missed all the fun.
John Howard, first off I want to say thank you for posting an explanation of your beliefs. I may not agree with you, but i’m glad you gave us an explanation.
This being said, I don’t believe that you’ve created a convincing link between SSM and SSP. Much of what you said was disputed neatly by Piny, Kim, and Hestia so I will spare everyone here the repetition. However, without that link proving that SSM and SSP but NOT heterosexual marriage/parenting will have a negative effect on society, I do not believe that you are able to provide a good reason why I should not be able to be marry a woman. Do have any other information to provide?
Undoubtably some people here will say, like Galois did, that same-sex couples should have the equal right to procreate.
Kim, Hestia, and Piny have fairly well covered things, but since my name was brought up here I thought I’d throw in my two cents. As they noted procreation rights are not tied up with marriage rights. Under federal jurisprudence, the right to procreate is part of a larger umbrella known as the right to privacy. As Justice Brennan wrote for the majority in Eisenstadt
Still, let us suppose for the sake of argument, that marriage did bestow some new right to procreation that inheres in the couple. What are the details of this right and should it apply to same-sex couples as well? In previous conversations with John Howard it seems he believes the right consisted of a right to have sex, pray, and take vitamins. Well same-sex couples already have a right to have sex. Their right to pray should be protected by the first amendment. And I would support their right to take vitamins subject to the same FDA regulation process that would be involved for straights taking vitamins.
What if one believes that this marital right to procreate also includes a right for others to conduct scientific experiments that, although unlikely, could some day result in the ability to take another cell and modify into an egg cell or sperm cell for the purpose of reproduction? Frankly I don’t see any reason to believe that a right to procreate includes a right to develop or use such hypothetical technology, but suppose it did. Is there any reason to permit opposite-sex couples to use this technology, but not same-sex couples? I certainly see ethical concerns here, but those concerns are not unique to same-sex couples. If someone has a problem with any existing or hypothetical technology, they should speak out against it. But if that technology is more apt to be used by heterosexuals and yet the speaker singles out gays and lesbians one has to wonder what the speaker’s actual priorities are.
>John Howard, do you want to ban marriage for everyone who can’t have biological children?
Marriage is already banned for couples who are prohibited from procreating together. I would add same-sex couples to the list that includes siblings, children, etc. Note that there is a difference between being prohibited from procreating together, by any method, and not procreating together but still having the right to. No marriage is prohibited from procreating together.
>Just to be clear, marriage already doesn’t grant procreation rights. You can get married and not procreate; you can procreate and not marry; the two function independently.
Yes, but a couple can’t get married and be prohibited from procreating. A couple can be prohibited from procreating, like siblings, children, etc, and these couples – exactly these couples and only these couples – are prohibted from marrying.
No marriage is prohibited from procreating together.
In some states you can marry your cousin if you can prove you are infertile.
http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml
Galois, prayer and vitamins won’t change a sperm to an egg. If a man and another man procreate, it would not combine an egg and a sperm, and would therefore be banned by the PCBE’s proposed law. Only couples whose procreation would be ethical are allowed to marry.
And Eisenstadt did NOT make unmarried procreation legal. A few years after Eisenstadt, the court decided Zablocki, which rested on procreaton being legal only in marriage. Loving also rested on this fact. The right to take a contraceptive is precisely the opposite of the right to procreate. Yes, the decision of whether to beget a child is a private decision of an individual, married or single, but that doesn’t mean the person can choose to ignore the laws if they do decide to have a child. They have this choice: take the contraceptive to avoid getting pregnant, or get married and have children. There’s no way you can read a right to unmarried sexual intercourse into it. And there is no way to read that in Lawrence either, which had nothing to do with sex whatseover.
And even if there were a case that threw out fornication and adultery laws and said marriage had nothing to do with procreation, we would still have the issue of same-sex procreation being completely unethical. Shouldn’t that be something to consider? Adam can procreate with Eve, but not with Steve. In fact, he might procreate with Eve unintentionally, just by having casual sex. Those relationships are quite different.
>>Yes, but a couple can’t get married and be prohibited from procreating. >>
Not true. For example, if you are in prison, you have the right to marry continue to be married, but you do not have the right to conceive a child with your spouse by any means.
And if you and your partner cannot procreate at all, by any means, you are still allowed to marry.
And!
Transsexuals in many states cannot marry anyone of the sex opposite their post-transition sex until they legally change sex. In many of those same states, they cannot legally change sex until they become sterile. In other words, they are prohibited from marriage _until_ they become unable to procreate at all.
VK, yes, cousin marriages are interesting. Those laws were written as a compromise (some states allow cousin marriages, others don’t), and before IVF came along. I wonder how they handle IVF today. Do they forbid them from procreating, or do they grant them the right, but with the expectation that they will not be able to? Also, most of them only allow it if the cousins are already quite old, and presumably they have lost their chance at procreative marriages anyhow.
John Howard, you seem to be confusing procreation and having sex. In some states it is prohibited to have sex with someone who is married to another person. It is not prohibited, however, to donate egg or sperm to a married couple. Nor do marriage laws always align with laws regarding forbidden sexual relations. There are plenty of cases where a couple may legally have sexual relations, but not get married. So your comment “exactly these couples and only these couples are prohibited from marrying” is false. At best it is a statement about what you wish the system to be, not what it is.
As for the other direction, I know of no situation where a couple may marry, but for which sexual relations would be illegal. That might have been a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage in states for which homosexual relations were illegal, but that is no longer a problem in any state.
It is also clear that some states can object to a couple procreating, but not to the couple marrying. For example in some states first cousins may marry only if they are unable to procreate.
Prisoners only are allowed to marry because there is a chance they will get out and be able to consummate the marriage. That was one of the conditions necessary in the Supreme Court case that decided that issue.
A couple (or actually, a person) that is infertile is publicly considered potentially fertile, and they have an equal right to attempt to procreate. We do not tell anyone that they may not try to procreate, as long as they choose a person with whom procreation, were it to occur, would be ethical.
And transexuals. Surely, we cannot allow a genetic male to use radical technology to attempt to procreate with another genetic male just because his genitals were mutilated. The question is how public is their real sex, and how public would the prohibition on their procreation be? If they legally and publicly become female, then they could marry a male and they would not be publicly prohibited from procreating. The methods they would have to use to actually procreate would be banned, of course, but they would not publiclly have to use them in order to procreate. Publicly, they’d be like any male-female couple.
>>The methods they would have to use to actually procreate would be banned, of course, but they would not publiclly have to use them in order to procreate.>>
Do you not know what sterile means? It means that you can’t procreate _at all_. No testicles, no ovaries, or no marriage license.
Thanks, everybody, for answering my question about restrictions on marriage. I asked because I think examining existing restrictions will help us figure out the legal prededent(s) for what is and is not an appropriate basis for new restrictions.
It seems like all the current restrictions are justified by the perceived need to protect a group which under out legal system has fewer rights than everyone else—minors. This includes already existing minors (what Amanda mentioned) as well as yet-to-be born minors (what piny and Robert mentioned). In this light, it makes sense that the anti-SSM crowd would focus so much on “protecting children” in their (pseudo-)arguments–that’s the only basis that’s currently legally acceptable.
I’m focusing so much on the legal angle because it’s clear that we’re not going to win the hearts and minds of the anti-SSM crowd anytime soon–that’s a noble and very important goal, but it’s a long-term goal. What we can do in the short term is prove that there is no legal justification for legislation targeting same-sex marriage, and further that such legislation would be unconstitutional. (Analogies to the civil rights battle come to mind here.) Amp’s counter-arguments on the ideological/theoretical plane seem to translate very easily into legal/juridical terms. You can argue ideas til you’re blue in the face, but there is much less wiggle room in the law.
[I think that’s why the marriage amendment is so important. It seems obvious that without it, any laws banning same-sex marriage would eventually be found unconstitutional.]
Galois, in the last thirty years, it has been possible to procreate without having sex, but our laws all treat sexual intercourse as the way to possible procreation. Fornication and adultery rule out sex, rather than procreation, because how do you stop procreation once the sex has started the pregnancy? THe only way to prohibit procreation is to prohibit sex. And allowing sex (“you may kiss the bride” – kiss is a euphenism, right?) obviously allows procreation.
It is not prohibited, however, to donate egg or sperm to a married couple.
This was a loophole, because there was no intercourse, as commonly defined, going on. I don’t recall when laws were changed to allow this, in my mind it is still adultery. It has never been legal for a woman to go outside the marriage to have a man “donate” sperm. It wasn’t just the intercourse that was being prohibited, it was the sperm donation. There wasn’t anything all that special about the act of intercourse, or the intimacy (for example, it is not legally adultery to have an intimate and pleasurable lesbian affair, only intercourse is adultery (The New Hampshire Court recently ruled so).
Nor do marriage laws always align with laws regarding forbidden sexual relations. There are plenty of cases where a couple may legally have sexual relations, but not get married.
Hmm, perhaps in Nevada? I think that is a terrible law, but I also bet it has some provisions (misguided) that try to make sure no pregnancy occurs.
Also, please don’t confuse same-sex sodomy with sexual relations, it’s offensive and misleading.
It is also clear that some states can object to a couple procreating, but not to the couple marrying. For example in some states first cousins may marry only if they are unable to procreate.
No state allows cousins to marry but forbids them from procreating. When a state makes the infertility exception to allow cousins to marry, it is still granting them the right to procreate, but just assuming that they won’t be able to. That assumption is no longer valid or useful.
>No testicles, no ovaries, or no marriage license.
What state is this? I think my sperm count is private. My doctor might have some knowledge of my fertility, but the city clerk certainly doesn’t. Even if I know that I have had both testicles removed, I can still pretend to all the world that I have them. Interestingly, I cannot lie to my bethrothed, for that would be grounds for anullment.
one of these days I’ll learn how to spell “euphemism”.
Also, please don’t confuse same-sex sodomy with sexual relations, it’s offensive and misleading.
How, exactly?
And as to…
>No testicles, no ovaries, or no marriage license.
What state is this?
Given that the discussion centred on transsexuals, well, every state, more or less, except Massachusetts. Most states won’t let a transsexual change their legal gender unless they are fully transitioned, including gential surgery (an in the case of FTMs, full hysterecomy). Which leads to sterility, if the hormone therapy hadn’t already done that. In other words, as an FTM transsexual, I can only marry a woman in Massachusetts, at the moment.
Siblings are prohibited from procreating? I didn’t know that. What are the penalties for that? Can you point me to the law that prohibits that? I was also unaware that children are prohibited from procreating. What penalties exist for procreating children and can you provide a link to the law?
Actually John, that is more about passing on ownership of chattel/object from one man to another. It’s about having the right to ‘rape your wife’ back in the old days. It’s been debarbed by becoming you ‘you may now kiss’, but is hardly a mandatory part of a ceremony and serves as a celebratory example of the union.
>>Given that the discussion centred on transsexuals, well, every state, more or less, except Massachusetts. Most states won’t let a transsexual change their legal gender unless they are fully transitioned, including gential surgery (an in the case of FTMs, full hysterecomy). Which leads to sterility, if the hormone therapy hadn’t already done that. In other words, as an FTM transsexual, I can only marry a woman in Massachusetts, at the moment. >>
Also not California, thank God. New York is an example of a state that demands genital surgery–which makes you sterile–prior to legal gender change.
“Also, please don’t confuse same-sex sodomy with sexual relations, it’s offensive and misleading.”
What about opposite-sex sodomy ? Can we confuse that ?
[rolleyes]
Jake, here is the incest law in Massachusetts. Note that it is specifically persons that are prohibited from marrying who are affected by the incest law, and they are prohibited from procreating by being (among other things) prohibited from having sex.
Sodomy is very different from sex. It’s offensive to speak as if they are the same because it disrespects the responsibilties that a couple having sex faces. Their act is of public significance because it might be a lifelong responsibility.
Opposite sex sodomy shouldn’t be confused either.
How is it offensive? Plenty of people like oral and anal sex, straight and gay. You think married people do it only in the procreative way?
>>Their act is of public significance because it might be a lifelong responsibility.>>
…Unless, of course, one of them is sterile.
And how is making love to someone not assuming responsibility? How is partnering with someone for life not assuming a lifelong responsibility?
For a social conservative, you have a pretty flighty view of sex.
Re the New Hampshire ruling:
Wow. I thought the homophobic/mysoginistic notion that only P-V intercourse was “real” sex had all but disappeared. I guess I was wrong.
“Opposite sex sodomy shouldn’t be confused either.”
So, would you want to see married hets subject to state-sponsored annulment if they were having too much oral and anal sex ? Would that make them unworthy to parent, as well ?
[beats head on keyboard]
How do you know? Prayer can be pretty powerful.
Not necessarily. I know you don’t think much of the power of prayer, but your whole argumetn is based on the omnipotence of science. Suppose technology was created that would allow an egg cell to be created from a man’s skin cell. That seems unlikely, but still far more likely than being able to procreate from two sperm cells.
That’s just not true. As for trying to distinguish Eisenstadt as a right to take contraceptives, I don’t think that will go very far. Would you suggest that a single woman could be forced to have an abortion because she doesn’t have the right to prorcreate? The right to privacy includes not just the right to use contraceptives, but the right of “whether to bear or beget a child” which would include the right to bear the child already conceived.
Still suppose marriage did grant a right to the couple to procreate. Do you believe this gives the couple the right to use any imagined technology including genetically transforming a skin cell into an egg cell?
Well what is it about same-sex procreation that you find unethical? The things I would find unethical involve the use of technology that I would find unethical if used by opposite-sex couples as well.
Why not wait until they get out to allow them to marry, though. The court noted there were many other reasons the marriage was important as well. In New Jersey a recent case ruled that a woman in prison for life still had the right to marry.
But what if the only way they could procreate were through unethical means?
Well as I noted, your whole argument about the right to procreate being the same as the right to have sex being the same as the right to marry is based not on what the law is, but rather what you think it should be. That’s fine, but you should be clear about that. For example, it’s not just Nevada, but many states that don’t have marriage laws and incest laws the same as you claimed. Take, for example, Nebraska. They prohibit first cousins from marrying, but do not consider sexual relations between first cousins to be criminal. There are other states where the criminal incest laws and prohibited marriage laws do not align. There are also states without criminal adultery statutes.
Actually it doesn’t specify persons that are prohibited from marrying. Only persons within degrees of consanguinity who are prohibited from marrying. Massachusetts also prohibits marriages within certain degrees of affinity. Thus yet again we have a state where the two laws don’t match up contrary to your theory.
How are you defining sodomy? Is it sodomy for someone to have sex with a sterile woman. Is it offensive to even call such a situation sex because the act has no possibility of producing children?
I thought the homophobic/mysoginistic notion that only P-V intercourse was “real”? sex had all but disappeared. I guess I was wrong.
I haven’t been following this discussion closely, so I don’t know who’s saying what or why, but its conceptually legitimate to put an asterisk by PV sex as being somehow “special”. It has potential consequences and outcomes not generated by other forms of sexual contact.
(Let me preface this by saying that I do, in fact, know how to spell “misogynistic.” [/intellectual insecurity])
You have a point, Robert; PV intercourse (or approximation thereof) is the only sexual act that can result in pregnancy. That’s what makes any law regarding it and it alone as “adultery” particularly suspect to me.
I was under the impression that adultery was wrong because it violated the special intimacy and exclusivity of a marriage. Surely, a same-sex affair could be just as destructive as a cross-sex affair in this regard. But if the issue is not intimacy-exclusivity but rather the possibility of pregnancy (reproductive exclusivity), then extramarital sex only “matters” because of a parent-child relationship (either potential or actual) and not the husband-wife relationship. That comes too close to defining “real sex” as a purely procreative activity for my comfort.
That is not to say that, within a (cross-sex) relationship, P-V intercourse isn’t at all special. Just that it isn’t the only thing that should count as “real” in a sexual relationship.
Adultery is morally wrong because it violates intimacy and exclusivity. It’s legally wrong, in the places where its wrong, basically because it introduces the possibility of cuckolding, which can be viewed as theft. (As in, theft of twenty-odd years of time and resources parenting a child not one’s own.)
But most places are moving away from the women-and-children-as-property underpinnings of the common law, which is probably a good thing.
Adultery in some states was asymmetrical, as well; a married woman’s (male) lover could be convicted of adultery, but not a married man’s (female) lover.
Also, please don’t confuse same-sex sodomy with sexual relations, it’s offensive and misleading
Bill Clinton is posting here?!
Robert:
This assumes an agrement to intimacy and exclusivity.
This assumes an agrement to intimacy and exclusivity.
Yes, it does. “Adultery” is an offense that can only occur in the context of a marriage.
Anyone who wishes to call their non-intimate, non-exclusive relationship “marriage” may do so. I, however, am under no obligation to validate that.
(Sorry, Hillary.)
That’s a terribly simplistic and shallow way to view 20 years of time investment. Those 20 years are years of experience, learning, probably some good and bad times that cannot be ‘taken away’, as they already have cemented their placement in the past. Now if you were to present it as theft of future time together, that might make more sense, but it still makes a relationship one of debt, versus choice.
Also, as Josh points out, morality of exclusivity depends on the couple. While my husband and I have chosen an exclusive relationship, we did in fact consider it a choice that needed to be talked through. On the other hand, we have friends whom have made the choice to be polyamorous and successfully so.
Oh gee Robert, ya think? Crickey, I hope you were jerking chains on that statement.
Actually Robert, that’s the crux of the whole debate. You’re under no obligation to validate any marriage. The problem isn’t in whether you or I disagree with each others marriage, or others marriages, but instead whether we attempt to interfere with their right to pursue the benefits that are part and parcel of marriage.
The theory as I understand it behind marriage benefits is that stable relationships benefit society. As long as the couple has made a mutual contract that is consentual, stabilizing and right for them, then they are fulfilling their obligation in terms of contributing to stability in society, hence deserving of the benefits that this contribution (and responsibility) yeilds.
Now if you were to present it as theft of future time together, that might make more sense, but it still makes a relationship one of debt, versus choice.
Parenting is a relationship of debt, albeit a debt that many choose to willingly shoulder. However, a debt it remains.
There is no point in debating these points; they are cultural. I understand that your values are different.
I hardly think it’s appropriate to compare the relationships of two committed, consenting adults that choose to be together to that of the relationship of a parent/child relationship. Unless of course you weren’t kidding about wife/child property views of society as ‘maybe’ being a good idea.
Robert said:
Probably? Not regarding women and children as property is probably a good thing? As in there might be cases when regarding women and children as property might be a good thing?
Please tell me that was just a careless phrasing. I don’t agree with a great deal of what you say, but I have always felt you do respect women. And that one sentence says that women have no more status than that of children and that there are times when both could possibly be owned and it might be a good thing.
I hardly think it’s appropriate to compare the relationships of two committed, consenting adults that choose to be together to that of the relationship of a parent/child relationship.
Eh?
The act of comparison is a basic cognitive function. If we cannot compare any n arbitrary elements or concepts, we cannot think.
Or do you mean it’s not appropriate to equate them? Well, generally speaking I would say they’re not equal relationships, but surely there are some conceptual situations where they would be. (They’re both ideally framed by love, for example – just different flavors thereof.)
Or perhaps I’m missing your point entirely.
Please tell me that was just a careless phrasing.
Yes, it was careless phrasing. Anytime you change a social arrangement, there are people who are going to be hurt, at least in the short term; sometimes this is a supremely minor inconvenience (“the front of the bus sure has gotten more crowded”) to a relatively small group of people, other times it’s life and death for entire peoples. Broadly speaking, the emancipation of women and the partial emancipation of children are very good things indeed; but of course there may be some relative handful of women and/or children who lost status or comfort thereby. Obviously the net benefit to all of us is tremendously positive.
I was thinking in terms of individual people (besetting sin of conservatives) and so said “probably”, thinking along the lines “probably a random given person is better off by this particular social change”. I should have said “generally” to be more clear.
Thank you for asking for clarification/an explanation rather than printing a tedious denunciation.
I, however, am under no obligation to validate that.!
The issue isn’t whether one or another person ‘validates’ a marriage, really. There are plenty of people who think “it can’t be a real marriage” unless the couple has children, unless they are of the same faith, unless the man is the breadwinner, unless the marriage took place in a church, whatever. Private opinions about what a marriage should be are not the same as legal recognition of marriage.
Though, actually, you are obligated to ‘validate’ that. If your business grants certain benefits to married couples (such as health insurance) and you start running a bed check to see whose legal marriage is ‘valid’, you may run into some problems.
there might be cases when regarding women and children as property might be a good thing
Actually wanted to hit this one just briefly, too.
My original statement was about here-and-now. However, this statement of yours is more broad in scope.
There is one scenario when regarding children as property has some advantages: when the alternative is for children to be regarded as garbage.
I can fairly readily conceive of a material, technological, spiritual etc. environment wherein children are regarded, at least by males, as valueless. I can further envision that the position of women in such a social breakdown as ranging from powerless to quite strong. In the situation where women are powerless as well, then I would offer the opinion that it would be better for there to be a change in the status quo, where men started to think of children as valuable property rather than as useless eaters.
Because that way, th children would have a chance to survive.
Very fortunately, we are rarely in situations where we have to consider such caveman-level ethical dilemmas. However, that’s not true everywhere and everywhen. I don’t know of anyplace on Earth right now where things are that bad, but I can think of several places offhand where things could get that bad.
So, children would be valuable rather than worthless property. In either case they’re still property.
Yes, equate works better than compare. I’m fairly tired so my word selection is probably pretty poor at the moment.
In either case they’re still property.
Yes. Your point?
Robert wrote: “There is one scenario when regarding children as property has some advantages: when the alternative is for children to be regarded as garbage.”
And why should any of us see this as a realistic scenario? Yeah, there may be some people who are so stupid that they only see these two alternatives when considering children, but, well, that’s because they’re pretty fucked up. I wouldn’t say that the ideal way to deal with a person who considers children “garbage” is to convince them that children are actually “property”, but to convince them that children are human beings.
Saying that children-as-property is “the” alternative to children-as-garbage is your own attempt to put a highly artificial limitation on this discussion and in no way reflects reality. In Real Life, there are any number of other alternatives, some desirable and some not.
Gaolois wrote: “How are you defining sodomy? Is it sodomy for someone to have sex with a sterile woman. Is it offensive to even call such a situation sex because the act has no possibility of producing children?”
Wow, evidently. And of course, let’s not forget those rising numbers of men out there with sperm counts insufficient for successful conception. I’m sure they’ll also be glad to know that they are not only incapable of procreating, they’re also incapable of actually having sex. No, all that fucking, no matter how passionate or driven by love it may be, is simply empty “sodomy”.
Yeeuuugghhh. After reading some of these anti-SSM posts, I really need a shower.
“Yeeuuugghhh. After reading some of these anti-SSM posts, I really need a shower.”
I reccommend the Dave Zirin regimen. Wanna’ borrow my steel wool ?
Robert:
Gosh, Robert, without your validation, HOW WILL I SURVIVE?!?!
Oh. I can feel myself just wasting and withering away without your validation. ohh… ah…
i die.
Yes. Your point?
That it’s not a good thing to regard human beings as property. The only thing differentiating garbage from treasure is the ‘owner’s’ subjective assessment of the person’s value.
This was, you may recall, an argument supporters of slavery made when that was legal in the U.S.: that slave owners would not mistreat their slaves because those slaves were valuable property; unlike in the North, where workers were disposable because an employer could simply hire another free man to replace one injured or killed.
criminally vulgar:
I’m half of a same-sex couple with an 11-month old baby girl. We work, pay taxes, and are not second class citizens. We have the same rights as everyone else and that includes the right to marry. We do not want to “sit at the back of the bus” and get a civil union or some other second-rate option.
Want to know what damage this discrimination does to us? For starters, we both have to work. My girlfriend cannot quit her job and be a stay-at-home mom, because I cannot put the baby or her on my insurance. My company offers benefits to hetero couples living together, but not us. So :
1) My daughter is in day care full time because of discrimination
Also, we went to a lawyer and had wills, power of attorneys, etc done up to give us some of the legal protections that married couples automatically have. We have to carry these with us at all times and there is no guarantee that a hospital will honor them.
2) No guaranteed access to make decisions for each other, even with durable powers of attorney, due to discrimination. Sure we could win this in court but in an emergency it might be too late.
The lawyer also told us that should anything happen to my partner (the biological parent), there is no guarantee that I could keep our daughter. The courts could decide to take her away FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. We have filled out forms saying that I should have custody, but they are not binding. In my state I cannot adopt (Florida).
3) The state can take my children away for no reason.
There are approximately 100 more that I can think of. But those are the big ones that affect our lives on a day-to-day basis and cause us to live in fear.
That it’s not a good thing to regard human beings as property.
Yes, that’s true. So?
If you are held as property in a situation where the only available options are “mythago is worthless property” and “mythago is valuable property”, which belief would you prefer your owner hold?
Neither one is good. One is better than the other.
>Galois wrote: Suppose technology was created that would allow an egg cell to be created from a man’s skin cell. That seems unlikely, but still far more likely than being able to procreate from two sperm cells.
That should also be banned, for safety and ethical reasons. The law should require natural eggs and sperm, derived naturally from adults. And by definition, a gamete that carries the genes of a male is a sperm, even if it could be fertilized by a sperm to create an embryo. The egg and sperm law is, both in principle and in practical terms, a man and woman law. Not because of animus, but because of safety and ethical issues.
>>Me: A few years after Eisenstadt, the court decided Zablocki, which rested on procreation being legal only in marriage.
>G: That’s just not true.
Come on, what does “And, if appellee’s right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place ” mean? It can’t get any clearer than that. They have to be allowed to marry, because how else can they procreate? Just like in Loving, if they could have legally procreated without having to marry, the court would have found differently. So, clearly, Eisenstadt did NOT make procreation legal outside of marriage, or it would have been legal in Wisconsin, too, right?
>G: As for trying to distinguish Eisenstadt as a right to take contraceptives, I don’t think that will go very far.
That is all it is. A right of unmarried people to take contraceptives. Making it illegal inferred too much – just as you are doing – and that can’t be done because of privacy rights.
>G: Would you suggest that a single woman could be forced to have an abortion because she doesn’t have the right to procreate?
Of course not, silly. It’s not the kid’s fault they weren’t married.
>G: The right to privacy includes not just the right to use contraceptives, but the right of “whether to bear or beget a child”? which would include the right to bear the child already conceived.
Yeah, but not a right to conceive one. Sex without marriage is a crime in my state and in Wisconsin back when this was decided. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean I can commit crimes in order to get my message out.
>G: Still suppose marriage did grant a right to the couple to procreate. Do you believe this gives the couple the right to use any imagined technology including genetically transforming a skin cell into an egg cell?
No, and I would support a ban on all methods other than sexual intercourse.
>G: Well what is it about same-sex procreation that you find unethical? The things I would find unethical involve the use of technology that I would find unethical if used by opposite-sex couples as well.
Yes, that’s the main thing. The risks to the baby are incredibly high doing anything besides combining a natural egg and natural sperm. Even if it were safe, though, there’d be things to think about, like whether it would transform our society into a Brave New World that manufactured designer babies, and whether it would mean that some people lost their right to pass on their own genes. (Yes, they would likely still have the right to pass on their own genes, and I would loudly insist on remembering that. But just as someone said that the right of everyone to be straight is “meaningless” if a person didn’t want to be straight, people would not want to use their own genes, they would feel it was just not an option for them, they would feel it was a meaningless right)
>>Me: Prisoners only are allowed to marry because there is a chance they will get out and be able to consummate the marriage.
>G: Why not wait until they get out to allow them to marry, though.
People don’t have to consummate a marriage right away, it merely says that they promise it to each other when they do eventually have sex. What counts (and all the state sees) is the promise to consummate it someday. That’s enough of a commitment to trigger all the bells and whistles, though they can still back out of it if it hasn’t been consummated.
>G: The court noted there were many other reasons the marriage was important as well.
Yes, but they said “taken as a whole”, all the reasons counted. The hope that it will be consummated someday is essential.
>G: In New Jersey a recent case ruled that a woman in prison for life still had the right to marry.
And there’s still a hope that it could be consummated, he might escape or something.
>>Me: We do not tell anyone that they may not try to procreate, as long as they choose a person with whom procreation, were it to occur, would be ethical.
>G: But what if the only way they could procreate were through unethical means?
We’ve gone through this, G. If they have an affliction that prevents them from procreating naturally, it is private, first of all, and it is treatable, secondly, and it is not predictable for certain that they can’t procreate through ethical means. Thus, there are no such couples.
>Well as I noted, your whole argument about the right to procreate being the same as the right to have sex being the same as the right to marry is based not on what the law is, but rather what you think it should be.
OK, some states mugh have murky laws, but the “whole argument” is that all marriages have the right to procreate, and same-sex couples shouldn’t have that right.
>G: Take, for example, Nebraska. They prohibit first cousins from marrying, but do not consider sexual relations between first cousins to be criminal.
That’s wacky. I think that’s an oversight. They certainly don’t allow first cousins to procreate if they don’t allow them to marry, that would mean they would have to have illegitimate children, and why would the state insist on that?
>G: There are other states where the criminal incest laws and prohibited marriage laws do not align. There are also states without criminal adultery statutes.
OK, but in what state is a marriage not allowed to procreate?
>G: Only persons within degrees of consanguinity who are prohibited from marrying. Massachusetts also prohibits marriages within certain degrees of affinity. Thus yet again we have a state where the two laws don’t match up contrary to your theory.
No, I think they mean by “consanguinity” all the relations including “affinity” relations. As in Nebraska, there are no couples that are allowed to procreate but are not allowed to marry. Just doesn’t make any sense. Unless they wanted extra harsh laws for incest, and expected the fornication laws to catch all the other relations. Maybe it is just as much a crime to fornicate with a person you could marry as a person you may not marry but not closely related, and an even worse crime to fornicate with someone very closely related.
G:> How are you defining sodomy?
Like everyone else does.
G:> Is it sodomy for someone to have sex with a sterile woman.
No, that’s sex. As I said, sex is not sodomy, sodomy is not sex.
G:> Is it offensive to even call such a situation sex because the act has no possibility of producing children?
But it does. Sex ALWAYS has a possibility of producing children, it is an axiom.
“If you are held as property in a situation where the only available options are “mythago is worthless property”? and “mythago is valuable property”?, which belief would you prefer your owner hold?”
But this is just a silly hypothetical, and has zero to do with Real Life. We could sit here all day formulating equally pointless, unrealistic scenarios and debating them, but that’d be a waste of time. I’m under the impression that once again you are simply pushing people’s buttons to watch them jump and also to derail the real topic at hand.
This is an aside, about a meta-discussion I think is going on here.
It’s been a while since I’ve read up on philosophy of language, but one of the ideas I remember picking up from that was that natural language is often ambiguous, but the ambiguity is usually resolved by assuming that what is said is relevant to the context in which it’s said. That’s not always a correct assumption.
I’ve been reading through this thread, wondering what point Robert’s been trying to make by insisting on being perfectly logically consistent in a tangent on “women as property,” which really doesn’t seem relevant to the overall discussion. From the way most people argue, I’d assume that he wouldn’t go on about that point unless it was critical to some larger point about same sex marriage he was trying to make.
But from this, and past arguments, I’m thinking that Robert is just trying, very doggedly, to be logically consistent about a narrow point — regardless of the context.
Wittgenstein regarded philosophy (particularly analytic philosophy) as a sort of disease. “You don’t need a theory of language to talk sensibly.” I’ve seen other arguments, elsewhere, that were hopelessly disrupted because someone insisted on perfectly logical statements, based on some quasi-lawyerly notion that it would make the conversation clearer, but it actually made the conversation much less clear.
People use context to assess arguments, they tend to allow for and expect hyperbole and other rhetorical devices in which sentences don’t mean exactly what a literal reading appears to make them mean, and in general, speak in ways that can be ambiguous and confusing. But insisting on perfectly rigorous logic isn’t the best solution — it often ends up disrupting a discussion so severely that the conversation becomes even more confusing than it was to begin with.
John Howard, here’s what you’ve said so far, including the conclusions that can be drawn:
1. Couples in which one or both individuals are infertile are considered handicapped and should be allowed to marry. — Some same-sex couples consist of infertile individuals, therefore we must allow same-sex marriage.
2. Infertile individuals are publically considered (i.e., believed without investigation into their medical histories) to be fertile and should be allowed to marry. — Every individual is publically considered to be fertile, therefore we must allow same-sex marriage. — Corollary: Elderly women are publically considered to be infertile, therefore they should not be allowed to marry.
3. Couples in which one individual is publically considered to be male and the other is publically considered to be female should be allowed to mary. — In some same-sex couples, one individual passes (even temporarily) as male or female, therefore we must allow same-sex marriage.
4. Couples for whom procreation is prohibited by law shouldn’t be allowed to marry. — As there is no law prohibiting procreation between two men or two women, we must allow same-sex marriage.
5. Couples for whom procreation is physically impossible shouldn’t be allowed to marry. — Couples in which one or both individuals are infertile are couples for whom procreation is physically impossible, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
It seems to me that you’re trying to say, “Couples that consist of either two men or two women should not be allowed to marry, because at first glance everybody knows that at no time could they possibly procreate.” But that’s…well, pretty insane. It’s the exact same thing as, “Only couples in which one individual appears to be male and the other appears to be female should be allowed to marry.” Which still leaves conclusion #3.
I’m looking forward to your further explanation of your position, which, it’s becoming increasingly clear, actually supports same-sex marriage.
actually Kim, I’m going to have to disagree with you here. There is no right to procreate; we are under no obligation to ensure that everyone who wants to procreate can do so(this is, of course, regardless of their marital state), nor should we be.