After a week of guest-blogging on The Volokh Conspiracy, that's about the most charitable thing I can say about her.Over the past few years I've read much of what she has written and I always thought it boiled down to "sex makes babies so we shouldn't allow gay marriage" which of course makes that kind of sense that doesn't.
We both worship the whore of Babylon (Catholics, you know).We both have a checkered past with payments for expertise (she was payed by the Administration to espouse their policies in print; I was payed by a university to "volunteer" my time a local high schools).But if thinking a lot about something can be considered a qualification, I think Oslo's a bit behind on giving me my Nobel.With that out of the way, I was going to go over her arguments post by post, but I've decided that they aren't worth taking a look at in that much detail because she tends to repeat herself a lot. According to "bad time management" we do not get treated to the theories of the cognitive nature of social institutions, the relevance of the New Institutionalist Economics’ understanding of isomorphic institutional change, the developing legal pressures in Canada to repress opposition to its new normative understanding of marriage, or even why I think the most likely outcome of same-sex marriage is not polygamy but to the end of marriage as a legal status.which is a shame because something substantial like that is what I was interested in hearing.Their presence in the mix doesn’t signal anything in particular at all. Older couples and childless couples are part of the natural life-cycle of marriage? How exactly, if they aren't generating any children, can they be part of the natural life-cycle of marriage? See, according to Maggie, gay marriage is filled with gender contradictions: Gender doesn’t matter, except when orientation is involved, in which case gendered sexual desire matters so much we are morally obligated to restructure our most basic social institution for protecting children, so that all adults get their needs for intimacy and social affirmation met equally.
Orientation, as a classification, assumes gender is a real and significant category of human existence; but apparently only for gays, and not for children. It matters equally for heterosexuals as it does for homosexuals; it just doesn't matter so much for the institution.1) Analogies to no-fault divorce; 2) Connections to generativity; and 3) "Gender matters". She brings up the history of no-fault divorce and the mantra about someone else's divorce not affecting your marriage.The disconnect here is that, in the case of no-fault divorce, it is easy to see how a climate of divorce might effect, not necessarily current marriages, but the decisions of the next generation to get married.Not many same-sex marriage advocates argue against the importance of marriage and child rearing; what I've been searching for these past few years is a reasonable argument to connect "sex makes babies" with "gay marriage will end marriage as a legal status".Maggie seems to be making three general arguments against same-sex marriage.If the next generation grows up in a world where individual marriages are statistically less permanent, two people entering into one might also treat it as less permanent. But what exactly does the marriage of the gays down the street do to heterosexual marriage? If the gays down the street can get married without having children, what does that say about my marriage?