"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."My immediate debate instinct is to cry, "Non-unique." Everything Bush says--with the exception of "ages of experience"*--could also be equally applied to a marriage between two men or two women. But I'm willing to consider the arguments behind the assertions.
Empirically, how does gay marriage jeopardize the institution of marriage? How would banning it protect marriage? Explain in detail.
Added: Ed Brayton links to William Eskridge and Darren Spedale's take on Stanley Kurtz's claim that
[a]ll indications are that the Dutch case is a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects. Although the matter is fair game for continued debate, no one has yet offered a convincing alternative explanation, or even fully confronted the arguments already on the table. At a bare minimum, the rapid and ongoing deterioration of Dutch marriage shows that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been proven wrong in the Netherlands. Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married.To which Eskridge and Spedale respond,
...an event does not 'cause' a trend if the trend pre-existed the event. If your income rises at a steady rate of 5% a year, you get married, and then your income continues to rise at a rate of 5% per year, you cannot conclude that your marriage “caused” those subsequent wage increases. Your marriage presumably did not hurt, but there is every reason to believe that it didn’t help either.Still searching for a good argument.
The nonmarital birth rate in the Netherlands has been increasing exponentially since the 1970s. It galloped up in the 1980s, and continued that gallop in the 1990s and the new millennium. The rate doubled between 1982 and 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1997, and is on the way to another doubling. These are significant increases, but registered partnerships, not to mention same-sex marriage, came right in the middle of this demographic trend. Neither institution seems to have exacerbated the trend.
2 comments:
The problem with the "it harms the child" argument is that gay couples can already adopt children while gay marriage remains illegal. So to use the argument is to exploit children not save them.
So I invite you to question whether the real objection is to the disadvantaged child or to the prospect of legitimizing homosexuality. Where is the constitutional ammendment banning gay adoption?
Let it be known, however, that I am opposed to gay adoption, myself, because a child's right to an equal shot at life is more important than any right of an adult to meet some selfish desire to adopt. I just don't want to see children be exploited either.
warren, I agree that the primary motivation seems to be preventing the legitimization of homosexuality.
I'm curious as to why you impugn the motives of gay adoptive parents. Certainly there is joy in raising a child, but there is considerable sacrifice, too--children aren't cheap by any measure, never mind the additional (hefty) costs of the adoption process.
What is it about gay parents that would keep a child from an "equal shot" in life?
Post a Comment