?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
08 Juni 2006 @ 19:56
The birds and the birds and the bees and the bees  

I have never understood the arguments against same-sex marriage, and I suspect that this is because there aren't any. The opponents of same-sex marriage go around saying ominous things about how we mustn't undermine this noble institution, but they never seem to have anything cogent to say about why, exactly, a broader version of marriage would be a weaker one, or how it would actually harm anyone.

According to an article by Daniel Girard in today's Toronto Star, Margaret Somerville, like many other opponents of same-sex marriage, claims that "it's about kids' rights." Well, which kids, exactly? And which rights? That's never been quite clear, but what Girard says about Somerville's position only makes it less so:

Children get valuable genetic traits from each of their opposite-sex parents, something not possible with two mothers or two fathers, she said.

Um... right. Any child born to two parents of the same sex will be missing crucial genetic information! For example, a child with two fathers might end up with two Y chromosomes and no X! Not to mention the fact that the poor thing would have to gestate in a box.

(For the record, I think it's entirely possible that Somerville had something at least marginally more intelligent to say about the matter. If you delete the word genetic from the assertion attributed to her by the article, the resulting claim is no longer absurd, but merely unsubstantiated and irrelevant.)

 
 
 
wolfangel78 on 9. Juni, 2006 01:53 (UTC)
Well, when you leave "genetic" in there, you get an argument against adoption and many fertility treatments. And when you lose it, you have the argument against allowing divorce and allowing widow(er)s to keep their children. And her "marriage is about having kids" gets rid of those marriages where someone is inferile or the couple chooses not to have children.

I have found that if I find out where Margaret Somerville stands on some current controversy, I usually know what side not to take.
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 9. Juni, 2006 18:25 (UTC)

Actually, I think that when you leave "genetic" in, what you have is an argument against parthenogenesis.* Any child conceived in more or less the usual way, with or without the help of fertility treatments, still has genetic information from two parents of opposite sexes, even if they aren't the people who end up doing the rest of the work of parenting.


*I've also heard that children conceived by parthenogenesis have an increased risk of crucifixion, but I still don't think parthenogenesis should be illegal.

鉄観音isolt on 10. Juni, 2006 16:16 (UTC)
*I've also heard that children conceived by parthenogenesis have an increased risk of crucifixion, but I still don't think parthenogenesis should be illegal.

Hehehehehehehehehe.

That made my night.
parodieparodie on 9. Juni, 2006 02:19 (UTC)
That is an absolutely hilarious mistake. Nice catch.
Merlemerle_ on 9. Juni, 2006 02:19 (UTC)
Perhaps by "genetic" he meant "environmental". Seems like quite a slip of the tongue, though.

Nice icon -- I appreciate the Ctrl-Opt-Cmd-8 under OSX to, well, figure it out. Kind of.

I have never figured out why same-sex marriage is particularly threatening, either. If these parents are capable, and they are on the Side Of Their God, they should be able to train and instill the morals and beliefs that are appropriate so their children will be strong against the Evil Forces Of Same-Sex Marriage. If not, well, maybe their belief is not strong enough. Maybe their god is testing them. If so, and were I their god, I would interpret the passing of laws against something as a cop-out. *shrug* But I am not a god.

(and, of course, a child born to two female parents of the same sex might end up with two X chromosomes and be perfectly fine, following your analogy...)
w1ldc47w1ldc47 on 9. Juni, 2006 09:58 (UTC)
Wow. I had no idea about the ctrl-opt-cmd-8 thing. How very cool!

Q, your blog colouring looks just as nice in either mode. Was that on purpose?
Merlemerle_ on 9. Juni, 2006 13:01 (UTC)
I find the Ctrl-Opt-Cmd-8 thing very useful when I wake up in the middle of the night, and it's just too dark for my poor eyes to adjust to the glaring white of most web pages. Most people's icons look pretty weird in that mode, though...
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 9. Juni, 2006 19:52 (UTC)

I hadn't known about ⌘-opt-ctrl-8, either. (Well, I knew that reverse video was possible, but I didn't know the keyboard shortcut for it.) Now I'm looking at random things in negative just because it's so easy to do. So I didn't design the colours with that in mind, but any colour scheme that works well should reverse reasonably well, too.

(By the way, in case anyone is wondering about the new icon, it's either a totally abstract design or else a passive-aggressive response to the LiveJournal policy described herein.)

Vizcachachillyrodent on 9. Juni, 2006 12:27 (UTC)
Ahahahaha! I don't have a daddy, so I only have 23 chromosomes.

I've never heard an argument against same-sex marriage that didn't revolve around God™.
Vizcachachillyrodent on 9. Juni, 2006 14:51 (UTC)
And, wow! My vizcacha looks evil in this mode!
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 10. Juni, 2006 17:26 (UTC)
Those glowing eyes!
sweetjannettesweetjannette on 3. Januar, 2007 15:01 (UTC)
Excepting generic based arguments which I consider that mostly are right, there a lot of mental barriers to accept same sex marriages as a norm. For ex. most of people are believers, so these are people who know from their childhood God's covenants.