In a post earlier this week, I objected to the principle of sacrificing the interests of same-sex families in order to (allegedly) reduce divorce among heterosexuals.
Eve responds wildly, horribly briefly:
Here’s a (similarly, wildly, horribly, brief) reply:
- There’s an enormous difference in the sacrifice Eve wants same-sexers to make, versus the sacrifices she wants from others. In the examples Eve mentions, she’s generally asking people to make sacrifices for the benefit of their own children. Married parents should not divorce because divorce hurts their own children; pregnant women should be forced to give birth for the sake of their own (unborn) children; fathers should be forced to pay child support for the benefit of their own children; etc.
In contrast, lesbians and gays are being asked to sacrifice their own well-being to help other people’s families – which is not the same thing at all.
Even worse, Eve wants same-sex couples to sacrifice their own children’s well-being to (allegedly) help other people’s children. (I’ve posted before – here and here – on the benefits of same-sex marriage to the children of same-sex couples).
Eve says “every adult has to sacrifice for the interests of children,” but no adult – other than lesbian and gay adults – is asked to sacrifice their own children’s well-being. That’s a hugely unfair thing to ask of same-sex couples, and it’s far, far more than she’s asking of heterosexual couples.
- Eve doesn’t really address the question of discrimination. She talks about “men who father children when they wish they hadn’t” – a reference, I think, to forcing noncustodial fathers to pay child support (among other policies). I agree with that – but noncustodial mothers should also be forced to pay child support. And if child support laws protected the children of straight fathers, but not the children of gay fathers, that would be disgusting.
In other words, just because we want to protect children doesn’t excuse legal discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.
- I quibble with Eve’s use of the word “asking,” which falsely implies that Eve thinks same-sex couples should have a choice. Eve is not “asking” same-sex couples anything; instead, she wants to use the law to prevent them from having the choice to marry at all.
In contrast, Eve is not (so far as I know) suggesting that divorce and non-marital sex be outlawed. Until she does support using force of law to compel all those people to follow her own moral preferences, though, she can’t honestly claim that she’s treating same-sex couples no differently from other folks.
(To be fair, Eve does favor government compulsion on some other issues, such as child support and abortion. Needless to say, I disagree with Eve on abortion, but that’s another post.)
Eve also writes:
- I’m not “conflating equality and happiness.” I’m arguing in favor of equal treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals under the law. That is the issue under discussion; do you favor or oppose equality under the law? I favor equality, Eve and her allies oppose it.
(People may think that framing the issue this way is a personal attack on Eve. It’s not; it’s a factual statement about Eve’s policy position, and says nothing about her personally.)
- I don’t believe that Eve’s argument can justify legal discrimination against a minority. To see why, imagine that a social scientist put together reams of evidence proving that it doesn’t benefit society when Jews get married. Even if the social scientist were factually correct, would anyone say that Jews should consequently be “treated differently,” that is, banned from marrying?
- Eve assumes that same-sex marriages cannot benefit society.
But her assumption is unjustified. It certainly seems likely that the children of same-sex couples benefit from gay marriage; society in turn benefits from having happier, healthier children. Insofar as access to marriage may make lesbians and gays happier, more likely to form stable family units, more productive, and less likely to be on the public dole, society benefits. And insofar as legal discrimination against lesbians and gays morally degrades our entire society, ending that discrimination benefits society. - Finally, I object to the implication that people are objects for society’s benefit and nothing more. Certainly, society’s benefit is a legitimate factor to consider, but it’s not the only factor. If a person benefits society should not determine if they have equal protection of the law. Homeless people, for instance, probably don’t benefit society much, but that wouldn’t justify taking away their right to vote, or speak freely – or, for that matter, to get married. Human beings are more than instruments to be used to benefit society, but Eve’s argument doesn’t seem to acknowledge that.
P.S. Okay, that wasn’t so brief after all. :-p.
In contrast, lesbians and gays are being asked to sacrifice their own well-being to help other people’s families – which is not the same thing at all.
Quibble: Not the same thing, but not inherently a bad thing, either–f’rinstance, I’m quite happy to pay taxes to support public schools for the benefit of other people’s children.
Of course, this isn’t really relevant, because prohibiting same-sex marriage is an arbitrary act of discrimination that doesn’t benefit anyone at all.
Okay, we’ve had the horribly brief response. Can we have the gratuitously long one now?
Why is there all this concern over the children of same sex couples? Has the nation forgotten that we don’t procreate? Personally, I would estimate that about 10%-20% of all gay couples have children. This leaves a majority, 80%-90%, that do not have children, or their welfare, to be worried about. The argument against same sex marriages and children is weak, as we aren’t responsible for the current woes of children. If anything, gay men and women who adopt are actually cleaning up the trash tossed out by straights and their sanctimonius unions. We are not the cause, nor will we ever be the cause, of the failure or corruption of children in this world.
In what way does it benefit children for 75-year-olds to marry? None that I can see. So why should we allow that?
i’m late to the conversation, but it seems to me that if anything, the question of the welfare of children is an arguement for same-sex marriage. afterall, isn’t it in the benefit of the children of said marriages to have parents who are legally able to codify their relationships? this adds stability on many, many levels.
Evan, I think it’s a little iffy to deny any person or group of people basic civil rights simply because granting those civil rights will not benefit society as a whole. If I only vote once every three years, or better still if I consistently vote against school funding, does that justify denying me the right to vote at all?
There are a lot, a LOT of reasons people want to get married. Whether their marriage benefits children or not should have no bearing whatever on whether their marriage is recognized by the law.
I don’t think it can be conclusively stated that marriage benefits children. Where are the statistics? What is the comparision model of a marriage-free society?
Marriage should be extended to everybody because it is discriminatory not to. That doesn’t say anything about its actual value as a legal institution or its affects on peoples’ quality of life.
What is the comparision model of a marriage-free society?
Atlantis.
Tara, the problem with social science is that it does not and really cannot have the rigor of natural sciences. Unless you kidnap a ton of people, brainwash certain preconceptions into them, and then send them to a deserted island as your control group. But nooooo, the man won’t have that, that would “violate ethics” and “be morally reprehensible.”
I’m not sure if I had a point, so I’ll just say, “wheee.”
there’s quite a bit of evidence that children of stable two-parent households (when controlled for economic status generally) do better in school and are less prone to antisocial behavior and other woes than are children in one-parent households or those with a part-time second parent. this is the general basis for arguments in favor of promoting marriage as good for society. I think that the research has been done in enough different time periods and by enough methodologies to be given credence. however, how that relates specifically to whether marriage, the civil status, affects children (as opposed to long-term cohabitation, say) is less clear. certainly, being in a situation where one parent dies and the other has no legal rights to maintain custody (due to gender or legal status) is bad for all involved…
(but I’m bad at digging up research years after encountering it, so I beg off citations for the time being, with apologies.)
(I thought Evan was supporting SSM by making a parallel between banning SSM and banning elderly marriage, which is, of course, ludicrous.)
Jason, I think the concern for children of gay parents stems from the fact that gay people actually have children. Cons and Fundies seem to ignore this little fact when they talk about the welfare of the children and such nonsense.
If, as you estimate, only ten percent of homosexuals have children and there are, say, one million homosexuals in this country (just pulled that number outta my ass,) then there would be one hundred thousand children to consider. A substantial number in my book (even one would be enough to bear consideration though.)
In my opinion, the fact that gay marriage opponents ignore the effect their policies will have on these children shows their complete lack of regard for children in general.
It’s funny that one of the big arguments fundies bring up about gays is that they have disgusting lifestyles, different partner every night, and are a public health menace, but they don’t want them to commit to one person and stay with them for the rest of their lives. (Not that any straight people live unorthodox lifestyles, of course.)
I think they just don’t want to lose their ‘best’ argument. If gays can’t all be portrayed as orgy-hopping freaks, how *do* you make your case? If they settle down, have kids, get houses in the burbs with white picket fences, who can get scared by that? Of course, many gays already do those things, and it’s simply cruel to deny them the legal protections afforded to everyone else while they’re doing it.
Pingback: Galois
Pingback: Dust in the Light
Pingback: Dust in the Light