"If there is a substantial difference between a gay couple and a childless heterosexual couple, I'm unable to see it"
About this Quote
The line slices through the procreation-based justification for restricting marriage by pointing to a simple comparison: a gay couple and a heterosexual couple that does not have children perform the same social roles. Both form bonds of mutual care, share resources, plan futures, support one another in illness and aging, and often contribute to extended families and communities. If society recognizes and values the partnership of a childless straight couple as a legitimate family unit, then drawing a bright line against same-sex couples rests on something other than coherent principle.
Much of the historical argument against same-sex marriage hinged on the idea that marriage is fundamentally about reproduction. Yet the law has long recognized marriages between people who are infertile or uninterested in having children. Benefits tied to marriage — hospital access, inheritance rights, tax treatment, parental presumptions, social recognition — are granted regardless of fertility. The statement exposes the inconsistency: if procreation is not a prerequisite for heterosexual couples, why should it be treated as a disqualifier for gay couples?
Daniel Keys Moran, a science fiction writer who often explores questions of autonomy and social order, applies a characteristically rational lens here. Science fiction has a tradition of testing social norms against logical scrutiny, and this line reads like a thought experiment that strips away cultural habit to see what remains. What remains is companionship and commitment, not a biological function.
The force of the observation is ethical as well as logical. Equality under the law is not sustained by intuition or tradition; it requires reasons that apply consistently. When the relevant features of two situations are the same, equal treatment follows. Where only sexual orientation differs, the burden rests on anyone arguing for different rules to identify a real, consequential distinction. Absent that, the difference looks like prejudice, and the policy that enforces it becomes indefensible.
Much of the historical argument against same-sex marriage hinged on the idea that marriage is fundamentally about reproduction. Yet the law has long recognized marriages between people who are infertile or uninterested in having children. Benefits tied to marriage — hospital access, inheritance rights, tax treatment, parental presumptions, social recognition — are granted regardless of fertility. The statement exposes the inconsistency: if procreation is not a prerequisite for heterosexual couples, why should it be treated as a disqualifier for gay couples?
Daniel Keys Moran, a science fiction writer who often explores questions of autonomy and social order, applies a characteristically rational lens here. Science fiction has a tradition of testing social norms against logical scrutiny, and this line reads like a thought experiment that strips away cultural habit to see what remains. What remains is companionship and commitment, not a biological function.
The force of the observation is ethical as well as logical. Equality under the law is not sustained by intuition or tradition; it requires reasons that apply consistently. When the relevant features of two situations are the same, equal treatment follows. Where only sexual orientation differs, the burden rests on anyone arguing for different rules to identify a real, consequential distinction. Absent that, the difference looks like prejudice, and the policy that enforces it becomes indefensible.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Daniel
Add to List
