Many marriage neutering advocates tell us, even though they insist that marriage isn't about children, that all that matters is that a child has two parents in the home.
Where do they get this number?
Let's put aside the question of single parents - and why when marriage neutering advocates say this, it isn't hatred towards or a phobia towards single parents the way the advocates accuse marriage defenders of hatred and homophobia for saying that marriage = bride+groom or that a child is better off with both a mother and a father – and ask why the marriage neutering advocates discount three parent or four parent or x-parent homes. Surely, if two parents are better than one, why isn't three better still? If you need an example, look to families like those on "Sister Wives". Have there been extensive studies showing two-parent homes are better than three-parent homes, four-parent homes, etc?
On what basis do the marriage neutering advocates come up with the number two? Are they expressing hatred for mom-stepfather and stepmom-father couples, between whom many kids are shared these days and thus have four parents? Surely they are not implying that the original married couple should haved restricted their sexual desires for others and reconciled or stayed married in the first place. Because nothing is more important than sexual desires. Right?
Marriage and family defenders get that number from natural law. It takes one man and one woman to naturally procreate. Two men or two women do not naturally procreate. A third person adds nothing to procreation. Marriage neutering advocates reject natural law, and so get the number two purely by counterfeiting marriage. There is no reason, in their worldview, other than calculated, insincere, and likely temporary political expedience, to promote the two-person model, and should they neuter marriage licensing and law nationwide, there will be no reason for them to keep promoting that two person claim. They claim marriage is based on desire, feelings, attraction, cohabitation, love, etc. and not objective, publicly documented facts like uniting the two sexes in a procreative type of relationship. People can love, shack up, be attracted to, desire, have feelings for, and do sex acts with more than one person at a time. More than two people can, and have, claimed parental status.
It always takes at least a third person, often several more, for a same-sex pairing to become parents. (And as far as I'm concerned, kudos to same-sex couples who do rescue children otherwise doomed to institutional upbringings or a revolving door of foster homes.)
The laws and court systems seek to keep taxpayers off the hook (hence the men who continue to be forced to pay child support to the mothers of children not their biological nor social offspring), and claim to seek the best interest of children. Why wouldn't a third parent, who can provide more attention and earning power, do both of those things? Especially if that third person is a homosexual person (a suspect class of poor, defenseless, historically oppressed people, remember?) who has a strong parental feeling for that child, shouldn't the marriage neutering advocates, if being consistent, support that person in forcing the other two parents to share custody and visitation? Especially if those other parents want the third (or fourth) person's involvement, shouldn't that compel institutions (hospitals, insurance companies, the IRS) to recognize them as the child's parent, too? Heather can have five mommies and three daddies.
It matters not one bit if this is what marriage neutering advocates intend. Laws and court decisions have all sorts of unintended consequences, and the push to neuter marriage is helping to destroy the family and making for some very messy law and public policy. A society that does not distinguish marriage and family and encourage that children be raised in a healthy, stable marriage where they will have one parent from each of the two sexes that comprise all of the population is a society that is going to have more broken homes, more children living in chaos, more children raised without both a mother and a father in their home, more people who have trouble relating well to others, and more dependence on government. I never, ever want to hear someone who supports the neutering of marriage, who says that marriage is about love/sexual orientation and not children, tell a man who has knocked up his girlfriend he should marry her. That would be admitting that marriage is about children, and that would be hateful towards same-sex couples.
Where do they get this number?
Let's put aside the question of single parents - and why when marriage neutering advocates say this, it isn't hatred towards or a phobia towards single parents the way the advocates accuse marriage defenders of hatred and homophobia for saying that marriage = bride+groom or that a child is better off with both a mother and a father – and ask why the marriage neutering advocates discount three parent or four parent or x-parent homes. Surely, if two parents are better than one, why isn't three better still? If you need an example, look to families like those on "Sister Wives". Have there been extensive studies showing two-parent homes are better than three-parent homes, four-parent homes, etc?
On what basis do the marriage neutering advocates come up with the number two? Are they expressing hatred for mom-stepfather and stepmom-father couples, between whom many kids are shared these days and thus have four parents? Surely they are not implying that the original married couple should haved restricted their sexual desires for others and reconciled or stayed married in the first place. Because nothing is more important than sexual desires. Right?
Marriage and family defenders get that number from natural law. It takes one man and one woman to naturally procreate. Two men or two women do not naturally procreate. A third person adds nothing to procreation. Marriage neutering advocates reject natural law, and so get the number two purely by counterfeiting marriage. There is no reason, in their worldview, other than calculated, insincere, and likely temporary political expedience, to promote the two-person model, and should they neuter marriage licensing and law nationwide, there will be no reason for them to keep promoting that two person claim. They claim marriage is based on desire, feelings, attraction, cohabitation, love, etc. and not objective, publicly documented facts like uniting the two sexes in a procreative type of relationship. People can love, shack up, be attracted to, desire, have feelings for, and do sex acts with more than one person at a time. More than two people can, and have, claimed parental status.
It always takes at least a third person, often several more, for a same-sex pairing to become parents. (And as far as I'm concerned, kudos to same-sex couples who do rescue children otherwise doomed to institutional upbringings or a revolving door of foster homes.)
The laws and court systems seek to keep taxpayers off the hook (hence the men who continue to be forced to pay child support to the mothers of children not their biological nor social offspring), and claim to seek the best interest of children. Why wouldn't a third parent, who can provide more attention and earning power, do both of those things? Especially if that third person is a homosexual person (a suspect class of poor, defenseless, historically oppressed people, remember?) who has a strong parental feeling for that child, shouldn't the marriage neutering advocates, if being consistent, support that person in forcing the other two parents to share custody and visitation? Especially if those other parents want the third (or fourth) person's involvement, shouldn't that compel institutions (hospitals, insurance companies, the IRS) to recognize them as the child's parent, too? Heather can have five mommies and three daddies.
It matters not one bit if this is what marriage neutering advocates intend. Laws and court decisions have all sorts of unintended consequences, and the push to neuter marriage is helping to destroy the family and making for some very messy law and public policy. A society that does not distinguish marriage and family and encourage that children be raised in a healthy, stable marriage where they will have one parent from each of the two sexes that comprise all of the population is a society that is going to have more broken homes, more children living in chaos, more children raised without both a mother and a father in their home, more people who have trouble relating well to others, and more dependence on government. I never, ever want to hear someone who supports the neutering of marriage, who says that marriage is about love/sexual orientation and not children, tell a man who has knocked up his girlfriend he should marry her. That would be admitting that marriage is about children, and that would be hateful towards same-sex couples.
Playful Walrus writes: "On what basis do the marriage neutering advocates come up with the number two? [...] Marriage and family defenders get that number from natural law. It takes one man and one woman to naturally procreate. Two men or two women do not naturally procreate. A third person adds nothing to procreation."
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you contend that monogamy comes from natural law? When it comes to human beings, monogamous pairings have been standard practice in less than 20% of sampled societies. Amongst primates in general, roughly 80% have been documented as predominantly polygamous. This figure is close to estimates of the existence of the practice amongst human hunter-gatherer societies.
And as far as your notion that a 3rd person adds nothing to procreation, remember that a monogamous relationship can produce a finite # of offspring. But if a man takes a second wife, that number doubles. That adds something. And the children of that second wife might have the genetic predisposition for better *success* in future generations. Add a 3rd or 4th wife - or be like Solomon and have 700 (+300 concubines) and count your children in the 100s!
And here's what Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle had to say on the matter: ""I don't think we are a monogamous animal. Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"
So lets back up a step. Maybe you can support your claim that monogamy reflects natural law.
Playful Walrus writes: "A society that does not distinguish marriage and family and encourage that children be raised in a healthy, stable marriage where they will have one parent from each of the two sexes that comprise all of the population is a society that is going to have more broken homes, more children living in chaos, more children raised without both a mother and a father in their home, more people who have trouble relating well to others, and more dependence on government."
Better check out the stats in Sweden. They have same-sex marriage. Their marriage rate has been in decline for decades, but has picked up a bit since legalizing same-sex marriage. And they have a higher percentage of opposite-sex couples staying together to raise their own children than the USA has. So, your prediction lacks credibility.
Playful Walrus writes: "I never, ever want to hear someone who supports the neutering of marriage, who says that marriage is about love/sexual orientation and not children, tell a man who has knocked up his girlfriend he should marry her. That would be admitting that marriage is about children, and that would be hateful towards same-sex couples."
Have you really ever heard ANYONE claim that children can't be a good reason for marriage? Come on, man, nobody says that. We might point out that some people have other reasons to marry, and that one can have a complete marriage without children. But has anyone EVEN made the case in favor of unwed pregnancy, or suggesting that anyone ought not take responsibility for the outcome of their actions? A citation would be most helpful here.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think limiting marriage to two people is Constitutional and fair, and if so, on what basis?
DeleteMy points stand. Would you advise a man that he "should" marry his pregnant girlfriend based at all on the fact that he knocked her up? (Assume they are compatible and their relationship is going well.) If so, on what basis? And if you wouldn't, then you agree with me - people who support the neutering of marriage diminish the importance of marriage to children.
I think limiting marriage to two people is fair and necessary, based on the adverse affects polygamy has on those involved and/or the communities of which they are members. If one applies the harms principle, a prohibition on polygamous marriage is seen as reasonable.
DeleteI would advise a man that he is responsible for any and all outcomes of his actions. As such, that man is responsible for the child he fathered, and may share some responsibilities for the well-being of the woman he impregnated as well. Marriage is one of the ways he could satisfy those responsibilities.
And FYI, I've been in the situation you describe, and I did advise the man that he should marry his girlfriend.
You mentioned that your point stands. Which point is that?