Liebe ist nicht in der Luft
The topic is gay marriage.
While living in Toronto this past summer, I happened to espy a poster taped to a lamp-post relating to Margaret Somerville's reception of an honourary degree from Ryerson University at its upcoming convocation ceremony. For those unfamiliar with Somerville, she is a prominent ethicist currently working at McGill University in Montreal. The poster was a call to anyone who supported gay marriage to come out and protest Ryerson's choice to bestow this particular honour on Somerville. She had, I discovered, recently published an ethics paper that made a case against gay marriage, and this had stirred many members of the gay community into action.
My first reaction on seeing the poster was to roll my eyes, scoffing at the gall of individuals who chose to continue discriminating against the gay community from platforms of religion/homophobia/etc. This also appears to have been the lasting reaction of most people who eventually attended the protest. Within a few moments, however, I became curious about the issue. You may have noticed a few curious points poking out of this issue already. My first question was: Why would Ryerson University choose to publically honour a sexually discriminating bigot? Further, why would McGill University choose to employ a sexually discriminating bigot? Two relatively liberal Canadian universities would likely be a little more sensitive to such things, wouldn't they? A little research into the subject showed me that, in fact, they would and are.
A quick Google search turned up Somerville's contended paper, The Case Against “Same-Sex Marriage”. After reading the paper, I was struck by a few things:
1) Somerville is very careful to limit her argument to perceived ethical concerns surrounding gay marriage. She is extremely clear that any arguments against gay marriage that stem from religious or homophobic sources are discriminatory and completely unacceptable.
2) The article is intelligently written, and derives reasonable and logical conclusions from each premise.
That is not to say that I agree with everything in it, only that its presentation is logical, respectful, and above all, not homophobic. Somerville clearly states:
“The reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.”
So, given all this, I wanted to discuss some of its contents.
I'll begin with one issue that I disagree with. From Somerville's paper:
“Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples based on society’s need for an institution that symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or, more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry.
Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman. Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism. The reproductive potential of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy. It is also sometimes argued that the absence of a reproductive potential is obvious “on the face of the record” when a woman well past the age of child-bearing enters a marriage and yet we recognize such marriages. But again these marriages do not damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage in the way that same-sex marriages would. Indeed, they continue this symbolism at the grandparent level and, therefore, across the generations.”
Now, as I see it, simply because investigating the reproductive potential of opposite-sex partners is invasive, does not mean that it is ultimately unimportant to the issue. If one is to argue that marriage should only be allowed based on its potential for reproduction, then the potential for reproduction must be measured. If it is decided that the issue is too invasive to be ethically investigated, then investigating and discriminating based on the gender of the partners involved in such a union must also be too invasive. Gender and reproductive potential can be linked in a case like this because the reasons for investigating the gender of the partners involved is also to determine their reproductive potential. That a gay couple’s gender is more immediately apparent than a straight couple’s fertility is irrelevant, since the straight couple’s right to marriage would not be taken away, hypothetically, if they chose to make public their infertility. Thus, we are left with two paths: If it is deemed ethically acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of a homosexual couple, it must be ethically acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of a heterosexual couple. If it is acceptable in both cases, then only heterosexual couples who actually, as opposed to symbolically, possess reproductive potential should be allowed to marry. If, on the other hand, it is not acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of heterosexual couples, then it must also not be acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of homosexual couples. If it is unacceptable in both cases, then homosexual marriage should be permitted.
I would welcome feedback on this, since I feel somewhat daunted, as a high school music teacher-in-training, critiquing a prominent and well-respected ethicist's work.
Somerville's next point I have been unable to make much headway on, so I'll put it out there for feedback as well:
“Our societies have also adopted adult-centred as compared with child-centred reproductive decision-making. Child-centred means, among other requirements, that we should work from a presumption that, if at all possible, children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents. We must consider the ethics of intentionally creating a situation that is otherwise: It requires justification.
There is an ethical difference between individuals choosing to create such a situation and society authorizing or facilitating it. While society would have ethical obligations not to interfere with the freedom of individuals in relation to reproduction (subject to restrictions on the use of reproductive technologies, discussed below), it also has obligations not to facilitate the creation of situations that are not in the “best interests” of children. In short, the compliance of society in helping to create non-traditional families in which children will be raised is not an ethically neutral act.
One common response to the position I outline above, by those advocating same-sex marriage and families, is to point out the deficiencies of marriage. The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be.”
What do you think? Do children ideally need a mother and father? Are there any other frameworks that might be proposed as an alternative?
-------
CBC.ca - Honorary degree sparks protests at Ryerson
While living in Toronto this past summer, I happened to espy a poster taped to a lamp-post relating to Margaret Somerville's reception of an honourary degree from Ryerson University at its upcoming convocation ceremony. For those unfamiliar with Somerville, she is a prominent ethicist currently working at McGill University in Montreal. The poster was a call to anyone who supported gay marriage to come out and protest Ryerson's choice to bestow this particular honour on Somerville. She had, I discovered, recently published an ethics paper that made a case against gay marriage, and this had stirred many members of the gay community into action.
My first reaction on seeing the poster was to roll my eyes, scoffing at the gall of individuals who chose to continue discriminating against the gay community from platforms of religion/homophobia/etc. This also appears to have been the lasting reaction of most people who eventually attended the protest. Within a few moments, however, I became curious about the issue. You may have noticed a few curious points poking out of this issue already. My first question was: Why would Ryerson University choose to publically honour a sexually discriminating bigot? Further, why would McGill University choose to employ a sexually discriminating bigot? Two relatively liberal Canadian universities would likely be a little more sensitive to such things, wouldn't they? A little research into the subject showed me that, in fact, they would and are.
A quick Google search turned up Somerville's contended paper, The Case Against “Same-Sex Marriage”. After reading the paper, I was struck by a few things:
1) Somerville is very careful to limit her argument to perceived ethical concerns surrounding gay marriage. She is extremely clear that any arguments against gay marriage that stem from religious or homophobic sources are discriminatory and completely unacceptable.
2) The article is intelligently written, and derives reasonable and logical conclusions from each premise.
That is not to say that I agree with everything in it, only that its presentation is logical, respectful, and above all, not homophobic. Somerville clearly states:
“The reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.”
So, given all this, I wanted to discuss some of its contents.
I'll begin with one issue that I disagree with. From Somerville's paper:
“Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples based on society’s need for an institution that symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or, more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry.
Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman. Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism. The reproductive potential of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy. It is also sometimes argued that the absence of a reproductive potential is obvious “on the face of the record” when a woman well past the age of child-bearing enters a marriage and yet we recognize such marriages. But again these marriages do not damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage in the way that same-sex marriages would. Indeed, they continue this symbolism at the grandparent level and, therefore, across the generations.”
Now, as I see it, simply because investigating the reproductive potential of opposite-sex partners is invasive, does not mean that it is ultimately unimportant to the issue. If one is to argue that marriage should only be allowed based on its potential for reproduction, then the potential for reproduction must be measured. If it is decided that the issue is too invasive to be ethically investigated, then investigating and discriminating based on the gender of the partners involved in such a union must also be too invasive. Gender and reproductive potential can be linked in a case like this because the reasons for investigating the gender of the partners involved is also to determine their reproductive potential. That a gay couple’s gender is more immediately apparent than a straight couple’s fertility is irrelevant, since the straight couple’s right to marriage would not be taken away, hypothetically, if they chose to make public their infertility. Thus, we are left with two paths: If it is deemed ethically acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of a homosexual couple, it must be ethically acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of a heterosexual couple. If it is acceptable in both cases, then only heterosexual couples who actually, as opposed to symbolically, possess reproductive potential should be allowed to marry. If, on the other hand, it is not acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of heterosexual couples, then it must also not be acceptable to investigate the reproductive potential of homosexual couples. If it is unacceptable in both cases, then homosexual marriage should be permitted.
I would welcome feedback on this, since I feel somewhat daunted, as a high school music teacher-in-training, critiquing a prominent and well-respected ethicist's work.
Somerville's next point I have been unable to make much headway on, so I'll put it out there for feedback as well:
“Our societies have also adopted adult-centred as compared with child-centred reproductive decision-making. Child-centred means, among other requirements, that we should work from a presumption that, if at all possible, children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents. We must consider the ethics of intentionally creating a situation that is otherwise: It requires justification.
There is an ethical difference between individuals choosing to create such a situation and society authorizing or facilitating it. While society would have ethical obligations not to interfere with the freedom of individuals in relation to reproduction (subject to restrictions on the use of reproductive technologies, discussed below), it also has obligations not to facilitate the creation of situations that are not in the “best interests” of children. In short, the compliance of society in helping to create non-traditional families in which children will be raised is not an ethically neutral act.
One common response to the position I outline above, by those advocating same-sex marriage and families, is to point out the deficiencies of marriage. The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be.”
What do you think? Do children ideally need a mother and father? Are there any other frameworks that might be proposed as an alternative?
-------
CBC.ca - Honorary degree sparks protests at Ryerson
Labels: Politics
posted by Ubersehen | 15:20
13 Comments:
do they need a mother and father? i dont know. it is hard to tell. i will think about it too.
but she does not address (at least in your excerpts) whether a pair of homosexual parents is "better" than a single, unmarried parent.
and you can take that even further. is it better for a child to have a mother and father who live together, but are unmarried, than for a child to have parents that are married and homosexual?
is it the concept of marriage that is so important, or is the concept of heterosexual parents?
Do children ideally need a mother and father?
need? no. They need food, clothing, and shelter.
ideally? no.
Are there any other frameworks that might be proposed as an alternative?
Of course there are! The sky's the limit. I prefer, one man and six women. No need for day care and my natural desire to have sex with many women is just a Bonus good with six or more women!
Perhaps I should rephrase:
Do we know if the heterosexual biological parent couple is a measurably better arrangement than any other arrangement of parents?
Do we know if the heterosexual biological parent couple is a measurably better arrangement than any other arrangement of parents?
Yes we do. Of course with every study I could give, there would be another study claiming the opposite. So let's keep it simple, for as you know ubie, I am a very simple Man.
Man has sex with Man = No Kid
Woman has sex with Woman = No Kid
Man has sex with Woman = Kid
All very natural, no help needed, just good ole fashioned sex produces a Child.
How would we measure that? Well, when two men or two women have sex and produce a child, I'll let you know how well they do.
Since I can't use God's word to support my postion with any clout with you, you'll just have to figure the rest out yourself.
Yes we do. Of course with every study I could give, there would be another study claiming the opposite.
Maybe so, but I'd still like to see one. What study/studies were you thinking of?
Man has sex with Man = No Kid
Woman has sex with Woman = No Kid
Man has sex with Woman = Kid... etc
All very cute and coy, but also not what I asked. I'm well aware of the general biology behind producing a child (although reproductive technology is quickly blurring that line too), but I'm referring to the raising of a child, not the birthing of one.
There are plenty of examples of children being raised by gay couples out there already, anyhow, so I'm sure some studies have been produced. Since you're as confident as you are about the matter, it sounds like you've got such a study in mind. Care to link me to it?
My view is quite simple: a child needs a parent who loves him/her unconditionally. The orientation of the parent, is to me, moot.
a former dani reader lol
My view is quite simple: a child needs a parent who loves him/her unconditionally. The orientation of the parent, is to me, moot.
I don't think anyone questions the need for unconditional love from whoever is undertaking the parental role.
The major question I'm trying to answer is: Does a biological heterosexual parent-couple have some sort of intrinsic benefit that makes them superior to a non-biological heterosexual or homosexual parent-couple?
If there is no difference in the symbolic and overall quality of parenting between these two frameworks, then the implications are pretty clear.
I would think that the only thing "lacking" in a homosexual parent household would be the absence of what the other sex could/would bring. Argh hard to verbalize tonight.
For instance, two males raising a female child might not be as successful in introducing puberty related stuff (i.e.menstruation) as a female would (not the "facts" but the experience of it). The opposite of course would be true in that female parents wouldnt be as expert in handling male puberty.
The homosexual couples i know raising children often include someone of the opposite sex in their lives. Much as couples who adopt children of other cultures try to teach or invovle their children somehow in their birth culture.
As there are "good", as well as, "bad" examples of every conceiveable type of household/parental units,I think its almost impossible to ever say positively that one is better than the other.
i still think the article is lacking of many situations. any studies given will also be lacking of many situations. here is another:
is it better to have an abusive daddy who is married to mommy or just two loving mommies or daddies?
or
is it better to have 2 extremely wealthy gay parents than heterosexual parents? the opportunities for the child to become successful will be much greater with wealthier parents (private school, better colleges, tutors...)
as far as your direct question, there is no answer. the truth lies in the kids.
kids will turn out different even if brought up in the same situation. good proof of this is when parents have twins, and later on in life one is gay, or one is a better athelete, or one gets hooked on drugs. those kids lead the same life for a long time, but they inevitably go down different roads.
how do you quantify why your brother turned out so different than you did?
what does it mean when the kid with the gay parents makes straight A's, gets a college degree, and marries the woman of his dreams while your kid struggles to make C's, never graduates college, and struggles his whole life?
Stephen,
We gays don't want or need "marriage". Marriage broke a long time ago, as evidenced by the high rate of divorce and adultery. Just look at Britney Spears, paragon of virtue with her 30 minute marriage. Is that sacred? No. I don't want that.
I think the final sentence of this statement ultimately defeats the first. You conclude with a personal statement designed to support a general one. In essence, what I'm getting at is that a very large number of people in the gay community do want to get married, and that you, alone, are unable to represent them in their entirety. If a significant number of individuals from the gay community did not want the right to be married, there would be no controversy.
Most of the rest of your post addresses the need for equitable, solid, and unassailable rights for homosexual couples, which is more than fine. I'm certain that almost anyone speaking from a non-homophobic belief structure would agree with those requirements.
Your discussion about child rearing was also interesting, particularly the notion that traditional family structures like the ones found in India (and likely in many of the Mediterranean countries like Greece and Italy as well) are more in line with the teachings of the Christian bible than the nuclear family. Are you aware of any studies done on the comparable effectiveness of such family arrangements?
Should gays be allowed to raise children? Why not? Would you rather the orphanages to stay full? Do you think we'll run out of babies to take care of? Would you rather a child stays in an orphanage or gets shunted around into over-crowded foster care?
This, while in a different format, asks the same questions of the alleged superiority of heterosexual biological parents child-raising as is posed by Jas:
is it better to have an abusive daddy who is married to mommy or just two loving mommies or daddies?
I think that these are very important questions, but if Margaret Somerville is correct in her assertions, she has already headed them off before they can be asked.
From my post above, Somerville states:
The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents.
In other words, according to Somerville, that biological parent-couples could potentially be inferior parents is irrelevant for the purposes of ethics. She presupposes that a socio-economically ideal biological parent-couple would be a better situation for a child than a non-biological parent-couple (which includes homosexual parent-couples) of the same ideal socio-economic status.
It is important to recognize what is meant by better situation as well. It's not to say that one couple would have better parenting methods than the other so much as that they would possess qualities inherent to their biological and sexual dispositions that would differentiate them qualitatively as potential parents. All questions of ability and caring aside, the biological parents are argued to be better parents simply by virtue of being the biological parents.
To refute this, I believe we would need conclusive research showing that children do not lack anything by being raised by a non-biological parent-couple. If there is no qualitative difference between the life of a child being raised by one, rather than the other, than the good of the child is not being compromised by allowing for homosexuals to marry and parent children.
in order to argue that the basic man-woman marriage is better than anything else, you would really have to require or assume that most man-woman marriages are "good", or "better" than any other alternatives.
2 things somewhat refute this. first of all, divorce rates say that a good portion of marriages are not "good." in fact, with half of american marriages leading to divorce, it doesnt say much for marriage.
the second point is that, because of the stonewalling, we really have nothing else to compare it to. there is no real alternative to a man-woman marriage, so how can we make the argument that anything is better? i cant use a statistic saying that 95% of man-man marriages stay intact (no divorce), because there is no such thing at the moment.
how can we argue that anything else is better/comparable if the other options are not legal or allowed?
I think gays wanting to intentionally use artificial insemination to create a child is selfish and in denial of the above.
does that statement strike no one as odd?
I think gays wanting to intentionally use artificial insemination to create a child is selfish and in denial of the above.
does that statement strike no one as odd?
It certainly strikes me as odd. MQM, would you care to tell us a little more about why members of the homosexual community taking advantage of artifician insemination is selfish?
Further, why do children ideally need a mother and father? Is there anything that supports this claim?
Post a Comment
<< Home