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:
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Katherine
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.
Definitions trump all other things? They currently define abortion out of all statutes involving illegal killings. That means you're OK with it, because the definitional sections of the statutes are in order?
Kill away then.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
You realize defining who can marry limits the government's ability to show an interest in a societies personal relationships, right? It is SSM proponents who want to be enable the government to scrutinize the love lives of everyone.
May '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
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.
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. · Jun 20 at 10:59am
Tommy, do you see a state interest in children being known, loved, and raised by their own two parents?
Mar '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
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. · Jun 20 at 10:47am
Why is it a trap? If a couple can't have kids, then why should that couple partake in the benefits the state awards the fertile to encourage them to multiply? If an infertile couple wants to join together and pledge their love one to another, be my guest. Just don't ask me to pay more in taxes so they can pay less to support a commitment that benefits no one but themselves.
May '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
Katherine
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.
Definitions trump all other things? They currently define abortion out of all statutes involving illegal killings. That means you're OK with it, because the definitional sections of the statutes are in order?
Kill away then. · Jun 20 at 11:03am
The definition is what we are talking about here. Should we redefine marriage in the law, or not? We're talking about what marriage means. How do we as a sociey define marriage.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Katherine
Tommy, do you see a state interest in children being known, loved, and raised by their own two parents? · Jun 20 at 11:05am
I see the two parent household as optimal. Something that is best.
But since when do we outlaw second place in America?
If we believe in competition (we do, don't we?) then let the single Dad or single Mom compete. I've seen plenty of them be great parents with great results. We don't tell them "Your life situation is not optimal, therefore we will make it illegal."
If having two gay parents is not optimal, must we make it illegal? Do they not get a chance to compete - to be better parents then the straight dead-beats in handcuffs I see at the courthouse every day?
And what if my wife and I turn out to be better parents than you, despite you being a satisfactory parent, though not an optimal parent?
Can I petition the Court to take your kids because, by societal consensus, I can offer your kids more advantages than you?
You social engineers astonish me. You don't see a slippery slope when you are mid-slide.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
Definitions trump all other things? They currently define abortion out of all statutes involving illegal killings. That means you're OK with it, because the definitional sections of the statutes are in order?
Kill away then. · Jun 20 at 11:03am
Government doesn't define marriage. Marriage predates government and is defined by its nature and essential features. Same goes for killing. Just because government forces an unnatural legal definition on something does not change the reality of the thing itself. For the third time I link this paper. First we must come to an agreement on what marriage is, then we can argue to whom it may apply.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Katherine
Tommy De Seno
Katherine
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.
Definitions trump all other things? They currently define abortion out of all statutes involving illegal killings. That means you're OK with it, because the definitional sections of the statutes are in order?
Kill away then. · Jun 20 at 11:03am
The definition is what we are talking about here. Should we redefine marriage in the law, or not? We're talking about what marriage means. How do we as a sociey define marriage. ·
There traditionally has not been a definition of marriage. Not on the federal level, and also in most states.
Like it or not, it is you who are making the change.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
No one has argued that gay people should be outlawed from having families. Your entire post is a strawman.
Says the man that is willingly partaking in the social engineering.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Work calls. Fun discussion. Thank you all!
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Hope you return when work is done. I am sure it's a function of how horribly the culture and media have handled this debate, but it astonishes me how little we think through all of the history -- and repercussions -- that we're talking about when we talk about redefining marriage law.
I am curious to see how you further tackle some of these questions that those less interested in redefining marriage are posing.
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
There traditionally has not been a definition of marriage. Not on the federal level, and also in most states.
Like it or not, it is you who are making the change. · Jun 20 at 11:17am
No definition? It's literally not defined? Than how has it been limited to two people of the opposite sex? I'm very confused.
Aug '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
It's not misandry to note that, despite the inherent unreliability and variance of marital infidelity statistics, they do tend to have one thing in common: married men seem more likely to have extramarital sex than married women (depending on the survey, the difference may be small, or about twice as likely for men... a commonly cited figure is in between: 14% for women, 22% for men).
But differences between the sexes aside, the fact is that people of both sexes tend to expect more fidelity than they are prepared to give, and the existence of contractual bonds and the social stigma of adultery at least make in more in their interest to give as good as they expect to get. Consider these statistics:
Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%
Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%
Marriage is a contract, and should be enforced like any other contract. Even if marriage returns to being a contract between individuals/families rather than with the state, that's still a contract.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 8:42pmJan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Well, since you called it a sacrament, I'm assuming it was a Catholic ceremony. I just want to point out that the reasons you affirmed for your marriage in that ceremony, and the commitment you contracted during that ceremony don't match the description you gave of your marriage. You didn't agree to marry her in that ceremony just because you love her, and you didn't agree to stay with her only as long as you love her.
You agreed to accept children and have God bless your union so that your intimate relationship would be proper. In the eyes of God, as the RCC sees it, an intimate relationship is only proper if it is open to children and oriented towards having a family. The church didn't require a fertility test, but it made sure you knew that God gave us the gift of sex for the purpose of having children.
continued ...
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 9:07pmDec '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%
Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%
Marriage is a contract, and should be enforced like any other contract. Even if marriage returns to being a contract between individuals/families rather than with the state, that's still a contract. · Jun 20 at 11:36am
Edited on Jun 20 at 11:42 am
Scary statistics. I'm glad I'm in the vast minority there. I wonder what makes the difference for the 26/32 precent who would remain faithful?
I must contend with your statement that marriage is a contract. One aspect of marriage may be that it is a contract, but that is only a necessary, but not sufficient, aspect of its definition. Limiting it to being just a contract is how those who want to redefine it make headway with their equality arguments.
Aug '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
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.
Tommy, consider yourself blessed that you stay with your spouse because of love. Not all families have that.
My parents stayed married at first "because of the children", then because both my mother and father had health problems and needed the other one to take care of them. There wasn't a whole lot of love, at least not in the romantic sense. But they kept their promise to each other anyhow.
And in keeping this promise, they ensured that their children were raised in an intact home, and that neither their children nor themselves became a burden on the public weal (at least, no more so than other middle-class families -- my parents would not refuse an entitlement they were eligible for).
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 9:04pmAug '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
The King Prawn
I must contend with your statement that marriage is a contract. One aspect of marriage may be that it is a contract, but that is only a necessary, but not sufficient, aspect of its definition. Limiting it to being just a contract is how those who want to redefine it make headway with their equality arguments.
Hey, just because I said marriage is a contract don't mean I think of marriage as just a contract. Just like saying a square is a rectangle don't mean a square is just a rectangle.
As you say, it's a necessary, but not sufficient part of the definition. I agree. I never said otherwise. You're sort of jumping to conclusions to read into my calling marriage a contract the idea that I must think it's only a contract.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Continued from #94
Now, good for you, Tommy, for respecting the consciences of those who don't share the RC view of sex. But if we as a society have decided the traditional wisdom most Christians hold regarding sex and marriage will make for a better society for all (which we did long ago), even those who don't believe in God, or believe in a different faith tradition than Christianity, and therefore enshrines that wisdom in a voluntary institution which is available to all, there is nothing illiberal about that.
If we as a society have decided that we no longer agree with that wisdom and don't want to institutionalize it for the benefit of our society any more, by all means, let's change it. But we shouldn't just change it without agreeing that we no longer buy into that wisdom, first. That is what SSM opponents are asking.
Edited on June 20, 2011 at 9:21pmDec '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Hey, just because I said marriage is a contract don't mean I think of marriage as just a contract. Just like saying a square is a rectangle don't mean a square is just a rectangle.
As you say, it's a necessary, but not sufficient part of the definition. I agree. I never said otherwise. You're sort of jumping to conclusions to read into my calling marriage a contract the idea that I must think it's only a contract. · Jun 20 at 12:02pm
If I didn't jump to conclusions as a form of exercise I'd be even fatter than my government job already makes me.
I understand where you were going with enforcement of contracts and how that has fallen away from marriage. When a judge once pronounced me "single again" as though it was a good thing I came to fully appreciate the lack of contractual enforcement in marriage. I'd say more about the situation, but Mollie has better things to do other than redact me...
May '10
Re: Gay Marriage and Procreation: Do They Work at Cross Purposes?
Tommy De Seno
Katherine
The definition is what we are talking about here. Should we redefine marriage in the law, or not? We're talking about what marriage means. How do we as a sociey define marriage. ·
There traditionally has not been a definition of marriage. Not on the federal level, and also in most states.
Like it or not, it is you who are making the change. · Jun 20 at 11:17am
If there is no definition of marriage, then how could I change it? (to make a change, marriage must currently mean something). And if there is no definition of marriage, then why are two gay people not currently granted a marriage liscence? And wouldn't social engineers be the people who want to transform the meaning of a social institution, not those who want to maintain an institution common to every known human society?