Excellent Macleans interview--ethics

[Sothy]

The July 1st Macleans mag has an interivew on pages 18-19 with a woman (magazine not in front of me now) who is a prof of law and medicine and founder of an ethics institute at McGill university.

The unusual part of the interview is that the woman has changed her position on gay marriage and is now opposed to it, but in favour of civil unions instead.

Now, being in favour of gay marriage, I was intrigued as to why such a "high-level" professor would be opposed, and her reasoning is very sound (not that I agree per se, I need to read more).

She discusses the objective view points and what they would be, the societal viewpoints, the individual view points, how to form an oppinion that honours as much as possible, etc.

in essence, her concern is that marriage is a societal norm, and that testing/requirements do not follow norms...so if one marries, heterosexual, one can become a parent. Furthermore, she asserts that that is the traditional purpose behind marriage as society found that having a Mom and Dad around helped the kids...

now, if we take exceptions to the norm, such as adoption, when that happens, you do all sorts of testing to make sure that the parents are suitable, which you don't bother to do (even if it would help) with biological parents.

The problem (in her view) is that as medical technology advances, it will soon be possible to have two Moms or two Dads from a biological standpoint, and that if gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage, then there will be no testing for suitability, etc.

Now, that doesn't sound like a problem, but she raises the point that recent research that has come out (but she admits that it is possible due to biasness, etc. that it is not accurate) asserts that while kids who (presumably were adopted?) had two Moms or two Dads always said that they were happy, they were generally between 10-14 years of age. Apparently research for children who are now adults (ie. 25) indicates that they are NOT happy and feel that something was missing...

this has changed her oppinion on the matter...so in order to preserve children's rights (as she points out that having children is part of being/right of being married under UN conventions, etc.)...she would rather civil unions be adopted instead, reducing discrimination against a vulnerable group (gays), but also protecting children in that it increases their chances of having a Mom and a Dad...(but yes, kids out of wedlock, adoptions, etc. mean that exceptions exist)

I'm not saying that I agree with her, but I do find her stance exciting in that it isn't the standard pre-rational hatred of gays that is normally spouted by right-wing groups...

same end result some would argue, but the method is completely different...

at anyrate, try and read the interview if you can...

[Dialectic]

I'd read a similarly-themed article in The Australian (for an example of their writing, go here:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=5510. From my very limited exposure to their stuff, they seem like an "integrally-conservative," or at least, well-reasoned conservative publication). It wasn't nearly as thorough, but it took a similar stance.

If I get my hands on a Macleans I'll read the article.

What exactly are the rights granted in a civil union?

I suppose a "integrally safe" stance (or at least one that would promote a developmental approach, meaning this would not be an "end step") would be to grant all the financial (and whatever other legal) rights afforded to married couples, but not the right to automatically be able to raise kids without testing/evaluation. I don't necesarily agree with this, either, but it would seem like a good way to approach the situation in a more conservative political environment.

(This is also a good example of how integral reasoning doesn't always reach definite conclusions on complex issues.)

[Sothy]

Margaret Somerville is the woman, and she is from Australia at that (but remember, she has founded a ethics institute in liberal (value wise) Quebec's top (according to macleans rankings at least) university)...the key to the position is that it attempts to balance individual rights with individual responsibilities...

civil unions would, presumably, have full-rights, in that they could immigrate, pay lower/higher taxes, split pension plans, spousal RRSPs, etc.

their would also be adoption rights as adoption is not the "norm", but an exception, so whether the parents are hetero or homo, they would be screened and if suitable, able to adopt of course.

The sole difference, IN THEORY, would be around the right to start a family biologically.

again, not sure if the research around the kids is conclusive enough to have a stance personally, but the fact that this stance, while opposite my stance, is not out of hate, is refreshing and good to see excellent dialogue in this area.

I think the whole interview is online here:

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/people/article.jsp?content=20060701_130175_130175

[Sothy]

definitely worth it to read the interview...here's a sample q&a from the interview...like I said, don't agree with her at this point in time (as I haven't thought about the implications on development pysch for kids before), but she certainly has thought things out from a non-hateful standpoint...it would be nice to see a counter argument to her view (which also integrates the Big Three (I, We, It)) that is also well thought out...and not just name calling

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/people/article.jsp?content=20060701_130175_130175

(sample quote taken from link above)

There's no way to uncouple this issue from marriage?

It's a big mistake to think marriage is really about two adults' public commitment to each other and a declaration of their love: it's really essentially about constructing a family. I know my views are very hurtful to some people who feel very strongly about this, and I regret having to hurt them. And I must admit it was not my original stance, which came much more from looking at the situation of gay people. I think they are a vulnerable group that has had horrible discrimination against them, and I can see that same-sex marriage, the inclusiveness of that, is one way that you could ensure that the discrimination stopped. So that, for me, is a big argument in favour of same-sex marriage. But then you look at another vulnerable group -- children -- and to protect them in a way that they should be protected, I think we can't have same-sex marriage. We can have civil unions, which I realize is not what gay people want, but I think it can stop discrimination, give them protections and rights they absolutely must have. That's the sort of thing we do in ethics when we've got two competing sets of values. You look for the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, one that's reasonably available and likely to be effective to achieve the goals you want. So that would be, for me, civil unions, and keep marriage as a man and a woman.

[JadeDragon]

I may be wrong, but the feeling I get from the interview/article is that Margaret Somerville believes same-sex unions should have a male/female dichotomy (not necessarily in terms of biological sex, but in gender roles) to help the children develop definite gender roles of their own easily. It would be confusing for a child to have two mommies or daddies, and then to go out into the world and find that his/her friends, in overwhelming numbers, have a "daddy" and a "mommy" instead. By defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman only, it serves the status quo and therefore, if there are any children born, it's less confusing for them to understand the traditional concepts of "marriage" and "family", and also protects them from the ridicule and the pain of being potential social outcasts.

So by defining same-sex unions as civil unions instead, it would perhaps make it harder for same-sex parents to have/adopt kids, thus lessening the chance of the children being confused about gender matters/roles. The problem is that, though, this condition can be easily twisted and therefore deny the right for gays to have children, whether biologically or not. I can see Somerville's point about protecting the children, but I don't believe that this is the right way to go about solving the problem.

[minbo]

Personally I think that Governments should legally recognize family units based upon a persons life commitment to support a life partner in good times and in bad. This would be het or gay unions, or possibly even non-traditional/non nuclear units, such as an aunt, friend or grandmother assisting as a "third parent" to raise a child. I do however believe that polygamy, as practiced by Fundementalist Mormans or polyandry if similarly practiced (though I don't know of any examples) should not be recognized. Something about the whole brainwashing/marry em when they are barely post-pubesent I think is really wrong...

Marriage as a religious concept should be seperate. Marriage is evolving as society changes, but still are rooted in ancient social customs of spousal ownership.

[Sothy]

What do you mean by recognize family units? At least in Canada, "common-law" relationships, wherein if you live together (for not that long...) you can be recognized as married as far as immigration, taxes, etc. are concerned (gay or not).

There have to be some limits to what can be recognized as a parent though, as parents have legal responsibilities and rights, and there would have to be some type of clear line between who can sign that waiver...and then not try and get out of their responsibility later.

Questions surrounding the recognition of polygamy or polyandry would also involve issues around child development...obviously, women in polygamous communities do not develop the same as women outside of those communities...and in those cases, there are clear gender roles as well.

This isn't really about marriage as a religious institution though, other than that religion serves as the basis for most people realizing how they fit into the big picture/as a translative function in interpreting the world. Having parents with two gender roles may also fall into this category, but nationally recognized marriage could conceivably take the role of religiously recognized one (as many people get married in front of a "marriage commmissioner" or something similar)...the question is whether a child does need parents with two clear genders to fit in...

Jade, are biological and gender roles mutually exclusive when discussing the ability to have children?

Having civil unions shouldn't affect adoption, but it would impact the ability of homosexuals to have biological children (at least as I interpret the interview)...it would limit their rights in other words. The question is whether society has a responsibility to attempt to make the "norm", one where children are going to develop properly (assuming that the preliminary data is accurate).

I, also, don't believe that restricting homosexual rights is the answer, as they have been shit on enough for the last hundred years, so any restriction on gay rights should only be done if absolutely necessary IMO, not when preliminary data suggests a need...but, intelligent, non-hateful/pre-rational discussion is welcomed...

[JadeDragon]

Jade, are biological and gender roles mutually exclusive when discussing the ability to have children?

In my opinion, biological and gender roles aren't mutually exclusive in these discussions. Of course, in order to have a child, male and female sex cells need to be present, whether within the physical act of procreation or in a test-tube in some laboratory. And many would argue that a child needs both a "father" and a "mother" in order to develop an idea of a family paradigm, where there are clearly-defined gender roles to serve as examples for the child to grow into, whichever s/he chooses.

These things I do agree with, but my main problem with this issue is that Somerville seems to be saying that all children need to have a male father and a female mother in order to succeed in becoming well-adjusted, well-developed human beings. She seems to be using biology as her argument's basis, saying that a child raised in a two-daddies or two-mommies environment is going to feel that half of their selves are missing, because they couldn't tell the difference between maleness and femaleness unless it's articulated by the body when they were kids. I do understand that sexuality and gender would be very tough concepts to foist upon a kid, but I think that part of the problem is that the "visibility"/signs of gender are so ingrained into social consciousness, people aren't ready and/or willing to attempt changing the status quo. I'm not advocating a gender-free world, because that would be frankly impossible (and pretty stupid), but I don't think gender should be taken as seriously as it is now.

[maogirl]

just a comment:

obviously, not having read the article, i can only infer, but:


kids who (presumably were adopted?) had two Moms or two Dads always said that they were happy, they were generally between 10-14 years of age. Apparently research for children who are now adults (ie. 25) indicates that they are NOT happy and feel that something was missing...

i mean, couldn't the same argument be applied to kids of divorced parents? if family construction were the main and only focus of marriage (which i can understand), then shouldn't divorce or the break up of the family be disallowed for breeders?

i think generally speaking there is a distaste for the sexual behaviour of gay people that affects any discussion of gay parenting/marriage. not to mention the conflation of sexuality and gender.

personally, i am not entirely for gay marriage, but for entirely different reasons.

[nskripchun]

Personally I think that Governments should legally recognize family units based upon a persons life commitment to support a life partner in good times and in bad.

An interesting idea, but how can this even be objectively determined? "Commitment" is a sort of nebulously thing in our society, and the divorce is still around 50%, right?

On somewhat related marriage/commitment tangent...

I recently had to fill out a sworn affidavit about my friends' marriage (and get it notarized), because my friend's wife was not a US citizen when they got married (she's Indonesian-Chinese). They've been married over 2 years, and they still have to annually get these things filled out... though I can understand some of the reasons why the US government does this (to measure commitment / legitimacy? to discourage "green card marriages"?) the process struck me as systematically racist...

[Dialectic]

I recently had to fill out a sworn affidavit about my friends' marriage (and get it notarized), because my friend's wife was not a US citizen when they got married (she's Indonesian-Chinese). They've been married over 2 years, and they still have to annually get these things filled out... though I can understand some of the reasons why the US government does this (to measure commitment / legitimacy? to discourage "green card marriages"?) the process struck me as systematically racist...

This is done exactly to prevent "marriages of convenience" or "green card"/immigration marriages. As far as I know, all Western governments with developed immigration laws permit citizenship and immigration officers to investigate the lives of immigrants and sponsors when, among other things, a marriage of convenience is suspected. It's a functional necessity, and not a systemic racist barrier.

[Dialectic]

I finally got a chance to read the article, and yes, it is quite good. Everyone who's participated in this discussion so far has read it.

My position is similar to that of JadeD's, and it in fact reflects the opinions of folks like David Deida and Ken Wilber.

I think everyone here, including Somerville herself, agrees that a child has the best chance of growing up well in a family unit which has both strong masculine and feminine presences.

The key here is to differentiate "masculinity" and "femininity" from biological constraints. Remember, Sothy (and refer specifically to you here only because we're the two who know ITP best), that we're dealing with multiple "spheres" here: specifically, body, mind, and soul.

You can have a male or female body, but masculinity/ "male-ness" and femininity/ "female-ness" come not just from the purely biological, but also from the noosphere, and, at least some would agree, the theosphere (though discussion of the "soul level" is not necessary here).

That is, you can have a very "feminine" male, and a very "masculine" female.

(David Deida discusses this at length in some of his books. For those who have not read him, I recommend "Way of the Superior Man" as an interesting read.)

Apparently, at least according to Wilber (and probably Deida), homosexuals are generally more aware of this dynamic than heterosexuals: relationships just don't work well if you have two people who are really "manly" or "womanly." You would need either two "neutrals" (a VERY rare occurrence), or one feminine essence and one masculine essence (let's leave out polygamy for now).

This becomes very apparent in the rearing of children. For example, in the matter of love and discipline, generally speaking, the mother offers unconditional love: no matter what you do, no matter who you are, I will always love you, you will always be my baby.

The father, generally, is the disciplinarian. He sets rules, obligations, expectations: I love you, but if you don't shape up, I'm gonna kick your ass. You do not want to fuck with me.

Now, generally, these functions do split along the above-mentioned gender lines. But as some people are aware, sometimes the father and mother are opposite what I've just described, and things still generally work (though results do get skewed because of patriarchy, but we'll not get into that for now).

I'd imagine that as long as the homosexual couple getting married was well aware and well-informed about "gender essences" and was a fairly enlightened couple, then the kid would be raised just fine (well, as fine as, say any fairly enlightened hetero couple could do it).

Now, when it comes to hetero or homo-sexual couples having kids via stem cells or what have you, I tentatively agree (until I read more thoughts on the subject) that because we're not dealing with the "natural course" of reproduction, that we treat this the way we treat adoptions.

So, conclusion? Stem babies for homo or hetero couples should be treated like we treat adoptions. Adopted babies should be allowed for both homo or hetero couples, but perhaps we should emphasize gender-role education for homosexual couples, as homosexuality introduces more risks and complications in child-raising (like, for example, the narcisissm and idealogical desires alluded to in the article). This seems, to me, to be the most integrative solution at this point in the development of our society.