I stumbled accorss this article by accident, but for some reason some of the claims the author makes stuck with me. It’s an article from The Baltimore Sun. I know we were supposed to find an article from a local news source, but I wasn’t able to find anything that I really wanted to comment on.
The article is called, “Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest.” The headline alone is questionable. The author claims that, the question about same sex marrige is not about rights and equality but about raising children.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-same-sex-marriage-20110201,0,2030527.story
So here’s my stab at it:
I would like to comment on your article ”Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest.”.
What exactly is the ”public interest”? Is it possible for one man to define what the public interest really is?
You argue in your article that the exsitence of future generations of children is fundamental to the ”survival” of any society, and that it makes ”no sense” affirming same sex marraiges because they are incaplable of producing children through their sexual union. If survival was the main reason for modern marraige today, we would have gotten married at an earlier age, and produced more children.
It’s impossible to state what marriage is about. Some marry for love, some for money, some for religious reasons, some because they like the idea of having that better half. If it was all about reproduction, all morals could be set aside to reproduce. Same sex couples are capable of reproducing - with a little help of technology. Our socity is built on morals, not survival of the fittest.
You later state that research has proven that children raised by their own biological mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children in any other living situation. First, is it possible to messure happiness? So many different factors can play a role. Second, you fail to mention what kind of other living situations that was taken into account in this study. Was same sex couples even considered? Was it in the same category as kids from broken homes and children who spent most of their childhood in foster care. And how about adpotion? Again so many factor can effect the results. Third, same sex couples cannot marry in the US, therefore it’s impossible to let this argument speak against same sex marriages at the same time.
How you take a stand against same sex marraiges based on these studies - is to me - a puzzle. To get married, do what you want with your life, is a right - and that’s the public interest.
As a recomendation for research on this topic John Corvino is an excelent public speaker on behalf of same sex marriage, he in particular has one essay in which he refutes most reasons people use to discredit same sex marriage excluding religious ones because trying to disprove god is assinine.
ReplyDeleteReligious reasons are of course completely irrelevant, since the constitution prohibits the creation of laws based on religious doctrines.
ReplyDeleteIf your curious, there is a fair amount of scientific literature on the subject of same-sex child raising. The data are pretty clear cut on this one: Children raised by same-sex parents are no better or worse off then children raised by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex parents tend to be significantly better off (many many different definitions of "better off". Actual definitions used vary depending on the specific study , but for the sake of this comment, take it to mean things like academic/professional success, low rates of criminality etc.) than children raised by a single parent.
Basically, as far as the scientific literature is concerned, the claim that kids raised by gay parents are worse off then those raised by straight parents is bullshit.
Also, I think it would be helpful to expound on the "procreation" argument" that they employ. If they are trying to justify opposition to gay marriage based on the inability of a gay couple to reproduce, then by that logic they should deny marriage to ANY couple that cannot reproduce.
Post-menopausal? No marriage for you.
Barren woman? No marriage for you.
Had a vasectomy? No marriage for you.
Impotent man? No marriage for you.
The list goes on.