Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
I have been asked to comment on the thoughtful observations of Paul A. Rahe who asks quite simply why it is in my normative defense of gay marriage, I have not addressed that critical question of the public interest that every society has in its own perpetuation through procreation. It would be idle to insist that this long-term view of social preservation does rate as a strong public interest, even for those, like myself, who take libertarian positions on matters of marriage. Of course the next generation matters. The hard question is to figure out the relationship that gay marriage has to this undeniable social interest.
The first point to note is that gay couples cannot reproduce. But that is true whether they enter into civil unions or into gay marriages. Either way they can only have children through adoption or various techniques like surrogacy or artificial insemination, which while vital in individual cases are not likely to push the overall birth rates upward by any measurable degree. So on this point, at least, the only strategies that could work are those which seek to either induce, or worse, coerce gay individuals to enter into ordinary heterosexual marriages, which raises far more problems than it solves.
Mr. Rahe does not, however, draw this inference, but concludes that the need for procreation means that the state should offer legal reinforcement of marriage by “subsidization” of the traditional marriage. But on this point, two observations come immediately to mind. First, the subsidy in question could be extended to all couples gay or straight. Second, there is the far harder question of whether the subsidy should be extended to those women who bear children out of wedlock, which has become an ever larger fraction of the population. There is an equally great problem of children raised in homes broken by divorce, which bodes ill for the children of these marriages.
To my mind, these huge problems should be tackled head on. The first line of social offense is to try to persuade young men and women that a durable marriage really improves the prospects of their offspring. This huge social problem bears little relationship to the gay marriage issue. And if there were a connection, my guess is that it could run equally well in the opposite direction. If gay couples can commit to marriage and take on the burden of raising children, which they do with real success, then surely you can do so as well. The obstacles to having children for a heterosexual couple are a lot lower than those for gay and lesbian couples.
So of course the state has a legitimate interest in marriage because of offspring. But nothing about the legalization of gay marriage changes those issues, so long as we insist that all the rules on abuse and neglect apply to all couples as they do. In terms of the overall social concern, the fragile status of the nuclear family is a pressing issue. We should all be better off if that were the focus on our inquiry, which will only happen when gay marriage becomes legal, which could easily happen in New York this coming week.
- Comment (138)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
My premise isn't that we need the government to make us moral. It is if government can show it has a legitimate concern about an aspect of my life, and at virtually no cost and with very minimal administration can offer a voluntary scheme which helps me handle that aspect of my life more easily and effectively, that scheme can't be labeled interference or coercion, or an affront to liberty. Nor can it be an insult to offer help which you are more than free to refuse for the toughest of human endeavors.
Furthermore, civil marriage is no more collectivist than states helping businesses contract with each other and helping them sue when contracts are breached. I mean by your logic it's an insult to the decency and honesty of mankind to assume we can't enter into and enforce contracts without the help of the government. I don't think you'd agree contract law is "faux-conservativism" do you?
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:32pmJan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
KC Mulville I'm just struck by the irony of a lawyer who is ... surprised, shocked, and astonished ... that some people don't live up to the contractual promises that they've made.
If everyone fulfilled all their promises, lawyers wouldn't have jobs!
HA! Bravo!
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
The King Prawn
I would say encouraged, and that by society rather than the state.
Would you say it to your spouse? Are you truly suggesting your marriage wasn't 100% your own pursuit of happiness, rather is mixed with nudging by society to make you do it?
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Katherine
Tommy De Seno: MISANDRY ALERT! MISANDRY ALERT!
If the interest in marriage is to keep men in it, then the comments on this thread reflect more of an insult to the institution of marriage than letting gays take part in it. I hadn't realized it was something you all were forced into and kept in against your will. · Jun 20 at 9:15am
Edited on Jun 20 at 09:16 am
The government didn't invent marriage and it's not forcing us to do it.
Forcing none of us but stopping some of us. Surely you concede that?
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Yes and the government stops some people, like the blind, from driving. Oh the tyranny!
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
In any case, perhaps you could tell us why you believe marriage exists -- across all these different times and cultures. What is its purpose? Who is it protecting? Why? Why has society put so much stock in this institution? · Jun 20 at 10:01am
Society doesn't put stock in it - the individual does.
Am I really going to be the first person to point out, of all the posts in this thread and recent others, the word love? Ya'll are some over-analytical political scientists not to have brought it up in the first place.
I married my wife because I fell in love with her. That's why I stay with her. Not for the kids she could or couldn't bring me. I didn't have her tested for fertility first.
What the government thought about me marrying her never entered my mind and still doesn't. What the rest of you thought about it never entered my mind and still doesn't.
If government tried to outlaw it to the exclusion of others, then it's time to grab my musket and start Revolution II.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:42pmJan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Great, why did you ask the state to sanction that? Talk about unconservative. Why invite the government to seal your commitment and stick it's nose into your intimate relationship? What did that seal do to your love, and if it doesn't play any role in whether you stay or go, why do it at all?
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:37pmRe: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
I married my wife because I fell in love with her. That's why I stay with her. Not for the kids she could or couldn't bring me.
So you think that the institution of marriage developed because you love your wife? How did it predate you? How does it exist in cultures that have never heard of you?
You're talking, I think, about why you are faithful and monogamous and partnered up with your wife. And it sounds great.
We're talking about marriage law and how society protects women and children who are not in your family. I get that you are immune to social norms. What about everyone else?
It's obvious that love is not sufficient for most people. In fact, my father -- a pastor -- always tells those people who say they want their vows to say "as long as we both shall love" instead of "shall live" that they need to plan for everything that happens after the first five days of marriage.
So why do you think the institution of marriage developed? We know that love is a fairly modern aspect. So is there any other significance?
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
BThompson
...civil marriage is no more collectivist than states helping businesses contract with each other and helping them sue when contracts are breached. I mean by your logic it's an insult to the decency and honesty of mankind to assume we can't enter into and enforce contracts without the help of the government.
That state doesn't stop Gays from making other contracts, just these marriage contracts.
For me the state allows the contract and settles the dispute should the contract be breached. For gays they are willing to settle disputes but don't allow the contract in the first place.
I see on Ricochet today a great deal of collectivists posing as individualists.
If you are arguing that the State should be involved in which humans couple, with an argument that there is a "collective good" when the state gets to decide which individuals couple, then don't call yourself and individualist. You're a collectivist.
And hardly a romantic.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
The non-sequitur award is yours.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
The King Prawn
I would say encouraged, and that by society rather than the state.
Would you say it to your spouse? Are you truly suggesting your marriage wasn't 100% your own pursuit of happiness, rather is mixed with nudging by society to make you do it? · Jun 20 at 10:20am
Well she knows it. If my temporal pleasure was all I was after I would be drowning in a vat of bourbon and prostitutes (scratch that, it's hard to keep a pipe lit in a vat of bourbon...) However, my real happiness does not come solely from temporal pleasures. It comes from both the commitment and the love I have in my marriage and family. Now where do you suppose I got that idea? I received that collected bit of wisdom from society and the positive institutions of society such as my family and my church. Remembering my younger years somewhat clearly, I doubt if I would have made such a landmark discovery on my own.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
The non-sequitur award is yours. · Jun 20 at 10:41am
Let me connect the dots for you. The state licences people for certain activities to make sure they meet the criteria needed to participate in the activity. If they don't meet the criteria needed, they don't get the license. Gay people don't meet the criteria needed in order to procreate, therefore they don't get licensed, just as blind people who don't meet the criteria needed in order to drive don't get licensed. Stopping people who are not suited for a license from getting a license is not tyranny.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:47pmRe: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
BThompson
Great, why did you ask the state to sanction that? Talk about unconservative. Why invite the government to seal your commitment and stick it's nose into your intimate relationship? What did that seal do to your love, and if it doesn't play any role in whether you stay or go, why do it at all? · Jun 20 at 10:36am
Edited on Jun 20 at 10:37 am
You missed my earlier comment where I railed against that first. I hated paying that $35 to the government. The sacrament was meaningful to me. The government part wasn't.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
BThompson
Tommy De Seno
The non-sequitur award is yours. · Jun 20 at 10:41am
Let me connect the dots for you. The state licences people for certain activities to make sure they meet the criteria needed to participate in the activity. If they don't meet the criteria needed, they don't get the license. Gay people don't meet the criteria needed in order to procreate, therefore they don't get licensed, just as blind people don't meet the criteria needed in order to drive. · Jun 20 at 10:45am
Wow you are the first person to actually fall into the trap of calling for a fertility test for straight people to marry.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
I see on Ricochet today a great deal of collectivists posing as individualists.
If you are arguing that the State should be involved in which humans couple, with an argument that there is a "collective good" when the state gets to decide which individuals couple, then don't call yourself and individualist. You're a collectivist. · Jun 20 at 10:39am
Why do you say "couple"? Why in the world are you limiting this to just two people? And how does your answer relate to "individualism" or "collectivism"?
Certainly if the state doesn't have an interest in protecting heterosexual marriage, it has no business in determining the proper number for marriage, right?
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
The King Prawn
Tommy De Seno
The King Prawn
I would say encouraged, and that by society rather than the state.
Would you say it to your spouse? Are you truly suggesting your marriage wasn't 100% your own pursuit of happiness, rather is mixed with nudging by society to make you do it? · Jun 20 at 10:20am
However, my real happiness does not come solely from temporal pleasures. It comes from both the commitment and the love I have in my marriage and family. Now where do you suppose I got that idea?
You have it naturally, I hope.
May '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
Katherine
The government didn't invent marriage and it's not forcing us to do it.
Forcing none of us but stopping some of us. Surely you concede that? · Jun 20 at 10:23am
The government doesn't stop any individuals from marrying. It defines the institution of marriage: one man-one woman for a public purpose. So the only combination of people recognized is any one man plus any one woman. I'm not saying that should satisfy gay people; because of course it's not really a choice to marry the opposite sex if you are gay. I'm saying marriage's strength as a social institution comes from civil society, and government recognizes the social institution in law. For a minority of people to change the law in order to change the meaning of marriage for the entire country is an example of using the heavy hand of government to redefine a fundamental social institution. Marriage has weakened so much in our culture that we we don't even agree on what it is or why it exists in the first place.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
In fact I'm not, because I don't think it's necessary nor do I believe it could be done effectively. Even with our advanced knowledge, today there are no fool-proof fertility tests for people who have all the proper parts. Furthermore, since civil marriage predated any scientific ability to accurately predict fertility, and at the time civil marriage was instituted there were other reasons to allow couple who couldn't have children to marry, I think it's obvious why no such requirement was ever made part of the institution. I'd also note that just because the government shows some restraint in how deeply it investigates individuals personal lives, doesn't mean the government has no interest the products of their personal lives.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 8:31pmRe: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno
I married my wife because I fell in love with her. That's why I stay with her. Not for the kids she could or couldn't bring me.
So you think that the institution of marriage developed because you love your wife? How did it predate you? How does it exist in cultures that have never heard of you?
Snarky McSnarky. Of course you know I mean pairing and coupling and marriage came together because people love one another, and with that comes the jealously of wanting exclusivity.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
T
We're talking about marriage law and how society protects women and children who are not in your family. I get that you are immune to social norms. What about everyone else?
The protection of you speak of is needed at the break up of a family, not at it's inception.
I can see the state interest in solving property disputes as in any other contract.
Only a big government loyalist would want the government deciding who enters the contract in the first place.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
You have it naturally, I hope. · Jun 20 at 10:50am
Nope. I learnt it, and not in one of them there gubmint schools neither.
Even knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that my real happiness comes through my marriage does not entirely temper the very natural desire to spread my seed as far and wide as possible. It is through society and its institutions that the reality of my happiness was learned and is reinforced. Government sanctioning marriage adds nothing to that. Government's sanction of marriage does not bolster the more important aspects of marriage such as exclusivity or permanence. All it does is enforce the real property aspect which is actually no part of marriage until it ends.
Hope and $3.58 will get you a grande latte at Starbucks, but it won't teach you how to be a committed spouse, parent, or decent member of society.