Ethicist stands her ground

[Guest Warwick Green]

If UWO can give Henry Morgantaler an honorary degree I see nothing wrong with Somerville getting one.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville has received five honorary degrees and dozens of fellowships and awards in her 40-year academic career.

And yesterday, she pledged not to let allegations of homophobia hurled at her by gay-rights groups stop her from accepting another honorary degree, this one from Ryerson University in Toronto on June 19.

Somerville, founding director of McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, has come under fire for opposing gay marriage as defined in Canada's Civil Marriage Act because of what it means to Canadian children. She supports civil unions.

"If these guys want to demonstrate against me, that's their right," Somerville, McGill's Samuel Gale professor of law, said of her critics.

But, at the same time, she said, she intends to defend freedom of speech in an academic setting while giving voice to the concerns many Canadians share about gay marriage....

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3b-3d96437cd680

[Liam]

Let me see if I understand her position...

1. she is against gay marriage, but supports civil unions...

- In Canada, wouldn't this be a distinction without a difference? Or is her point that the label is more important than the relationship itself?

2. she is against gay marriage because of the effect it will have on the children of Canada...

- What effect? wouldn't Canadian couples who enter into civil unions still be allowed to adopt or have children via surrogacy? how would allowing civil unions but not marriage be different? and how does preventing gay marriage not hurt the children who already have one or more gay parents/guardians?

3. "I believe children have a right to a mother and father, and preferably their biological parents," added Somerville, citing how the act no longer defines a parent as "biological."...

- This line of thinking has absolutely no place in the marriage debate since it is an argument against gay parenting, not against gay marriage. In fact, if a child has a right to a mother and a father, shouldn't Somerville be arguing that the government must outlaw single parent, hetero adoption also?

Someone receiving an honorary degree ought to be smarter than to use unrelated arguments to support her position.

[Guest Warwick Green]

1. she is against gay marriage, but supports civil unions...

- In Canada, wouldn't this be a distinction without a difference?

Certainly this would appear to be case with the Harperian concept where he says that formalized gay relationships should have the same legal status as formalized straight unions, aka marriages. So, all we are arguing about is a word.

[Liam]

WG: exactly.

WRT Somerville's position, if gay marriage harms Canada's children but civil unions are okay, and when civil union = marriage in all but name... then civil unions must also harm Canada's children. How, then, can she support civil unions? Is this women getting an honorary degree because she could earn one based on her own intellectual merit??

[sharkman]

At any rate, step one in the play book for the gay activist is to scream homophobe until the media comes running. Step one for the media when the gay issue is at hand is to stick a microphone in the face of the person who's yelling it the loudest.

No one analyzes the charge to see if it has any merit, the person screaming is now itself the story. And if the media person did their homework they'd discover the gay activist considers anyone who believes anything slightly different than them is a homophobe. One day I hope activists will be able to quit it with the knee jerk reactions and realize there are many out there who disagree with them but don't hate them.

[August1991]

Good thread. There are several issues involved.

First, are we to have freedom of speech in this country or not?

Second, can we only accord honours to people who buy into the official, Politically Correct Canada as defined by the federal Liberal Party?

Third, if this woman were not associated with McGill, would anyone be discussing this?

Fourth, and critically for this thread, is someone now a Hitlerian, homophobic, racist bigot if she/he opposes gay marriage? Is opposing gay marriage now considered the same as advocating genocide?

"It's really disappointing that Ryerson wants to give this individual an honorary degree," said Mandy Ridley of RyePRIDE, the university's organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.

"There's nothing honorary about homophobia," Ridley said.

Somerville, who spoke out during Canada's national debate on gay marriage, stated: "I am not anti-gay. This is not about homosexuality.

[Guest Warwick Green]

One day I hope activists will be able to quit it with the knee jerk reactions and realize there are many out there who disagree with them but don't hate them.

Homosexuality, like abortion, seems to have been taken over by the extremists. Prof Somerville (whether her views of rejecting SSM but embracing civil unions make any sense or not) is expressing a legitimate opinion, one, in fact, supported by many people.

What is the response:

"There's nothing honorary about homophobia," Ridley said

Instead of critiquing the merits of Somerville's beliefs the reaction is to tar her with the H word. It's easier that way I guess than challenging her to a debate.

It's just as bad on the other side. A bigotted printer in Toronto decides not to serve gays. Immediately he becomes the poster boy for free speech - at least in the minds of those who want to criminalize homosexuality.

[Liam]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

[sharkman]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

Have you ever heard the expression, "Assumption is the mother of all evils"? You conclude, but it's based on incomplete third hand information.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

I read her stuff occasionally. Her opposition to SSM is based on the conventional conservative arguments - biology, tradition, culture. Until I saw this latest story I was unaware that she supported civil unions. To me civil unions are a political construct - give gays something but make sure that it is not called marriage. That is why NS and AB approved such unions - an effort to stop the SSM steamroller. If a person is opposed to SSM but in favor of civil unions he must recognize the validity of homosexual partnerships in the first place. Therefore it does not seem correct to call Prof. Somerville homophobic, as some are claiming.

[Liam]

Have you ever heard the expression, "Assumption is the mother of all evils"? You conclude, but it's based on incomplete third hand information.

You are right, I should have neither assumed nor concluded that she is an intellectual.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Margaret Somerville on marriage:

Note: my grandmother remarried in her 70's - procreation was the furthest thing from her mind.

In conclusion: A choice must be made. Either marriage represents the inherently

procreative relationship between two people, in which case it cannot include same sex

couples, or it represents just an intimate, committed relationship between two adults,

when it can include opposite-sex and same-sex partners.

To have marriage represent only a commitment between two people is a major departure

from its original and primary purpose in relation to children and a radical change in its

nature. It is not, as some same-sex marriage advocates argue, a relatively minor change

that will not have a major effect on traditional marriage.

The radical change in marriage that same-sex marriage entails is the reason that those

who want to keep marriage as representing the procreative link between a man and a

woman are so strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, but do not oppose civil unions:

Civil unions can symbolize commitment between two people without, as same-sex

marriage unavoidably does, desymbolizing the procreative link between

a man and a woman.

To destroy that symbolism is, in my view, very unwise, illiberal, and selfish.

It is certainly not in the interests of children and, therefore, not in the interests of

society, which ultimately means it's not in the best interests of any of us, gay or

straight. Might that explain why, in a recent poll carried out by the gay fabmagazine,

65% of respondents, the vast majority of whom one assumes are gay, did not

endorse same-sex marriage. The reason given by 7 per cent of those respondents

was that they wanted to “help lead a movement to abolish the institution of

marriage”. But whether or not anybody wants to abolish marriage, abolition

would be, in practice, the outcome of same-sex marriage with respect to some

very fundamental rights of children that marriage has traditionally established.

Ontario Justice Education Network

www.ojen.ca

Full speech:

http://www.ojen.ca/eng/programs/great_deba...20marriage'

[Shady]

This is nonsense. A person can be both an intellectual AND opposed to "gay marraige". The term "gay marraige" is an oxymoron. I'm also opposed to "gay marraige" but in favour of civil unions. Some may think it's semantics, but words mean things.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Somerville states in her speech that the original and primary purpose of marriage is in relation to children. I would argue that is not the case - that in fact, having children is just ONE of the purposes of marriage. Lots of marriages don't have children - either through choice, dysfunctional reproductive systems or the parties are beyond childbearing. Those marriages are just as legitimate as ones with children. In fact there are many gay marriages with children, either through adoption or non-traditional reproductive techniques. A gay marriage with children is no different from a heterosexual marriage with children.

[Argus]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

So your position is that anyone who opposes homosexual marriage is unfit to be in any kind of responsible position in academia? Presumably they're unfit to be doctors, lawyers or politicians too. In fact, shouldn't their children be taken from them and raised by the state? Should there be "reducation camps" for people who are dumb enough to disagree with your political views?

[Argus]

Somerville states in her speech that the original and primary purpose of marriage is in relation to children. I would argue that is not the case - that in fact, having children is just ONE of the purposes of marriage.

You can argue it but you'd be completely wrong, of course.

The having and raising of children was THE singular purpose behind marriage for eons.

Lots of marriages don't have children -

Today, yes. We are smug, comfortable, and more concerned with shiny consumer products than children. That does not speak to the "original and primary purpose of marriage" now does it?

[Argus]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

Would you simlarly bar all Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and practicing Christians from any academic reward because of the "internal illogic" of their belief systems? What about communists? Surely their belief system has proven to be illogical as well. What views and beliefs do you feel are acceptable in academics?

[Riverwind]

The having and raising of children was THE singular purpose behind marriage for eons.

Agreed, however, that purpose was abandoned decades ago. If you want to restrict marriage to people who raise children then you must ban marriages between people over 50 and between people who have no intentions of having children.

[Shady]

A gay marriage with children is no different from a heterosexual marriage with children

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A gay marriage with children is no different from a heterosexual marriage with children

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

It's being debated because same sex marriage is not something hypothetical - it's the law of the land and gay couples have every right to raise kids just as heteros (alone or in couples) do.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The having and raising of children was THE singular purpose behind marriage for eons.

Agreed, however, that purpose was abandoned decades ago. If you want to restrict marriage to people who raise children then you must ban marriages between people over 50 and between people who have no intentions of having children.

I agree. So long as people who either can't or won't have children are permitted to marry then it is clearly wrong to say that "THE singular purpose behind marriage" is to raise children. Of course, it is an important reason for marriage, but not the only one.

[newbie]

A gay marriage with children is no different from a heterosexual marriage with children

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

So black and white. How about a child raised with a father constanly beating his wife and/or other children? Are you telling me you'd accept that over a child raised under a relationship with 2 loving parents of the same gender? Think outside the box once in awhile.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A gay marriage with children is no different from a heterosexual marriage with children

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

So black and white. How about a child raised with a father constanly beating his wife and/or other children? Are you telling me you'd accept that over a child raised under a relationship with 2 loving parents of the same gender? Think outside the box once in awhile.

I would certainly regard a loving family consisting of a gay couple or a single parent to be preferred to a dysfunctional "traditional" family where there is abuse or alcoholism. I think that two persons of the same gender are just as capable of bringing up children as two persons of the opposite sex. Similarly I think single parents (or even parents who are not married) are similarly capable of bringing up kids. Just because two people of opposite sexes decide to get married does not mean that they will automatically become capable of being functionable parents.

[Liam]

So your position is that anyone who opposes homosexual marriage is unfit to be in any kind of responsible position in academia? Presumably they're unfit to be doctors, lawyers or politicians too. In fact, shouldn't their children be taken from them and raised by the state? Should there be "reducation camps" for people who are dumb enough to disagree with your political views?

No, those are your conclusions, not mine. Nice try, though.

I simply pointed out that she has taken a strong position opposing same sex marriage because of the harm it will do to children. But then Somerville endorses civil unions, which would be identical to marriage in all but name. If "gay marriage" harms kids, and it is identical to "civil unions", then civil unions must also be harmful to children. Somerville somehow endorses this scheme which, to me, seems illogical and not based on reason.

[Shady]

How about a child raised with a father constanly beating his wife and/or other children? Are you telling me you'd accept that over a child raised under a relationship with 2 loving parents of the same gender? Think outside the box once in awhile.

Again, I'm just speaking the truth and the facts. It's an absolute fact that a mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. The ideal situation for children is to be raised with a mother and father. Don't blame me, blame nature. However, the issue isn't about comparing a father beating his wife versus June Cleaver and June Cleaver or Ward Cleaver and Ward Cleaver. If a child is being raised in a family who's father is beating his wife, the ideal situation would be to place that child in a home with a mother and father without the dysfunction.