‘Same-Sex Couple’ Does Not Equal ‘Two-Sex Couple’

 

Same-sex “marriage” is in discussion again, as the US Senate seems intent on forcing the issue further down the throats of resistant Americans. There are multiple arguments for why same-sex couples do not qualify for “marriage.” My primary argument is that same-sex couples cannot produce children.

Marriage is socially and legally recognized for couples of two sexes because such a couple may, even is likely to, create new life, i.e., produce children. Those children blend the two families from which the couple came into a new branch on the tree of humanity and perpetuate that blend far into the future. Throughout history and across cultures, it has been and is the expectation of children that drives marriage. “Romance” or “erotic love” are very late additions to the long and broad history of marriage, and not particularly central to why marriage exists.

“Marriage” establishes a social and legal framework so that the new branch on the tree of humanity formed by creating children not only does not wither and die, but grows and thrives. Society (and the law that society creates to govern human behavior) has both short-term and long-term interests in the children that a coupling by people of different sexes may produce. Short-term, we want a structure in which those children are more likely to be protected, housed, fed, clothed, etc. Long-term, we want a structure in which those children and their children on through the generations bolster the society into which they are born.

It is a biological certainty that a couple consisting of people of the same sex will not produce children. Their coupling will end no later than when one of them dies. Societies (especially ours in the US) have legal systems for contracts for people to form partnerships that involve themselves only, and exist during their lifetimes.

In times or cultures in which women might be limited in their ability to own or control property or to conduct business, marriage also helped to protect women from destitution. That’s not really a concern in 21st-century America. So we’re left with children (or at least the possibility of children) as the public justification for marriage.

“Marriage” exists because of the potential for children emanating from the couple. A same-sex couple cannot produce children. “Marriage” designed for two-sex couples should not be extended to same-sex couples.

Published in Marriage
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 399 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Some two sex marriages do not produce children. But that does not invalidate the basic premise on which social policy is built.

    For one thing, it is difficult and intrusive for social institutions or governments to determine with certainty at the time the couple gets together that children will not issue.

    For those who cite couples of advanced age, note the Biblical examples of Sarah and Abraham (Isaac) or Elizabeth and Zechariah (John the Baptist).

    For those who cite medical conditions, note that many medical conditions have the potential for later change, and that determining medical “impossibility” requires intrusive inquiry into the medical history and condition of the individuals. The simplest and least intrusive criterion to apply when deciding whether a couple might produce children and thus be appropriate for the institution of “marriage” is whether the couple consists of people of two different sexes.

    A coupling of two people of different sexes carries (to the outside world) the possibility of creating new life, a blending of families by producing one or more children. Children who extend the couple beyond the individuals of the couple. Therefore, there is a social and legal interest in a two sex couple that is not present with a couple of the same sex.

    • #1
  2. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Some same sex couples claim to have “their” children, but they have obtained those children only by involving third parties. We should not create public policy concerning the couple based on the possibility the couple might involve third parties. Doing so undermines the basic purpose of any policy directed to the couple as a couple.

    There are many reasons for society not to encourage bringing a third party into a coupling for the purpose of creating a child (sperm purchase or donation, or egg purchase or donation, or with some different considerations, womb purchase or rental), whether the couple is a two sex couple or a same sex couple. 

     

    • #2
  3. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    While I recognize the Government’s legitimate interest in promoting successful marriage between one man and one woman, that battle is long lost.

    I am with those that would get Government out of the marriage business.  Leave it to the church.

    • #3
  4. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Some same sex couples claim to have “their” children, but they have obtained those children only by involving third parties. We should not create public policy concerning the couple based on the possibility the couple might involve third parties. Doing so undermines the basic purpose of any policy directed to the couple as a couple.

    There are many reasons for society not to encourage bringing a third party into a coupling for the purpose of creating a child (sperm purchase or donation, or egg purchase or donation, or with some different considerations, womb purchase or rental), whether the couple is a two sex couple or a same sex couple.

    There’s this, but my impression is that there are also many “unwanted” children adopted by same- sex couples.  I may be influenced by propaganda, but my sense is that there is a good number of these children for whom same- sex couples provide a social and legal framework for raising the children.  I am well aware that some will not see this as a healthy environment and will disagree, but the first question is whether the adopted child is better off.  Let’s also not forget that there is a decent number of heterosexual couples who cannot produce children, and we certainly consider them “married.”

    • #4
  5. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Some same sex couples claim to have “their” children, but they have obtained those children only by involving third parties. We should not create public policy concerning the couple based on the possibility the couple might involve third parties. Doing so undermines the basic purpose of any policy directed to the couple as a couple.

    There are many reasons for society not to encourage bringing a third party into a coupling for the purpose of creating a child (sperm purchase or donation, or egg purchase or donation, or with some different considerations, womb purchase or rental), whether the couple is a two sex couple or a same sex couple.

     

    There’s this, but my impression is that there are also many “unwanted” children adopted by same- sex couples. I may be influenced by propaganda, but my sense is that there is a good number of these children for whom same- sex couples provide a social and legal framework for raising the children. I am well aware that some will not see this as a healthy environment and will disagree, but the first question is whether the adopted child is better off. Let’s also not forget that there is a decent number of heterosexual couples who cannot produce children, and we certainly consider them “married.”

    I am among those who do not see a same sex couple as a healthy environment for raising children, and there are enough two sex couples seeking children to adopt that adoption by a same sex couple should be a last resort. The possibility that a few “unwanted” children might be better off adopted by a same sex couple does not justify redefining a millennia old cross cultural institution to accommodate some small number of abnormal situations. 

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    • #5
  6. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    I may be influenced by propaganda, but my sense is that there is a good number of these children for whom same- sex couples provide a social and legal framework for raising the children.

    It is the natural order that men and women together co-create children. It is a natural right that the child should have a mother and a father. Same-sex couples cannot fulfill this right of the child.

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Let’s also not forget that there is a decent number of heterosexual couples who cannot produce children, and we certainly consider them “married.”

    Yes, there are married men and women who cannot co-create a child, but this does not take away from the fact that this is what they are ordered to do.

    • #6
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Some same sex couples claim to have “their” children, but they have obtained those children only by involving third parties. We should not create public policy concerning the couple based on the possibility the couple might involve third parties. Doing so undermines the basic purpose of any policy directed to the couple as a couple.

    There are many reasons for society not to encourage bringing a third party into a coupling for the purpose of creating a child (sperm purchase or donation, or egg purchase or donation, or with some different considerations, womb purchase or rental), whether the couple is a two sex couple or a same sex couple.

     

    There’s this, but my impression is that there are also many “unwanted” children adopted by same- sex couples. I may be influenced by propaganda, but my sense is that there is a good number of these children for whom same- sex couples provide a social and legal framework for raising the children. I am well aware that some will not see this as a healthy environment and will disagree, but the first question is whether the adopted child is better off. Let’s also not forget that there is a decent number of heterosexual couples who cannot produce children, and we certainly consider them “married.”

    I am among those who do not see a same sex couple as a healthy environment for raising children, and there are enough two sex couples seeking children to adopt that adoption by a same sex couple should be a last resort. The possibility that a few “unwanted” children might be better off adopted by a same sex couple does not justify redefining a millennia old cross cultural institution to accommodate some small number of abnormal situations.

    I question “a few.”  And I don’t disagree that a worthy same-sex couple (they aren’t all worthy) is a preferred option.   The matter remains open,  but my point is that it’s possible for a same-sex couple to provide the virtues outlined in your post.

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    I missed that.  But the fact remains that the ability to bear children is not the sole, or even major, criteria for validating a “marriage.”

     

    • #7
  8. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Chuck (View Comment):

    While I recognize the Government’s legitimate interest in promoting successful marriage between one man and one woman, that battle is long lost.

    I am with those that would get Government out of the marriage business. Leave it to the church.

    Isn’t that battle even longer lost?

    The Left marches on, while the Right continues to declare defeat.

    How long before government openly runs the churches and we’re left saying “get Government out of the god business?”

    • #8
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Some same sex couples claim to have “their” children, but they have obtained those children only by involving third parties. We should not create public policy concerning the couple based on the possibility the couple might involve third parties. Doing so undermines the basic purpose of any policy directed to the couple as a couple.

    There are many reasons for society not to encourage bringing a third party into a coupling for the purpose of creating a child (sperm purchase or donation, or egg purchase or donation, or with some different considerations, womb purchase or rental), whether the couple is a two sex couple or a same sex couple.

     

    There’s this, but my impression is that there are also many “unwanted” children adopted by same- sex couples. I may be influenced by propaganda, but my sense is that there is a good number of these children for whom same- sex couples provide a social and legal framework for raising the children. I am well aware that some will not see this as a healthy environment and will disagree, but the first question is whether the adopted child is better off. Let’s also not forget that there is a decent number of heterosexual couples who cannot produce children, and we certainly consider them “married.”

    I am among those who do not see a same sex couple as a healthy environment for raising children, and there are enough two sex couples seeking children to adopt that adoption by a same sex couple should be a last resort. The possibility that a few “unwanted” children might be better off adopted by a same sex couple does not justify redefining a millennia old cross cultural institution to accommodate some small number of abnormal situations.

    I question “a few.” And I don’t disagree that a worthy same-sex couple (they aren’t all worthy) is a preferred option. The matter remains open, but my point is that it’s possible for a same-sex couple to provide the virtues outlined in your post.

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    I missed that. But the fact remains that the ability to bear children is not the sole, or even major, criteria for validating a “marriage.”

     

    Your last sentence is not a fact.  It is a value judgment.  In my opinion, it is quite a wicked value judgment.  You can make up your own mind.

    I think that your statement means that you value something else over children and family.  Children and family, I think, are essential to the perpetuation of the human species and the continuation of the human story.  In fact, your use of the phrase “or even major” indicates that you think that children, family, and the continuation of humanity as a minor issue, at most.

    What are the other issues, and what priority do they have?  The first thing that comes to my mind is individual enjoyment.  If there are others, please elaborate.

    My impression is that this comment starkly presents the alternatives available to us.  You can care about your own comfort and amusement, or you can care about the human future.

    • #9
  10. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I would have preferred leaving the definition of marriage alone and using a different word for same-sex couples, but that ship has sailed.

    • #10
  11. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    I missed that. But the fact remains that the ability to bear children is not the sole, or even major, criteria for validating a “marriage.”

     

    Your last sentence is not a fact. It is a value judgment. In my opinion, it is quite a wicked value judgment. You can make up your own mind.

    I think that your statement means that you value something else over children and family. Children and family, I think, are essential to the perpetuation of the human species and the continuation of the human story. In fact, your use of the phrase “or even major” indicates that you think that children, family, and the continuation of humanity as a minor issue, at most.

    What are the other issues, and what priority do they have? The first thing that comes to my mind is individual enjoyment. If there are others, please elaborate.

    My impression is that this comment starkly presents the alternatives available to us. You can care about your own comfort and amusement, or you can care about the human future.

    I’m aware that some of what I’ve said would be controversial here, even in the context of the argument in the post to which I was responding.

    But had I known that speaking out for the many heterosexual couples who are genuinely married but unable to bear children could be interpreted so nefariously, even if wrongly so, I likely would have remained silent. 

    • #11
  12. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    While I recognize the Government’s legitimate interest in promoting successful marriage between one man and one woman, that battle is long lost.

    I am with those that would get Government out of the marriage business. Leave it to the church.

    Isn’t that battle even longer lost?

    The Left marches on, while the Right continues to declare defeat.

    How long before government openly runs the churches and we’re left saying “get Government out of the god business?”

    Like it or not, they are already in the “God business.”

    • #12
  13. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Sexual dimorphism is older than mammals, as is male-female monogamy for the benefit of offspring.  These are ancient forces in the mantle of planet Reason, whose surface is all we can see or explore.

    Men and women are different, each child has a right to a mother and a father, and homosexual or “other” unions are maladaptive to the species, civilization, a nation, and any child subject to such tomfoolery.

    We had these fights here in the SSM wars.  The Obama Court destroyed marriage as a function of our Republic, and the tradcons have moved on to fights not already lost.  Now we’re losing on trannies and pedophilia.

    “There’s a lot of ruin in a country.”  Yes, but there’s only so much.

    • #13
  14. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    I missed that. But the fact remains that the ability to bear children is not the sole, or even major, criteria for validating a “marriage.”

     

    Your last sentence is not a fact. It is a value judgment. In my opinion, it is quite a wicked value judgment. You can make up your own mind.

    I think that your statement means that you value something else over children and family. Children and family, I think, are essential to the perpetuation of the human species and the continuation of the human story. In fact, your use of the phrase “or even major” indicates that you think that children, family, and the continuation of humanity as a minor issue, at most.

    What are the other issues, and what priority do they have? The first thing that comes to my mind is individual enjoyment. If there are others, please elaborate.

    My impression is that this comment starkly presents the alternatives available to us. You can care about your own comfort and amusement, or you can care about the human future.

    I’m aware that some of what I’ve said would be controversial here, even in the context of the argument in the post to which I was responding.

    But had I known that speaking out for the many heterosexual couples who are genuinely married but unable to bear children could be interpreted so nefariously, even if wrongly so, I likely would have remained silent.

    All you are doing is saying a dog isn’t a dog if it’s missing two legs.

    • #14
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    While I recognize the Government’s legitimate interest in promoting successful marriage between one man and one woman, that battle is long lost.

    I am with those that would get Government out of the marriage business. Leave it to the church.

    Isn’t that battle even longer lost?

    The Left marches on, while the Right continues to declare defeat.

    How long before government openly runs the churches and we’re left saying “get Government out of the god business?”

    Like it or not, they are already in the “God business.”

    And they are a jealous god. 

    • #15
  16. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I would have preferred leaving the definition of marriage alone and using a different word for same-sex couples, but that ship has sailed.

    The U.S. congress (at the moment the Senate in particular) is bringing the ship back to port for refurbishment, so I think it’s appropriate to point out again how wrong it would be to further enshrine the redefinition into the ship. 

    • #16
  17. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction.  In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.  

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    • #17
  18. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    I appreciate your point about “is,” and submit that unfortunately it does not reflect “ought.”

    • #18
  19. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    If those statements (particularly the first paragraph) are true, and we no longer care about children and the future of society, then that’s more fodder for the position of @chuck (#3) that the government should get out of defining “marriage,” and makes it even more wrong that Congress is trying to force a redefinition onto unwilling members of the public. There is no legitimate government interest in regulating the romantic attractions of people. 

    • #19
  20. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    BDB (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    I appreciate your point about “is,” and submit that unfortunately it does not reflect “ought.”

    Back in 2000, when I lived in Colorado, I voted in a referendum to make marriage “one man-one woman” only.  

    But right around 2013-2014 time frame, I became less opposed to same sex marriage and I currently support same sex marriage.  However, if a church doesn’t want to conduct a religious ceremony for a same sex couple, I think they should be allowed to say, “Sorry, you will have to find another church/minister.”  

    • #20
  21. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    If those statements (particularly the first paragraph) are true, and we no longer care about children and the future of society, then that’s more fodder for the position of @ chuck (#3) that the government should get out of defining “marriage,” and makes it even more wrong that Congress is trying to force a redefinition onto unwilling members of the public. There is no legitimate government interest in regulating the romantic attractions of people.

    I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom because of same sex marriage.  Same sex marriages probably represent a tiny proportion of all marriages that happen.

    I support same sex marriage.

    • #21
  22. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    As to two sex couples that do not or cannot produce children, see my preemptive comment #1.

    I missed that. But the fact remains that the ability to bear children is not the sole, or even major, criteria for validating a “marriage.”

     

    Your last sentence is not a fact. It is a value judgment. In my opinion, it is quite a wicked value judgment. You can make up your own mind.

    I think that your statement means that you value something else over children and family. Children and family, I think, are essential to the perpetuation of the human species and the continuation of the human story. In fact, your use of the phrase “or even major” indicates that you think that children, family, and the continuation of humanity as a minor issue, at most.

    What are the other issues, and what priority do they have? The first thing that comes to my mind is individual enjoyment. If there are others, please elaborate.

    My impression is that this comment starkly presents the alternatives available to us. You can care about your own comfort and amusement, or you can care about the human future.

    I’m aware that some of what I’ve said would be controversial here, even in the context of the argument in the post to which I was responding.

    But had I known that speaking out for the many heterosexual couples who are genuinely married but unable to bear children could be interpreted so nefariously, even if wrongly so, I likely would have remained silent.

    The definition of “marriage” is not about validating individual couples. It is about setting up a framework for the formation of society. We outside of any particular two sex couple do not know whether the couple is capable of or interested in creating children. But the normal for two sex couples is that children are a possibility. We don’t (or in my personal opinion should not) want to delve into the details of the medical condition and personal interests of the couple, so “marriage” is made available to any two sex couple because that couple has (to us outsiders) the potential to produce children. They are legitimately married regardless of their individual medical condition(s) or personal interests. We know ab initio that a couple consisting of people of the same sex are biologically incapable of producing children, so society has  no reason to be involved in that couple and its relationship. 

    • #22
  23. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    If those statements (particularly the first paragraph) are true, and we no longer care about children and the future of society, then that’s more fodder for the position of @ chuck (#3) that the government should get out of defining “marriage,” and makes it even more wrong that Congress is trying to force a redefinition onto unwilling members of the public. There is no legitimate government interest in regulating the romantic attractions of people.

    I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom because of same sex marriage. Same sex marriage probably represent a tiny proportion of all marriages that happen.

    I support same sex marriage.

    Help me understand why. What is the social or government interest that giving the privilege of “marriage” to some couples [edit to say people groupings, not necessarily couples, as your thinking may not be limited to “couples”] but not others, and on what basis that privilege should be extended?

    • #23
  24. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Marriage has always been a public office, not a private one.

    The usurpation of June for Pride Month and attempts to make homosexual relationships have public legitimacy is not innocent. They want to be viewed as equal in all ways to heterosexual relationships and that desire is from narcissism and, yes, PRIDE.

    • #24
  25. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Of all the seven deadly sins, only Pride has its own month in the US.

    • #25
  26. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    BDB (View Comment):

    Of all the seven deadly sins, only Pride has its own month in the US.

    And yet it used to be wholly devoted to weddings between heterosexual couples.

    • #26
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    Of all the seven deadly sins, only Pride has its own month in the US.

    Isn’t November officially unbutton-your-pants Gluttony month?  That’s the way I was raised.

    • #27
  28. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Flicker (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Of all the seven deadly sins, only Pride has its own month in the US.

    Isn’t November officially unbutton-your-pants Gluttony month? That’s the way I was raised.

    Nooe.  All you get is the evening of the 25th. 

    • #28
  29. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Flicker (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Of all the seven deadly sins, only Pride has its own month in the US.

    Isn’t November officially unbutton-your-pants Gluttony month? That’s the way I was raised.

    I think one of its designations is anti-Onanism, No Nut November.

    • #29
  30. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    In the old days, marriage was mostly about pro-creation and less to do with romantic attraction. In modern times, people see marriage as being about romantic attraction and less about pro-creation.

    Currently, about 68 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage.

    Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right. (Fulton Sheen)

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.