Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Pro-Kid; Anti-Gay Marriage

Old friend and mentor Dr. Curp forwarded an interesting interview with Margaret Somerville, an ethicist who stirred up a hornet's nest by coming out publically against gay marriage for a straightforward reason that few outside of strongly religious circles accept: She believes that same sex marriages (specifically the likelihood that their approval would increase pressure to provide artificial reproductive services to same sex couples) would violate the right of every child to have and live with his or her own biological mother and father.


Jeff Tan said...

Hi Darwin! There's certainly data to back up that view:

Of course, that doesn't make it easy for SSM advocates to swallow. But.. facts are facts. A practical factor that must be pointed out is that same-sex parents run several risks that, because they imperil *their* health and happiness, likewise imperil their children. Those risks happen to be significantly higher than for heterosexual parents, e.g., catching STDs, multiple partner changes, shorter life expectancy, etc.

Anonymous said...

NYU philosopher David Velleman has made a similar point, as in his post on the blog Left2Right:

It's an interesting argument, and for me has been the first that I think carries some real weight. However, it's worth noting that it's only extrinsically an argument against gay marriage. Velleman notes that it can equally be viewed as an argument that gay marriage ought to come together with legislation protecting certain rights of children. Given that these technologies are here to stay, such legislation is something we ought to be discussing, in any case.

Anonymous said...

You do know that that "research" was done by a guy who publicly stated in 1985 (Conservative Action Conference) that "'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.". Holocaust, anybody?

Anonymous said...

Fortunately that idea has remained just as unacceptible now, twenty years later, as it was then. Though it is indeed proof that there is out there someone who is willing to publically state just about anything.