‘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. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Scott Wilmot (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.

    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)

    Yes, I’m always astounded to see moral arguments built on what polls say.

    • #31
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (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.

    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)

    Yes, I’m always astounded to see moral arguments built on what polls say.

    In HW’s defense, he didn’t claim it was a moral defense, although he does say that it matches his moral choice.  He’s not wrong to cite practicality.  You;re not wrong to point out that for most of us (“us”), it’s a moral matter.

    • #32
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land.  Fun times to come.  

    • #33
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children. 

    • #34
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children.

    And for those who claim to “follow the science”, it’s certainly much more defensible from that point of view.  A man of wealth can provide for a number of women, each of whom can only have so many children.  At least they would still know who their father is, and in a polygamous society, would all be “legitimate”.

    Well it beats assless chaps for a societal foundation.

    • #35
  6. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    BDB (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children.

    And for those who claim to “follow the science”, it’s certainly much more defensible from that point of view. A man of wealth can provide for a number of women, each of whom can only have so many children. At least they would still know who their father is, and in a polygamous society, would all be “legitimate”.

    Well it beats assless chaps for a societal foundation.

    General Buck Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned something about a breeding ratio of ten females to each male. Wouldn’t this require the abandonment of the so-called monogamous family structure, at least as far as men are concerned?

    Dr. Strangelove: Mmm, regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human ra-a-ce!

     

    • #36
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (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.

    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)

    Yes, I’m always astounded to see moral arguments built on what polls say.

    In HW’s defense, he didn’t claim it was a moral defense, although he does say that it matches his moral choice. He’s not wrong to cite practicality. You;re not wrong to point out that for most of us (“us”), it’s a moral matter.

    As a result of the SSM Wars I came to believe that this was a moral issue 1) to the extent it was an attack on a practical and historically successful response to fundamental realities with significant impact on both society and individuals, and 2) to the extent this was obviously being used to further the war on individual and religious liberty. To argue for SSM required denying reality just like all of the other cultural issues we face today from gender to identitarianism to COVID hysteria to immigration to abortion to cancel culture.

    • #37
  8. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Another argument that will come up is that no fault divorce was a much bigger poison to marriage so why pick now to exclude gays? To which my answer remains: I agree that no fault divorce was a bigger poison and that the culture has moved away from even recognizing the problems which give rise to the need for a practical solution like the civil institution of marriage (as distinct from the Sacrament of Marriage). However, we already lost that battle but altering civil marriage in order to accommodate SSM eliminates the rationale for reversing the effects of no-fault divorce. If marriage is only about whatever the individual participants think it is, then there is no rationale for imposing any obligations on the participants, including exclusivity, permanence, or fidelity, and a marriage that includes SSM cannot rationally argue for those obligations. In short, society through the government has no interest in regulating individual relationships and certainly no interest in regulating relationships in those specific ways (i.e. exclusivity, permanence, and fidelity) that are essential to healthy procreative relationships contributing fundamentally to healthy societies.

    • #38
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children.

    And for those who claim to “follow the science”, it’s certainly much more defensible from that point of view. A man of wealth can provide for a number of women, each of whom can only have so many children. At least they would still know who their father is, and in a polygamous society, would all be “legitimate”.

    Well it beats assless chaps for a societal foundation.

    How many children does Musk have?  10.  Hard work, but rewarding if you can get it.

    • #39
  10. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    All this to say that “practicality” is simply a diversion. It’s a thin veneer of cover for people to think they have an a moral argument of their own. So too is the individualizing of what is not an individual question. Finally, it’s also a diversion to conflate the regulation of the formation and obligations involved in marriage with telling people who they can love or who they can penetrate.

    So what now? The ship has sailed and will never come back to port. In my opinion the likely outcome over the years is that civil marriage will continue in zombie form, not really living and only damaging to one degree or another since there is officially no longer any rationale for imposing obligations on participants, or at least there is no rationale for legitimate imposition of legitimate obligations. Of course the progressives will be up to mischief while wearing teh skin suit.  The other option is that society rediscovers the need for a practical solution to the realities of man/woman sex and society develops a new institution surprisingly similar to the way it used to look before.

    Unless there is some fear that the SSM decisions will be reversed, what could be the reason for new federal legislation? To what end?

    • #40
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (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.

    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)

    Yes, I’m always astounded to see moral arguments built on what polls say.

    It’s the Family Feud Theory of Moral Sentiments.

    “Survey says …

    • #41
  12. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    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.

    The Bible doesn’t equate the occasional feast with gluttony. Gluttony is ongoing, never ending feasting.

    • #42
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children.

    And for those who claim to “follow the science”, it’s certainly much more defensible from that point of view. A man of wealth can provide for a number of women, each of whom can only have so many children. At least they would still know who their father is, and in a polygamous society, would all be “legitimate”.

    Well it beats assless chaps for a societal foundation.

    General Buck Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned something about a breeding ratio of ten females to each male. Wouldn’t this require the abandonment of the so-called monogamous family structure, at least as far as men are concerned?

    Dr. Strangelove: Mmm, regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human ra-a-ce!

    I am utterly comfortable with a functional description of a lifeform as a survival mechanism.  And ten hotties seems sufficient for trying times.  The things I do for Science.

    • #43
  14. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    There is actually more moral, historical, and practical reason to have plural “marriage” (polygamy) than there is same sex single couple “marriage.” Again, children.

    I’ve mentioned, in other places, that our legal system of alimony and child support is a de facto polygamy system without the bigamy portion of it.

    • #44
  15. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (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.

    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)

    Yes, I’m always astounded to see moral arguments built on what polls say.

    In HW’s defense, he didn’t claim it was a moral defense, although he does say that it matches his moral choice. He’s not wrong to cite practicality. You;re not wrong to point out that for most of us (“us”), it’s a moral matter.

    Correct.  I mentioned the results of some recent polls I have seen on same sex marriage.  But I agree with the point that the majority isn’t always morally right.  

    • #45
  16. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    Of course, multiple wives means multiple mothers-in-law so . . .  

    • #46
  17. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    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?

    One option for policy makers is to extend and/or restrict marriage based on pragmatic, consequentialist considerations.  

    So, policy makers might decide to prevent anyone who is under 18 years of age from getting married based on the idea that, as a general rule (but not always the case), an 17 year old isn’t mature enough to make an important decision like getting married.  But at the same time public policy makers might think that people who are 18 years of age or older and not mentally incapacitated should be allowed to get married to whomever they want to, as long as the other party is at least 18 years of age and not mentally incapacitated.  

    That’s not the only option for policy makers.  Policy makers could decide to ban same sex marriage.  In fact, that’s what many states did, but the US Supreme Court issued an incorrect, in my opinion, ruling and make same sex marriage the law of the land in all 50 states.  

    So, while I support same sex marriage, I didn’t think that Obergefell vs Hodges was correctly decided.  

    • #47
  18. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    All this to say that “practicality” is simply a diversion. It’s a thin veneer of cover for people to think they have an a moral argument of their own. So too is the individualizing of what is not an individual question. Finally, it’s also a diversion to conflate the regulation of the formation and obligations involved in marriage with telling people who they can love or who they can penetrate.

    So what now? The ship has sailed and will never come back to port. In my opinion the likely outcome over the years is that civil marriage will continue in zombie form, not really living and only damaging to one degree or another since there is officially no longer any rationale for imposing obligations on participants, or at least there is no rationale for legitimate imposition of legitimate obligations. Of course the progressives will be up to mischief while wearing teh skin suit. The other option is that society rediscovers the need for a practical solution to the realities of man/woman sex and society develops a new institution surprisingly similar to the way it used to look before.

    Unless there is some fear that the SSM decisions will be reversed, what could be the reason for new federal legislation? To what end?

    Obergefell was a crap ruling whose logic can be equally applied to incest. It possesses no limiting principle whatsoever. The left is concerned the court will overturn it. Which they are right to fear. It was through obergefell that public opinion basically shifted to acceptance.

    Essentially, the court played a psy-op to manipulate public opinion.

    • #48
  19. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Wait until plural marriage become the law of the land. Fun times to come.

    Of course, multiple wives means multiple mothers-in-law so . . .

    Put them all in the same MIL quarters, and the problem is solved in a fortnight.

    • #49
  20. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Stina (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    All this to say that “practicality” is simply a diversion. It’s a thin veneer of cover for people to think they have an a moral argument of their own. So too is the individualizing of what is not an individual question. Finally, it’s also a diversion to conflate the regulation of the formation and obligations involved in marriage with telling people who they can love or who they can penetrate.

    So what now? The ship has sailed and will never come back to port. In my opinion the likely outcome over the years is that civil marriage will continue in zombie form, not really living and only damaging to one degree or another since there is officially no longer any rationale for imposing obligations on participants, or at least there is no rationale for legitimate imposition of legitimate obligations. Of course the progressives will be up to mischief while wearing teh skin suit. The other option is that society rediscovers the need for a practical solution to the realities of man/woman sex and society develops a new institution surprisingly similar to the way it used to look before.

    Unless there is some fear that the SSM decisions will be reversed, what could be the reason for new federal legislation? To what end?

    Obergefell was a crap ruling whose logic can be equally applied to incest. It possesses no limiting principle whatsoever. The left is concerned the court will overturn it. Which they are right to fear. It was through obergefell that public opinion basically shifted to acceptance.

    Essentially, the court played a psy-op to manipulate public opinion.

    I agree that Obergefell vs Hodges was a bad decision.  That said, Justice Charles Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision, mentioned that the same constitutional “logic” that supported the overturning of Roe vs Wade also supports the overturning of Obergefell vs Hodges.  

    So, if Obergefell vs Hodges were somehow overturned (however, it’s hard for me to anticipate a scenario where that decision gets revisited at the US Supreme Court), if the people wanted to maintain same sex marriage in all 50 states, I suppose it would be members of Congress that would take up that task.  So, here we are.  

    • #50
  21. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, while I support same sex marriage, I didn’t think that Obergefell vs Hodges was correctly decided.  

    If you’ve posted an A-Z of this, I would appreciate a link.  If not, then I would greatly appreciate the effort.  This sounds like a great clarifying point.  I assume you’ve presented this at some point, and I think this would be a great place to link to it.

    • #51
  22. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Stina (View Comment):
    It possesses no limiting principle whatsoever.

    [R.E.M. voice:] RICHARD EPSTEIN!

    • #52
  23. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    BDB (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, while I support same sex marriage, I didn’t think that Obergefell vs Hodges was correctly decided.

    If you’ve posted an A-Z of this, I would appreciate a link. If not, then I would greatly appreciate the effort. This sounds like a great clarifying point. I assume you’ve presented this at some point, and I think this would be a great place to link to it.

    I’m not sure what you mean by posting an A-Z of this.  Are you asking if I have ever explained why I support same sex marriage yet think Obergefell vs Hodges was bad constitutional law?  

    • #53
  24. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    And these are the moral questions we are left with. . .

    • #54
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    What will the political impact of this be come the mid-terms?

    • #55
  26. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    It doesn’t help the situation that so many in the Church’s hierarchy are all-in on the whole LGBTQ bit. Scandalous.

     

    • #56
  27. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What will the political impact of this be come the mid-terms?

    Zip, zero, nada. That’s been the case since Obergefell was decided in 2015. At the time, socons on Ricochet said there’d be angry marches in the streets, young (straight) couples would suddenly lose all interest in marriage (“Because it means nothing anymore!!”) and it would be a bitterly controversial issue, like abortion was. Instead, we hear…crickets. 

    The most populist Republican ever got elected the following year. What did he do about it? Nothing. What did he say about it? I can’t find a thing he ever said about it. How much pressure did social conservatives exert on him? Zero. 

    Other than the people most directly affected by the ruling–homosexuals who wanted to get married–nobody seems to give a damn about it except a dwindling few, all of whom seem to have Ricochet memberships. 

    • #57
  28. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What will the political impact of this be come the mid-terms?

    Zip, zero, nada. That’s been the case since Obergefell was decided in 2015. At the time, socons on Ricochet said there’d be angry marches in the streets, young (straight) couples would suddenly lose all interest in marriage (“Because it means nothing anymore!!”) and it would be a bitterly controversial issue, like abortion was. Instead, we hear…crickets.

    The most populist Republican ever got elected the following year. What did he do about it? Nothing. What did he say about it? I can’t find a thing he ever said about it. How much pressure did social conservatives exert on him? Zero.

    Other than the people most directly affected by the ruling–homosexuals who wanted to get married–nobody seems to give a damn about it except a dwindling few, all of whom seem to have Ricochet memberships.

    Some people think that if America doesn’t reverse course and get rid of same sex marriage, God will no longer bless America because God doesn’t bless nations that disobey his moral commandments.  

    As a non-religious person, I don’t buy it.  But I do think this is an important component of our politics.  

    • #58
  29. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What will the political impact of this be come the mid-terms?

    Zip, zero, nada. That’s been the case since Obergefell was decided in 2015. At the time, socons on Ricochet said there’d be angry marches in the streets, young (straight) couples would suddenly lose all interest in marriage (“Because it means nothing anymore!!”) and it would be a bitterly controversial issue, like abortion was. Instead, we hear…crickets.

    The most populist Republican ever got elected the following year. What did he do about it? Nothing. What did he say about it? I can’t find a thing he ever said about it. How much pressure did social conservatives exert on him? Zero.

    Other than the people most directly affected by the ruling–homosexuals who wanted to get married–nobody seems to give a damn about it except a dwindling few, all of whom seem to have Ricochet memberships.

    Some people think that if America doesn’t reverse course and get rid of same sex marriage, God will no longer bless America because God doesn’t bless nations that disobey his moral commandments.

    As a non-religious person, I don’t buy it. But I do think this is an important component of our politics.

    So it becoming an ‘issue’ would work for Progressives and against Conservatives in the mid-terms?

    Possibly how overturning Roe v Wade might?

    • #59
  30. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    It doesn’t help the situation that so many in the Church’s hierarchy are all-in on the whole LGBTQ bit. Scandalous.

     

    People generally think of marriage as a romantic-sexual union between two people.  Also, people generally think sex between brothers or sisters or even cousins is repulsive.  So, I think that’s why allowing two sisters or two brothers get married won’t happen.  The votes just aren’t there.  

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.