Yes, wow
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
For that proposition, the author cites only a few examples:
Actually, you seem to be confused. The examples he cites BELOW come BEFORE the part of the article you quote above. These examples are in support of his opening statement that marriage is not a universal right. They have nothing to do with the part you quote above.
Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
Of course, we bar incest precisely because it COULD result in procreation.
Yes, he mentions that as an example that marriage is not a universal right. He states that quit clearly. I think you are confused on this - see below.
And I don't get what barring polygamy has to do with encouraging procreation -- don't polygamists statistically have bigger families, for cultural reasons if no others?
Once again, you misread the article. His opening statement is that marriage is not a universal right. He then goes on to list others that are restricted from marriage, not for the same reasons as homosexuals, but to show that there are others who are restricted. You seemed to have not understood the opening point.
I also don't get the connection between barring the marriage of people with social diseases (assuming such laws have survived any recent challenges) and procreation, as only some social diseases in some stages impair fertility. In short, I don't think any of this author's examples support his premise that the purpose of legal recognition of marriage (or restrictions thereon) is to support procreation.
I'll repeat his opening statement since you seemed to have missed that:
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women.
His point is that others are restricted - not for the same reason, but still restricted. He then goes on to say why the restriction for homosexuals exists. Marriage is recognized for procreation purposes, the corollary is not true - he does not say all restrictions are due to procreative purposes. You are misreading him when you say that.
That said, he gets around to his explanation of why, if procreation is the point of marriage, we do so little to require procreation in marriage:
A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
I may be mistaken, but I think he just said that the only reason we don't keep infertile couples from marrying is because it isn't practicable or convenient. In which case, I say: firstly, fuck you very much, Mr. Author.
Well, that certainly refutes his point well.
But secondly, I say the last sentence of the quote is ridiculous. He's saying, in effect, that marriage has purpose A, which is proven by the laws -- now it isn't practical to have any laws addressing the vast majority of instances of purpose A, but nonetheless, take my word for it, we see that purpose A is the purpose of marriage.
Actually he says the law does address the vast majority of A, A being having children, imperfectly yes, as many laws. I'm not sure how you get that he says it doesn't address having children. What it doesn't address are most of the exceptions.
Thirdly, I challenge his (unsupported by statistics) conclusions about the prevalence of non-procreating families.
Here I posted links to statistics suggesting about 2.1 million infertile couples,
There are about 59MM households in the US, 90% married. Your number is 2.1MM. That would be about 4%. This seems to fit the description of a "small minority".
about another 6 million with "impaired" fertility,
Are these people incapable of having children? Probably not.
That doesn't even get into the incidences of people getting married past childbearing age or the percentage of married people without children ([/url=
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_79501204]Here[/url] is a reference to a study claiming about 6% childless by choice as of 1995).
Again, he says the law is imperfect, but it achieves its goal. And the exceptions you list do seem to be a "small minority".
Why do these people hate America?
Why do you have silly thoughts like this?
Anyway, the percentage of marrieds who cannot have children, or choose not to have children, is not insubstantial.
Define insubstantial - he used the term "small minority". The author says the law works imperfectly. The numbers as you have given seems to prove his point that these are small minorities of the total. All you seem to have done is prove his point about the numbers.
And the author's argument that it would be too hard to test fertility or willingness to procreate in advance of marriage is a transparent dodge.
Really? Are you prepared to demand fertility tests before marriage - and pay for them? Or do you plan to invent a mind reading machine - please let me know, I'd love to have one myself
It would be, pardon the pun, childishly easy to check on marriages after, say, two years, determine if the family has procreated, and remove the legally conferred benefits of marriage if they have done.
I didn't realize that two years is the magic cut off for having children. Did you determine that number scientifically. Maybe you have another link for us?
That's what we could do if procreation were the purpose of the legal benefits of marriage, and if it weren't, you know, completely fucking evil and un-American.
Sorry, I don't catch the meaning of this statement at all - it's too fucking evil and un-American and all that.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
This, of course, predicates the rejection of the miscegenation analogy on the author's proposition that the law protects marriage to protect procreation. The rejection fails with that proposition.
Sorry, it seem to work perfectly to me. Exactly how does it fail?
In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences.
Fuckin' West and their concern with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
No, his problem is with the 20th century attitude towards the procreative aspect of marriage, not the Western tradition you mention above. You're trying to make him against the Western values you mention above but that argument fails if you read what he is saying. Good try, though.
When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.
You know, I hear a lot about how divorce is wrecking society. Do we really have a scientific test of the alternatives? I mean, can we get two pools of kids -- one whose parents divorced, the other whose parents wanted to divorce but did not, and see who winds up the most screwed up? Do kids of divorce wind up any more screwed up than the kids of loveless and bitter unions, abusive relationships, etc.? Are there are lot of happy, stable, positive, nurturing marriages out there being lost to divorce?
I think the point is alot of these marriages could be saved. They don't have to be loveless, bitter unions. Your error is that you seem to think that there are only two choices - bitter, loveless marriage or divorce. Many marriage counselors would tell you otherwise, indeed many married couples who have struggled would tell you otherwise also.
I don't think that anyone would deny that divorce is bad for children.
And by the way:
a plummeting birthrate,
By which he must mean "among white people," because otherwise it is bullshit. Can someone explain to me, saying RunningMan69 in the mirror three times first if necessary, what is bad about birthrates plummeting today? Is your commute too short? Are we swollen with unused resources? Can't get a fourth for canasta? What?
I think he means among Western societies - which include many ethnic groups as we all know
As for why it is bad, well, try to retire in a society where there is one person working for every one person retired and tell me how it goes. Controlled decreases aren't bad - but if it plummets too rapidly a society can face serious problems - such as those facing Japan. Do a search on "Japan and birth rates" and you'll see what the problems can be.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Dogs and cats, living together!
Indeed!
As apparently I will have to keep saying until I bleed out the ears,
I think that is already happening . . .
the state has a neutral purpose unrelated to sexual morality for recognizing the difference between 3+ people and two people.
Yes, and I think the author would agree. You seem to think that he thinks that all prohibitions are related to procreation, but he doesn't say that. Again, he says up front that various marriage arrangements are prohibited by that state. He does not say that these are all prohibited due to the procreation issue. He justs sets that stage for his following argument with respect to homosexuals.
Plus, once again, the logic falls apart. What is the procreative interest in prohibiting group marriage?
Not once again. I agree, I'm not certain why he stated this here. He's already made clear that the state has various reasons for restricting marriage. He doesn't need to tie this to procreation.
Grifman
