...and that is bad for children and therefore bad for society.
Some marriages are arranged. Most in our country aren't. Some are about love, some are about lust, some are about money. Some are about class. Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it. It is about joining the two sexes and providing any offspring with both a mother and a father – and that has been the universal core of marriage throughout all of human history.
In other words, licensed marriage on its most basic and level is about children.
But when laws are passed (or, in California and some other states, a court decision is issued) neutering marriage licensing, so that two men or two women can legally be designated as “married”, this is a statement that marriage, as an institution, can't be about children – because it takes both a woman and a man to make a child. Some marriages may be about children, but marriage in and of itself can't be about children - if there is a right for any two people to have a licensed marriage. Court rulings neutering marriage make the statement that licensed marriage is about feelings, or benefits, or hospital access, or any number of things that have been cited by marriage neutering activists - all of which can be addressed without a marriage license.
If marriage can't be about children, a disconnect is created in the public consciousness between marriage and raising children. Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children. Do we really want official public policy that makes it clear that marriage is not about children?
Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children. Except in gay circles, when someone says "We got married," one of the first questions people ask is "When do you plan on having children?" Paternity is, in many places, assigned to husbands by default when their wife births a child, even if she could have conceived the child by another man. Ex-husbands often pay child support for children that where there before he ever met their mother. Child support is expected from an ex-spouse even if the other ex-spouse is financially capable of providing for the child without assistance. Even many people who cohabitate and procreate out of wedlock get married, in large part, “for the sake of their children.”
Why? Because children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other, and it takes both a male and a female to create children. Whether by design or as a consequence of evolution, children do best in having both that male and female parental authority as a model and with whom to bond. That child will, throughout her life, interact with both males and females. Even if you believe that our existence and the way we reproduce are sheer meaningless accidents, that socialization is important to perpetuating society in the best conditions.
Most, if not all, of the people who deny this appear to be motivated not by what is best for children or society, but what is wanted by some homosexuality advocates, fornicators, and divorced people politically and socially. Someone who wants a child but doesn't have a spouse (of the opposite sex) will try to justify their actions, and those who think a marriage license will bring their relationship and themselves whatever (approval, benefits, etc.) they are seeking will likewise deny the importance of having both a mother and father (1).
If marriage is about children, then it ought to be restricted to the kind of unions that can produce children (2). If it isn't about children, then it should be about whatever else benefits society. Marriage neutering advocates say that purpose is creating stability in "sexual" relationships. But that is in conflict with their own insistence that sexual behavior between two consenting adults is a private matter in which the state should not be involved.
If we are going to continue down this path of neutered marriage licensing, we should expect higher illegitimacy rates and perhaps increased divorce rates and/or lower marital rates (3), because there will be less of an association between child-rearing and marriage. If marriage is not about children, then a husband should feel no guilt in leaving the mother of his child if he feels she has neglected her vows. If our statistical analyses do not make the distinction between bride-groom marriages and other unions, then we can also expect a statistical increase in "marital" domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, and physical and mental health issues, as these are acknowledged issues of increased frequency in the "homosexual community". That would be something else that would make licensed marriage less attractive, along with the presence of or desire for children being less of an incentive.
If we are going to continue down this path where marriage isn't about children, then we should at least be consistent and not assign default paternity to husbands, or require child support if the custodial parent earns enough to provide for a child, or require stepparents (almost always fathers) to provide child support in the event of a divorce. This can probably have applications to inheritance laws, too.
I agree that the government should not be policing the bedroom. I can understand why we have no-fault divorce laws. But the government does have an interest in licensing bride-groom marriage that it doesn't have with same-sex couples. Citizens are better off if they have been raised within a lasting marriage with both a father and a mother, and less likely to commit crime or be dependent on welfare. We must not yield this beneficial construct to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem for those who seem to neurotically need the endorsement of their relationships by others. We must not allow marriage to be devalued by denying the core universal thread that has made marriage what it is.
Marriage may be about love, but it is primarily about children, and giving them a mother and a father.
(1) Neutered marriage licensing under the guise that same-sex couples have a “right” to marry will make it impossible for adoption agencies, social workers, fertility clinics, laws, and courts to give any preference to bride+groom couples over same-sex couples in placing children (or academia or others from presenting bride+groom couples as the norm or ideal). The advocates of this “equality” cite flawed studies to support their claim that there is no difference to children if they are raised by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, as long as it is two "parents". There are two ways to demonstrate that this must be false: A) If “two parents”, regardless of sex, are better than one, then point out that surely three parents would be preferable to two, and four preferable to three, and so forth, and ask if preference should be given to the largest group parenting arrangement over “couple parenting”, and; B) The homosexual person knows there is a difference between men and women - and therefore mothers and fathers - when it comes to personal relationships. Otherwise, the homosexual personal could just as easily be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
(2) Yes, not all bride+groom couples choose to or can create children, but they are the only kind that can without the aid of a third party, while no same-sex couples have ever been able to create children alone. Regardless, bride+groom couples still form a microcosm of society by uniting the sexes, and we do not check fertility status of marriage license applicants as that would be a violation of privacy. Indeed, sexual orientation is not a criterion either.
(3) The countries that have neutered their marriage licensing tend to be countries where marriages don't last as long, fewer people bother to marry, and children are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Although correlation does not prove causation, it is clear that the culture of these societies don't esteem marriage or raising children within marriage as much as ours - should we be striving to be more like them when it comes to marriage licensing? Results from marriage neutering are likely to be generational, and since no country had neutered their licensing as of 15 years ago, we have yet to fully experience the social effects.
Some marriages are arranged. Most in our country aren't. Some are about love, some are about lust, some are about money. Some are about class. Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it. It is about joining the two sexes and providing any offspring with both a mother and a father – and that has been the universal core of marriage throughout all of human history.
In other words, licensed marriage on its most basic and level is about children.
But when laws are passed (or, in California and some other states, a court decision is issued) neutering marriage licensing, so that two men or two women can legally be designated as “married”, this is a statement that marriage, as an institution, can't be about children – because it takes both a woman and a man to make a child. Some marriages may be about children, but marriage in and of itself can't be about children - if there is a right for any two people to have a licensed marriage. Court rulings neutering marriage make the statement that licensed marriage is about feelings, or benefits, or hospital access, or any number of things that have been cited by marriage neutering activists - all of which can be addressed without a marriage license.
If marriage can't be about children, a disconnect is created in the public consciousness between marriage and raising children. Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children. Do we really want official public policy that makes it clear that marriage is not about children?
Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children. Except in gay circles, when someone says "We got married," one of the first questions people ask is "When do you plan on having children?" Paternity is, in many places, assigned to husbands by default when their wife births a child, even if she could have conceived the child by another man. Ex-husbands often pay child support for children that where there before he ever met their mother. Child support is expected from an ex-spouse even if the other ex-spouse is financially capable of providing for the child without assistance. Even many people who cohabitate and procreate out of wedlock get married, in large part, “for the sake of their children.”
Why? Because children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other, and it takes both a male and a female to create children. Whether by design or as a consequence of evolution, children do best in having both that male and female parental authority as a model and with whom to bond. That child will, throughout her life, interact with both males and females. Even if you believe that our existence and the way we reproduce are sheer meaningless accidents, that socialization is important to perpetuating society in the best conditions.
Most, if not all, of the people who deny this appear to be motivated not by what is best for children or society, but what is wanted by some homosexuality advocates, fornicators, and divorced people politically and socially. Someone who wants a child but doesn't have a spouse (of the opposite sex) will try to justify their actions, and those who think a marriage license will bring their relationship and themselves whatever (approval, benefits, etc.) they are seeking will likewise deny the importance of having both a mother and father (1).
If marriage is about children, then it ought to be restricted to the kind of unions that can produce children (2). If it isn't about children, then it should be about whatever else benefits society. Marriage neutering advocates say that purpose is creating stability in "sexual" relationships. But that is in conflict with their own insistence that sexual behavior between two consenting adults is a private matter in which the state should not be involved.
If we are going to continue down this path of neutered marriage licensing, we should expect higher illegitimacy rates and perhaps increased divorce rates and/or lower marital rates (3), because there will be less of an association between child-rearing and marriage. If marriage is not about children, then a husband should feel no guilt in leaving the mother of his child if he feels she has neglected her vows. If our statistical analyses do not make the distinction between bride-groom marriages and other unions, then we can also expect a statistical increase in "marital" domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, and physical and mental health issues, as these are acknowledged issues of increased frequency in the "homosexual community". That would be something else that would make licensed marriage less attractive, along with the presence of or desire for children being less of an incentive.
If we are going to continue down this path where marriage isn't about children, then we should at least be consistent and not assign default paternity to husbands, or require child support if the custodial parent earns enough to provide for a child, or require stepparents (almost always fathers) to provide child support in the event of a divorce. This can probably have applications to inheritance laws, too.
I agree that the government should not be policing the bedroom. I can understand why we have no-fault divorce laws. But the government does have an interest in licensing bride-groom marriage that it doesn't have with same-sex couples. Citizens are better off if they have been raised within a lasting marriage with both a father and a mother, and less likely to commit crime or be dependent on welfare. We must not yield this beneficial construct to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem for those who seem to neurotically need the endorsement of their relationships by others. We must not allow marriage to be devalued by denying the core universal thread that has made marriage what it is.
Marriage may be about love, but it is primarily about children, and giving them a mother and a father.
(1) Neutered marriage licensing under the guise that same-sex couples have a “right” to marry will make it impossible for adoption agencies, social workers, fertility clinics, laws, and courts to give any preference to bride+groom couples over same-sex couples in placing children (or academia or others from presenting bride+groom couples as the norm or ideal). The advocates of this “equality” cite flawed studies to support their claim that there is no difference to children if they are raised by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, as long as it is two "parents". There are two ways to demonstrate that this must be false: A) If “two parents”, regardless of sex, are better than one, then point out that surely three parents would be preferable to two, and four preferable to three, and so forth, and ask if preference should be given to the largest group parenting arrangement over “couple parenting”, and; B) The homosexual person knows there is a difference between men and women - and therefore mothers and fathers - when it comes to personal relationships. Otherwise, the homosexual personal could just as easily be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
(2) Yes, not all bride+groom couples choose to or can create children, but they are the only kind that can without the aid of a third party, while no same-sex couples have ever been able to create children alone. Regardless, bride+groom couples still form a microcosm of society by uniting the sexes, and we do not check fertility status of marriage license applicants as that would be a violation of privacy. Indeed, sexual orientation is not a criterion either.
(3) The countries that have neutered their marriage licensing tend to be countries where marriages don't last as long, fewer people bother to marry, and children are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Although correlation does not prove causation, it is clear that the culture of these societies don't esteem marriage or raising children within marriage as much as ours - should we be striving to be more like them when it comes to marriage licensing? Results from marriage neutering are likely to be generational, and since no country had neutered their licensing as of 15 years ago, we have yet to fully experience the social effects.
PW writes: "Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it."
ReplyDeleteSame-sex couples are part of society. Some science indicates that homosexual orientation is a bi-product of the mother's fecundity, so there may be a connection to "perpetuating" society. There are also theories from social scientists that homosexual orientation (in the percentages that occur in nature) is an evolutionary advantage that helps to perpetuate society by providing "extra" caregivers to a clan. The assumption that same-sex pairing is opposed to the perpetuation of society is unsubstantiated.
PW writes: "Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children."
ReplyDeleteIf you are concerned about the benefit to children, you need to consider whether same-sex marriage will deprive any children of a benefit they currently get. Nothing in your article supports this conclusion.
Now, consider the children being raised by same-sex couples who may not marry, and as a result, may not jointly adopt those children. ( Even if the child is genetically related to one of the adults ). How is preventing the adults in question from marrying ( and subsequently adopting ) beneficial to those children ?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePW writes: "Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children."
ReplyDeleteAnd same-sex couples, who wish to raise children within a marriage that includes a person who created them and a person who wishes to adopt them, should be deprived of that option? Although virtually every scientific study on this issue indicates that marriage in the adult couple is advantageous to the children? Why?
PW writes: "children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other"
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the science, its more reasonable to conclude that children do best in a stable household - and - that marriage adds stability to a household. The best available data indicate that children do as well or better with same-sex parents. ( Yes, the data could be better. But no quality data contradicts that finding. )
Certainly we can agree that children do better when their "parent" are married, even if one is a step-parent. If we're truly interested in the best interests of children, why should we deprive any of the stability that would be gained if those raising them were allowed to marry?
Also, please cite your source for the assertion that ""children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other". And please let it be something other than that Regnerus debacle.
DeletePW writes: "The countries that have neutered their marriage licensing tend to be countries where marriages don't last as long, fewer people bother to marry, and children are more likely to be born out of wedlock."
ReplyDeleteLets be honest. These countries with a lower marriage rate are also countries where more children are being raised in a household headed by their own biological parents ( when compared to the USA ). So, even without official "marriage", the couples in question are sharing a life together which includes raising children. Yet these folks do a "better" jobthan Americans at jointly raising the children they've created.
In these countries, the "unmarried parent" factor has less to do with the recognition of same-sex marriage than it has to do with the government's lack of differentiation between married and unmarried couples. In Sweden, for example, the gov't treats married and unmarried couples virtually the same. Benefits are not contingent on marriage, so there is less incentive to marry. All this, whilst same-sex couples are allowed to marry.