I found this new survey to be interesting.

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)

I am in a happily child-free marriage, but it surprises even me that so many Americans consider such mundane factors as the sharing of chores to be more important to a successful marriage than raising children.

To be debated:

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

I still believe that the most important purpose of marriage is raising children. I believe this is why marriage was created, and though marriage has changed significantly over the years, I think that purpose still exists.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

Well, it probably means that same-sex marriage is to blame for this disconnect between marriage and raising children, obviously.

If we hadn't let gays marry, people would still see the connection between marriage and procreation.

Seriously, though.



Hmmm... just how strongly does this woman hold these beliefs?



Apparently, she doesn't think it's so important after all. What, is she willing to wait until the children are grown before marrying?

There is a petition to get an initiative on the ballot in Washington to require married couples to procreate or have their marriages automatically anulled. It was created in direct response to the Washington Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage bans. It won't pass because society, much like this woman interviewed, don't actually hold the views regarding marriage that they claim to. They just don't want gays to marry.

So, while this research actually says something about the gay marriage debate. I think you'll find that most people who oppose gay marriage will either ignore this data, claim it is irrelevant, acknowledge it and blame those who support gay marriage, or acknowledge it and claim that preventing gay marriage is a way to prevent further deterioration.

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?
Binding family together, insuring that the ties we've built through our lives, the accumulation of a lifetime together, can't be stricken away against our will.

Personal anectdote time:
That's the legal purpose, but even a solely religious ceremony such as my partner and I had has a similar purpose. My inlaws have always been wonderful people, and very accepting, and are one of the main reasons we went ahead with a small ceremony that has no legal binding at all. Even with a family like this, it was a real watershed moment, to become a part of the family.
In many ways the most important part of the whole thing is something the law can neither grant nor take away. Of course, those elements the law does have something to do with become extremely important when they are needed.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?
I'm with entspeak here. It will have no effect on the debate because those opposed to same sex marriage are not debating honestly. This is just another goalpost to be moved, not a genuine belief.
The fact they never address the issue of infertile hetero couples already proved that, long before this poll.

Then why have a debate? Shouldn't the administrators delete all gay marriage subjects because as you say, one side is correct and the other is lying because deep down, we just hate gay people?

I find your statements far more bigoted then any I've heard in which I normally feel is reasoned debate. But you can get away with this language where the rest of us get warnings and strikes because you are not a straight white male.

Poor, poor victim.

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

Divorce is the most important purpose of marriage- has been since at least the 50s. Even the gay marriage debate isn't about marriage- it is about divorce and death.

childless couples are all over the place- this has no impact on thier lives, whether they are married or not- accept in health issues, death and divorce. It is not that marriage is the issue- it is what happens when a marriage is comiing to an end. There are tax breaks for children, but the real issue is how things get divided when the relationship ends.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

DR- I respect you as a conservative poster with consistant ideology and beliefs- something I find very rare today when a pass is given by what party you are in, no matter what the actions.

that being said- there really never has been a logical, secular argument against same sex marriage- Grendel has that right i am afraid- they are victims- often of thier own family- I have a personal anecdote- I know a male couple that have been together for over 20 years. Though they had been to a lawyer- and given thousands of dollars to lawyers for "access and rights" that come to hetero couples for free- one of the males had to spend thousands of dollars again when his partner died to fend off greedy and scumbag inlaws trying to grab everything they could from thier enstranged and very rich gay relative.

This is the real issue DR- often, a gay couple, perhaps one of the two, is enstranged from his or her family due to thier sexual orientation, and, unless they are willing or able to spend thousands to protect thier assets from thier awful relatives, due to the lack of protection normally afforded to married couples, some abusive father or mother can take stuff that the deceased or infirm never wished for them to have.

they were lucky that they were cognizant of these issues- for when the one male got sick, they had made arrangements with the hospital to keep bio family out, real family was allowed in, and gaurdianship had been established prior to the illness, so the healthy partner could make informed decisions about the unhealthy person's care.

Had they not done this- this set of very bad relatives would have been able to lock the healthy partner out of the entire process.

All these things you get automatically when you marry- and gays are denied this access to thier life partners.

It is a real and true injustice, no matter what your religious beliefs.

I don't understand how this is a purpose of marriage. Marriage is a tie and results in, I would hope, the accumulation of a lifetime of experience together, but is this the purpose? Is this why the government gives all those benefits?

Just because you don't believe there is an argument, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist that has nothing to do with hatred, fear, or whatever makes you sleep better at night.

My opposition against gay marriage has nothing to do with gays. It has everything to do with the re-definition of marriage to a point that marriage has nothing to do with the upbringing of the children the overwhelming majority of us married people will conceive and create.

Now, you may disagree with that for a multitude of reasons and that's fine and dandy. But that neither makes anyone of us right or wrong. But I am most certainly being honest - something I continually am accused of not being - including today.

You know, I could make a blanket statement saying "Gays are making a lifestyle choice that helps them deal with their own failure in love", claim there never could be any argument counter to my opinion, and any arguments are the result of bitterness, hatred, and misery.

Not a very constructive dialog, is it?

We all have different opinions based on our own personal ideologies. Please quit telling me what my own ideologies are.

There are things that specifically deal with children, and which obviously don't apply to those without children (and which just as obviously should apply to gay parents and their children), but many of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage are quite specifically about protecting the bond of a family. If a married hetero man is hospitalized he doesn't have to worry about some busybody at the hospital deciding his wife isn't family whether they have children or not.
Marriage is about family. Children are part of that, an important part for many, but not the entirety of it. I certainly don't begrudge families that have children, but neither would I ever want marriage to be denied to those who are unable to have children for whatever reason. Which is why I really object to the proposed Washington law you mentioned in post #2.



So, DaytonRocker, do you think that a post-menopausal woman who finds love late in life should be banned from marriage? Why or why not?

On a theoretical level, absolutely. On a practical level, no.

When a man and woman get married, the odds are very high they will have children. The overwhelming percentage of marriages produce children.

However, I don't want government in very much of our lives and especially the bedroom. I don't think it's practical to criminalize conception (or lack thereof). There are many, many reasons a couple may not be able to reproduce and I don't want them to be indicted, make their case, and have a judge decide whether they abused marriage rights by taking them and not doing their part by having children. So, I am for assuming they will have children because statistically speaking, they will.

I am opposed to couples knowing they could never have children getting married. But I don't want the government legislating this action. All things being equal, they can and will have children. They have the tools (penis and vagina) required to concieve children. It's not practical for the government to decide their working order.

However, same sex couples could never have children no matter what the scrutiny. So, gay marriage has nothing to do with children. Any adoptions or other forms of child rearing are incidental to that arrangement. Finally, if children are not the driving factor behind the marriage, than neither is sex. Sex becomes as incidental an activity as eating at a Chinese restaurant.

If sex is an incidental activity, no group of consenting adults should be denied marriage. Denying any other group of non-child bearing groups of consenting adults would be purely discriminatory. Finally, if there are no limitations on marriage, than there should be no marriage. Us couples who conceive and raise children will do so on our own. We will not get any additional support from society the resources necessary to enhance the welfare of our children will be up to us. To me, that's not a big deal. I make enough money for that not to be a factor. But to others, those costs may be prohibitive. In the end, that means less children.

Now, you may disagree, feel it's a slippery slope, or whatever and that your right. But DO NOT tell me it's anything to do with hate, contempt, honesty, prejudice, or whatever makes you feel better. It's simple logic. Nobody ever turned down a benefit afforded to them. Once everybody gets it, it's no longer a benefit.

So once somebody comes up with a gay and anti-contraceptive vaccine marriage will no longer be a benefit?

In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?
Getting people to make long term commitments to each other first and foremost, having children (and adopting) secondly. People, especially heterosexual women, aren't going to even think of raising children without legal protections. In the meantime, gay couples already committed to each other will continue raising more adopted children than heteros.

What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?
That there are more similarities than differences, no matter how many people want to inflate marriage's premiums.

It's not a zero sum game.
There are rights and responsibilities of marriage that specifically apply to children, and they simply don't come into play when dealing with couples who don't have children for whatever reason.
Custody, family tax credit, whatever? Not going to apply. Why should someone who is infertile have to deal with people keeping them from a loved one's hospital bed, though?

Can I allow your own words to speak to that truth?

Fair enough, but based upon that- why do we let the infertile get married? And why is there no test for fertility for marriage?

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?
The most important purpose of marriage is to extend the legal protections it affords to the entirety of the family, however large or small it may be. That's one of many reasons why I'm married. My wife and I may never have children. But if something should happen to me (or vice versa), I want there to be no question as to her rights in the equation. Without that marriage certificate (and sometimes with, admittedly), those waters are far more murky.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?
In a contemporary context, I think it has a little effect, but not substantial. The further we get away from the construct of procreation being the biggest enabler (or obstacle) to marriage, the further this debate progresses.

Two free-thinking adults, regardless of sex, should have the option to commit to each other under the eyes of the law in order to obtain the benefits my wife & I have. I have yet to find a compelling, reasoned argument not to do so.

To keep the government out of that portion of our lives. We would need the marriage police. We would need more bureaucracy, legislation, and general government incompetence to dictate who can get married. Since most hetero couples will have children, the cure would be worse than the illness.

If you told someone who could not have children they couldn't get married, than you would have to tell people who are not having children to have children, or lose their marriage license to be consistent. The amount of government oversight would be staggering. It's simply not practical since most hetero couples will create and raise children.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

None. Two people should be together because they want to be. Straight or gay doesn't make any difference. I hate to put it this way, but kids are incidental - that is, until they are born or adopted. There are couples who go into marriage not wanting kids, but change their minds later. Sometimes one partner changes his/her mind and the other doesn't. This causes problems.

One question that comes to mind, whether we're talking about producing kids in straight marriage or adopting them in a gay union. That question: Is there enough financial stability to meet the needs of the child?

that is a very inconsistant argument- as a libertarian, I believe that ANY interference in the marriage vow is wrong- so therefore- if same sex can not get married, they why are hetero's allowed to get married and vice versa-

the level of beauracracy and and goverment interfernce is too high already- by simply asking gender.

If marriage is not for procreation only- then we should be consistant

what about the same sex marriage with children involved? Shouldn't they at least be able to marry for the good of the children?

and DR- really- marriage is more about assets than children these days- when it comes to divorce, especially when there are no kids involved.

Really- if marriage is about kids- why not make it even more simple- that you can't apply for a marriage license until you have a child on the way? That would involve no more than a certified pregancy test?


DR- is marriage secular or religious?

And if religious, why is the goverment involved with enforcing a religious custom?

Actually, I am being very consistent - far more than most here in my opinion.

My argument is this: Marriage was created to provide a foundation for families. Almost all families produce children. I never said ALL, but producing children is the rule - not the exception. The government subsidizes some portions of the family to help protect the welfare of kids. That is the state's interest.

You can believe my view of marriage is bull. And I have no problem with that.

Your argument: Marriage is about the bond between two people who love each other.

I believe that view is completely flawed, makes no sense, and the state has no interest in the relationship of two adults.

Obviously, you may disagree with my viewpoints. But here's where I stay consistent and opponents of my argument are not: If you allow people of same sex to marry because marriage is about the bond between two people who love each other, why do gays get this protection, but not other classes of consenting adults? Why do gays get this additional right, but other classes of people don't? We've had this debate over and over and over again and it makes no sense to rehash it over and over and over again. But basically, why just two people? Why not relatives? Without a requirement of children (which I believe exists, but is unenforceable), sex is not a requirement. Without that requirement, people should be allowed to marry people.

So, if gays are allowed to marry, people should be allowed to marry people without restriction. Nobody has any "special" rights because children are an incidental part of marriage versus the purpose of marriage (which would require sex) that I believe.

So, either everybody is allowed to get married, or get rid of it entirely. Get the government out of marriage and give it to the lawyers. It's the lawyers who will sort out all the legal protections of marriage, divorce, and if applicable, child issues.

Someone sent me a PM with this link to an Adam Sandler movie about 2 guys who get married for bureaucratic reasons. Common occurrences of this behavior is a virtual certainty because we're guys.

I only jumped into this loser of a debate because some poor victim considers my logical view of this issue as "dishonest". My view has nothing to do with any kind of phobia or intellectual honesty. It's just common sense - if you are for gay marriage, you must be for people marrying people to be consistent in your view.

It's a virtual certainty between heterosexuals, too. You were in the military. You never heard about or knew a couple getting hitched to afford living off base? What about these two:


Seriously, what about these cases? On the one hand you don't want to "create" a marital exception for gays by extending marriage rights and obligations to them. On the other hand you cite opportunism between same-sex couples to support your argument when the same kind of opportunism has been going on between men and women since the federal government started offering incentives to get hitched. Is there a point here?


Gays already jump through legal loopholes and pay lawyer fees to get some of the protections heterosexuals take for granted with a simple marriage certificate. I don't think you'd want to go through the same crap even if you feel the definition of the word sacrosanct.

BTW when you wrote "Nobody ever turned down a benefit afforded to them. Once everybody gets it, it's no longer a benefit", did you mean to say the federal reserve is going to go bankrupt if thousands of gay couples get married next month causing the feds to remove benefits for all, civil rights for white people is no longer as good as it once was because the legal benefits were extended to minorities and women, or... what did you mean?

He cites an Adam Sandler movie. I believe that precedent means I can now argue that professional golfers routinely get into fist fights with elderly game show hosts.

Meanwhile here in the real world people across the country who have spent time and money for some semblance of the legal protection any hetero couple can get with a simple marriage license have had those protections made at the very least uncertain by people arguing the same as DaytonRocker that of course they don't hate gays, they just want to ensure that not only the word but the legal incidents of marriage are denied to them. Because it would be the end of the world if people were allowed to see their loved ones when they're in the hospital*. But of course that has nothing to do with hate. It's just semantics, don't you know, and there's only so much marriage to go around. Somehow.
For myself, I'd be perfectly happy if everyone could find their match and get married. It's a good thing for people to come together in love and build a life together.

*And yes, in fact, Virginia had to pass a law to allow hospital visitation because of the overly broad anti-marriage amendment promoted by non-haters like our friend DaytonRocker. And guess, if you will, who it was arguing against allowing hospital visitation rights.

Okay. Why are some heterosexual couples required to be sterile before being allowed to marry? There is no assumption that can be made about their reproductive abilities. The State does not want them to reproduce. Why go out of the way to allow them to marry?

How many marriages of convenience exist between heterosexual couples?

Marriage is a public act, two straight men would have to identify themselves as homosexual and deal with all the social issues that homosexuals deal with should they choose to marry one another. Would you choose that? Just because sam-sex marriage is allowed, doesn't mean the views regarding homosexuality disappear.



There is no such requirement. Where does that exist? Sex is and has always been a part of marriage. The State can still make the presumption that a married couple will have sex. And until Lawrence is applied to incest, the State can use that presumption to prevent incestuous couples from marrying. There are also other issues related to incest that keep that relationship illegal. And the reconstruction of marriage necessary to incorporate polygamy is enough to prevent the State from being forced to recognize them. So, you have an illegal relationship and a relationship that doesn't fit the current construct of marriage. This is why you can allow same-sex couples to marry and prevent others from doing so.

The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice. The extent to which the government can restrict that choice is limited, but it isn't non-existent.

The problem isn't that this is a loser debate. It's that your view isn't really logical.

Well, DR- yes, I agree any pairing of consenting adults, and line marriages, polygamy, bigamy, whatever, as long as the adults agree and such.

Your main argument is that marriage is for children- I say this is a complete fabrication in 2007, and only partially true throughout history- marriage has always had more to do with property and ownership and inheritance than procreation.

So, what is the advantage of marriage for procreation today- outside a tax break?

Are unmarried couples allowed to have children> Um, yes

Are unmarried couples still legally required to care for thier children? yes

So what is the advantage of marriage regarding children- or- is it really to protect property, inheritence and divorce- and guardianship of the spouse?

There is not one single advantage of the married couple vs the unmarried couple, legally or benefits- in regards to the children or thier care, outside of a tax break. But wait- an unmarried couple can still even get the tax break.

So why DOES one get married- outside the obvious reason of getting up in front of your friends and saying " I am so in love with this person, I want to live with them exclusively, and share everything, my property, and trust them with my life"

Unless the marriage contract is signed- that is not even legally binding in many states.

So what is obtained when you get marriedL

The hetero couple get to:

Be the guardian of thier spouse when he/she can not make decisions for themselves- something denied same sex couples

Automatically inherit the property wthout any further contract, or in case there is no will- something denied to same sex couples

Automatically owns half of all marital property- something denied to same sex couples

and all of the above have NOTHING to do with children.

So DR- why marriage for children?

In no part of marriage is children really the deal for either the legal or really, fundamentally- is it even needed to raise children- correct?

So- who does marriage protect, really? Adults. Consenting adults.

And Gays simply want the same rights as a married couple as straights do-

the freedom to be guardian to thier mate upon signing the marriage license

The right to 50% of the marital property upon divorce

the right to automatic inheritence upon death.

The right to automatically be allowed to have insurance benefits upon signing of the marriage contract.

Actually DR- to me, in an ideal situation- the goverment would have no say in marriage whatsoever outside the enforcement, through normal civil contract code, in the situation, and adults can be free to co-mingle in any way they see fit.

Actually procreation played its role in the guaranteeing of a continuation of property and ownership and inheritance. You got married to procreate and have someone to pass your property off to and, hopefully, gain more property as a result of the marriage.

Well, yes and no- my point being this- even if the couple were childless- it was about blending of assets of two families- the stand alone "nuclear" family of today is a fairly new thing in human history- my own family has a long history of arranged marriages- as do most on this planet if you go back a couple generations- but my own is fairly recent. Assets from both sides of the family (parents of the betrothed) were combined, and, in my families case, the groom typically stayed with the groom's father.

If the couple remained childless- that was not grounds for divorce. And divorce was a very rare and tricky thing- too many assets at stake, even with no children- you following me here?

Yes, about a century ago, children were expected, but not REQUIRED of marriage.

But wait a minute- a little over a century ago- the goverment had little to do with marriage- it was a church thang- my own family's first marriage license was recorded only in my mom's generation- there s no GOVERMENT record of a marriage- outside my grandfather's claim of marriage in the Army- there was no "marriage license" when he got married- it was recorded in a bible!

So- the entire idea of a secular/religious marriage- instead of strictly religious tradition- is fairly new.

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

Clearly the aspects of marriage are most important are different to different people. Just look at this debate and you will see at least three things advocated as "most important". Some say children, some say adult relationships, some say family. One guy even says "divorce"

Marriage is a personal thing and a personal choice. The reasons for entering into it differ from person to person.

However, the one common thread is the creation of a family. There is an expectation (perhaps waning) of permanence. Creation of a family implies (to most people) the creation of children. This isn't true of all people, but the expectation is there. When you see a married couple, you expect to see children at some point.

Yes, some married couples never have children and some unmarried couples do have children but these are still the exception rather than the rule. Only 20% of women in the 40s do not have children. Thirty years ago, however, that number was 10%.

We can see that Americans are becoming more selfish. Articles touting the childless life tell us how childless couples have more disposable income and are happier. At the same time, children are cited as the most rewarding part of marriage. Also, more women today (68%) say that having children is an experience every woman should have compared to 45% who agreed with this thirty years ago. [Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: Fall, 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-74, Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau, 2001]

Check this out, from last year: The State of Our Unions



In other words, people are selfish.

The facts remain: (from the above link)


See also: Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?



and



In other words, same sex households are WORSE than married, biological parent families. Of course, most same sex advocates will use the language of the first sentence: they are no worse than divorced households.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

None really. The same sex marriage debate centers around the benefits that traditional marriage brings to society, not the the individual families involved. The societal benefit is an aggregate of the benefits from those families.

Whether or not some survey says that children are the #1 reason to get married simply does not diminish the real benefits that society gains from having children in families that include a married biological father and mother.

Let's be clear. The question relates - not to aspects of marriage - but purpose of marriage. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.



I would agree that the creation of a family includes children. But, I really doubt whether people care if those children were got by the couple or adopted by the couple. I agree that when one sees a married couple, one expects to see children.



In other words, unmarried same-sex households are worse than married biological parent families. In theory, I'd agree with this. But the same could be said of unmarried heterosexual households.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?



And this doesn't change the fact that the laws should apply equally to similarly situated individuals. Without the right to choose who we marry, the right to marry is meaningless. And before anyone starts bringing up polygamy and incest, the previous statement doesn't mean the State can't restrict that right - that choice, but it is and should be limited in its ability to do so.

I have to take issue with this, Amlord. As a person who may or may not rear a child in this world, selfish is hardly the word I would use to describe my reasoning in deliberating on the issue.

We are approaching 7 Billion people on this planet. Is procreation really all that important these days? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we've evolved beyond child rearing being the sole focus of our civilization? Maybe we should consider taking better care of the 6.5 billion that currently reside on the planet. That's part of my life's work, and I don't see that being in conflict with those who choose to reproduce. Nor do I see the childless members of this board being selfish.

To be clear, I do not chastise anyone for choosing to have children (though I do have a few friends that I've questioned their judgment in doing so). If that is part of your life's journey, more power to you. I respect that. But I also hope you can do me the same courtesy if I choose not to do so. My footprint on this planet will not be any less or more significant if I choose to go beyond my biological imperative and contribute to the world in a different fashion.

I will understand if you don't "get" that. I just ask that you refrain from judging those who do as selfish.

Having kids in the US, assuming you are employed, isn't putting a burden on Mother Earth. The booming population of this planet has little to do with people having children in the good ol' US of A. Look at the problems in Europe that are directly related to a non-growing population. A society that doesn't have kids doesn't have a society for long. Contrast that with the booming populations in Egypt, Somalia, et al. That is where the problems lie.

When I use the term "selfish" I am referring to the mindset cited in studies that choosing not to have children has benefits in the realm of personal satisfaction and disposable income.
OF COURSE if I hadn't had children, I'd have more disposable income. OF COURSE if I hadn't had children I'd have more ME time. This line of reasoning ignores the real, personal benefits that come along with having children and raising children and teaching children.

If you are in the third world, then it would not be selfish to not have children. It would be practical and in your best interest.



Re-read the article VS cites:



I stand by my selfish assessment.

So those opposed to gay marriage are small minded bigots and those opposed to having children are selfish cretins. I assume nuns and similarly pious people making chastity oaths are selfish by divine inspiration.

Hmm. I won't even consider having children unless I'm fairly certain I can take care of them on my own in case my husband ditches me/us and/or he passes away. You never know when tragedy will strike. And by taking care of children I include a roof over our heads to call my own, enough "disposable income" to see them through college and health care coverage; all the things we lacked growing up. Watching my very poor, very deferential mother depend on an incontinent husband as a housewife made me value divorce. Popenoe and Whitehead can call it selfish. I call it being realistic.

Amlord, your article is enlightening, but not definitive. A while back you admitted on this board that you considered staying with your first wife for the sake of your child. You can call that a willingness to sacrifice your personal life character. I call it a willingness to sacrifice your children's happiness for your social reputation and guilt-informed religious beliefs.

All of that being said,


Well, yeah. What do you expect? We're not going to throw up our hands and say, "Well, since homosexual parents can't get married we'll drop our support for same-sex marriage and leave it up to unmarried heterosexuals to screw up children exclusively because they're heterosexuals".

In a way the survey cited in the opening post reminds me of arguing with people who want to keep openly serving gays out of the military 'cause it's always been like that. Attitudes are a-changing but their heels are dug in.

You make a significant assumption in this analysis, Amlord, that those are the reasons behind choosing not to do so. Are they benefits of it? Sure. But you presume such benefits lie at the reason for choosing not to have children. I don't pretend to speak for others on who have chosen such a path, but I'd be willing to wager that their reasons are no more "selfish" than mine. This is a classic post hoc fallacy. Just because I benefit from a decision, doesn't make that the reason that the decision was made.


The benefits of having, raising and teaching children are obvious, I won't contest that one bit. But this isn't a zero sum game. There are many people in history who have chosen not to procreate for a variety of reasons and yet they are able to realize similar benefits and contentment.

I disagree. Starting with raising children, your footprint on this planet has expanded. You buy a larger house to accommodate the kids, which increases your energy consumption. You probably drive an SUV or similar vehicle to tote those kids around. (note: You is in the plural sense, not you specifically) You're consuming more products to clothe, feed, and raise those children. Having a job doesn't make your footprint "neutral" in any sense of the word.

You're correct in the sense that a child in Somalia likely consumed far less resources than a child in an American household.


This is inaccurate as well. Nowhere have I advocated that we shouldn't have children. What I am taking issue with is your characterization of the reason for not doing so. This is also not a zero sum game. People who are homosexual do not have the opportunity cost of procreation. Outside of adoption, its not part of the equation to begin with. Or do you subscribe to the viral theory of homosexuality?

I have no doubt you take a great deal of pride and satisfaction in raising your children. As would I were that to be my choice. Is that not selfish as well? We both obtain contentment in this equation, yet you arrogantly assume my (and others) motives to somehow be less honorable.


I don't disagree with Cherlin's argument (just yours). What constitutes contentment today is far more complex than it was in the 50's or before. Actualization is no longer simply choosing to reproduce and raise kids and hope they do better than you did. That's a good thing. That doesn't devalue choosing that path any more than it critically judges those that choose another path. That choice is not innately selfish, as you would argue. It can be, without question. But your brush in painting this picture is far too broad.

Ah, so you agree that people get married for "ME" reasons instead of "US" or "WE" reasons but you disagree that people are getting married for selfish reasons. You see the lack of commitment from people (such as the referenced woman in the article that says families are best with a married mother and father of the children and yet has lived with the father of her children for eleven freakin' years.



By the way, that puts her at 16 when she moved in with the guy. Her fear of commitment is selfish. She as much as admits it by saying that marriage is important and then refusing to give her children the stability (real or imagined) that comes with having parents that are married.

You disagree with the

85% of married people with kids says that their kids are the top source of personal fulfillment!!

For the record, I did not say that all married people who choose to not have children are selfish. I said that "researchers" are attributing selfish motivations to married people who choose not to have children. Individual reasons may vary, but these overarching reasons are related not only to children and marriage but to the entirety of adult relationships: people are getting more selfish. They want to do what they want to do, damn not only the consequences but damn what other people think. If I want to get high, who is society to tell me different? If I want to have six children with five women: stay out of my personal business.

Of course, if I want to advocate being married to the other parent of your children, I'm an "arrogant" busybody moralist, motivated by "guilt-informed religious beliefs".

You seem to be confusing being married and not having children with not being married and having children.

And, you did say that Americans are more selfish and then proceeded to talk about married Americans with no children. So, I wouldn't blame your interpretation on the "researchers".

You're putting words in my mouth. People get married for both sets of reasons. "WE" doesn't just denote family making.


No argument that she's selfish. I never denied that some people are, I just didn't jive with your generalization (originally presented) that people who choose to marry and not procreate are selfish.


Again, I never said married people with children were unhappy/unfulfilled. But you're making an assumption that people can't have fulfilling lives without children. That is just wrong. Your own words support this:

Both sides are happy in this equation. How is this bad again? Isn't pursuit of happiness one of our missions in life? Or is it only worthy of pursuit if children are involved?


I think you're misrepresenting their findings in this regard. They never use the word selfish, and, as I've pointed out here, the experience of childlessness and the reasons for doing so are not necessarily related. That is fallacious reasoning in my opinion.


Well, you're fusing my arguments with others in this respect. I have no problem with you being an advocate for the nuclear family and child rearing, as I've said I do feel that is a noble pursuit for those who choose to skillfully undertake it. But you've used a large brush in previous posts to paint those who choose not to take that path as selfish, and in my opinion doing so is indeed arrogant.

Allow me quote my original reference to "People are selfish"

"More broadly, it is life before and after children that American culture (emphasis mine) now portrays as the most satisfying years of adulthood".

And yet, when you ask actual married people with children what gives them the most personal satisfaction, the #1 thing cited (by 85%!) is their children.

But researchers say that "American culture" has focused on the non-child years of marriage as the "most satisfying years of adulthood". See the disconnect? See that the researchers are claiming that "American culture" has labelled married people as selfish?


I guess you think two people who are married are doing something other than making a family? My usage of family does not mean "making children". "WE" means "myself and another". In the context of marriage, it means being married for reasons other than making yourself (alone) happy.

This is all (slightly) derailing. The question: In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so? doesn't really ask why marriages are failing in the US (which I would respond that researchers say that people are getting married for selfish reasons). The purpose of marriage is to create a family which by logical extension usually means children. In fact, it is the ONLY purpose of marriage. All other "purposes" can be accomplished by other means.

Gee, its no surprise that children don't contribute to marital success, since children are a huge source of stress and tension. Duh. The more stressful the childraising, the more likely the marriage is to fail. Consider if you will the number of marriages that fail when a handicapped child enters the picture.

To be debated:

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?
As far as I'm concerned, it is to provide the optimal environment for raising children, who are the continuation of our society. I say this because the two biological parent home is the best environment for raising children, bar none. As such, our body of law should privilege, preserve and protect this family form over all others, and as a normative matter it should privilege heterosexual marriage over any other partnership arrangements. Marriage also serves as the best vehicle for "civilizing" young men, for harnessing their incredible energies to constructive purposes rather than destructive.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?
Regretably, more than it should, as the argument over gay marriage is incredibly clouded. As a societal construct, "mutual happiness" is as good (or useless) of a goal as any other in marriage. However, as a legal construct, it is abhorrent. The legal institution of marriage places burdens and responsibilities upon third parties. That's what we're arguing about. Requiring others to acknowledge, accept, approve and support a relationship. Frankly, I'm amazed that so many "liberals" believe that they have a moral right to conscript others into supporting their happiness. Unlike heteros with the normative incidence of reproduction, gay marriage provides no significant benefit to society. (Of course, if you happen to believe that humanity is a parasitic vermin infesting Mother Earth, then gay marriage would seem to be the highest, purest form, to be preferred. )

Yes, this was your first reference to that particular phrase, but you imply it earlier and continue to imply it now. It is your interpretation of the researcher's statements.



But this happiness could come from something other than a simple desire to be happy. It could be fulfilling for some to participate in a partnership with another person.

And, let's not confuse "reasons for getting married" with "purposes of marriage." Two different things.

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

Even in the tiny microcosm of AD, there are as many opinions of marriage as there are people. Marriage is different things to different people. My opinion is in line with Grendel’s (I tried to put it in my own words, but he said it so well.



2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

I’d rather not add to the fracas. The same territory has been gone over multiple times, with the same results every time.


May I say I am so sick of hearing this argument? There are other reasons than selfishness not to want children. Not wanting to pass on defective genes, for instance. Not wanting to risk another child going through what one did during their childhood, not wanting to risk the mental illness prevalent in the family. Maybe some people just don't like kids. Maybe they'd rather concentrate their efforts in other ways. It is so unfair for the breeders to stand up on their pedestals and decree that all childless people are somehow inferior. Makes me want to take a big ol' swing and knock them off of it.

You're fusing my response with Doc's, too. And like him I think encouraging people to get married for the protective status marriage affords along with the stability it encourages is the right thing for opposite- and same-sex couples. I wouldn't argue against suggesting marriage or counseling for opposite-sex couples whether or not they procreate. I just happen to think that the same encouragement should be extended to gay couples.

As far as your guilt-informed beliefs, I went backed and finally found the quote:


I apologize for my comment. I must've juxtaposed something you said about Catholocism in some thread or other with your divorce. I'm glad I have to apologize to one person and not an entire category of people. While I was browsing your posts I found this:


I'm curious. Do you still think the homosexual marriage debate is responsible for the disassociation between marriage and producing children? The "disassociation" between marriage and giving birth is already there. It doesn't explain why gay couples use a medical workaround popular with heterosexual couples trying to concieve to rear their own children when they can't adopt.


I took a closer look at your article and I think you've decided the overreaching attribute is selfishness. According to The State of Our Union:


Perhaps people feel they have to choose between making ends meet and job commitments, mm?


And a cultural devaluation that is (gasp) uninformed about sexual orientation.


Unless the article's interpretation of selfishisness includes a rational self-interested choice to forgo childbearing and childrearing (or what seems rational to couples) I'll continue assuming that's your spin on the findings. I find your conclusion curious because this is in part a debate about gays and gays have traditionally been thought of as selfish because they can't produce children biologically.

Of course, many gay people choose to adopt special needs children, the ones those selfless heterosexuals throw away because they aren't perfect, and then these selfish jerks actually dedicate their lives to raising these children. What could possibly be more selfish than that?
Truly, those selfish homosexuals and evil infertile couples are a bane of our existence. We'd be so much better off if everyone was so selfless as to reproduce rather than adopting one of the many children in need of a home in this country.

This is about all that you've posted that I agree with.

The rest, while interestingly articulated, is a plea of nonsense. Privilege heterosexual marriage? Why? Because "tab A into slot B" is the end all and be all of raising children? I don't think so.

And just how does marriage "civilize" young men? It seems to me that uncivilized men behave in an uncivilized manner once married. I would hope that young men were "civilized" by their parents. I would hope that young women were "civilized" by their parents. And, as a normative matter, when uncivil people marry, the result is usually a less than civil divorce.



What burdens and responsibilities does another person's marriage place on you?

Amlord, you keep skirting my arguments about the fallacy in your logic? Am I to take it that you concede?


Again, the word selfish is only being uttered by you.


I think we're on the same page here. I consider my wife and seven animals to be my family. My context above was as regards procreation. Unfortunately this common ground appears to be quicksand considering the following passage:

Children, quite obviously, can be created outside of marriage. Marriage isn't the only means of achieving this. Nor is it universally the best vehicle for raising children, there are as many bad couples raising children as good single parents. But as many on here have argued, children are only one aspect of the marriage equation as it exists in our society. If it were not, our legal system would have a significantly lighter caseload.

What lies underneath this argument that neither seem willing to address is the idea that marriage as an institution has evolved, much like other aspects of society. To conservatives such as yourself, the idea that this institution could change over time is irreconcilable. To the social liberal, it is a natural progression in our hierarchy of needs. Survival, for much of our species, is nearly guaranteed. As a result, some may choose to forgo procreation in pursuit of what we deem to be greater goals. Some of those goals, to your point, may be of a personal nature, but that is not universally so (I would also posit that is not necessarily selfish, but I know no common ground could be gained in this belief). To the converse, some are serving a greater good by choosing not to do so.

The only area of conflict between these two belief systems lies in your attempt to denigrate those who construct a marriage in terms that fails to include child rearing. I don't begrudge those who choose to focus much of their lives to raising children, so why not offer those who choose otherwise the same respect?

Again, when talking about the purpose of marriage one must examine the benefits to society and not the benefits to individuals, especially when those benefits can be achieved by means other than marriage.

What benefits does society gain from a biological father and mother liviing together as a married couple with their children?

The reseach is clear that married biological parents living with the child is far superior to either single parent households or step households. Research from the 90s

has been confirmed by more recent research and census data.






Which protections are not available outside of marriage? I can leave my fortune to my beloved kitty cat if I want simply by structuring my will properly. Certainly I could also do so for a male companion.

Hospital visitation is about the only thing I can think of but that isn't really a legal matter. I would be in favor of passing a law (similar to a living will) that allows a person to designate who can visit them in the hospital. Families aren't always friendly.



Apology accepted?



I never said responsible. I said a further symptom. I'll agree that soceity's views are changing, but I would add that are not changing for the better. Simply read the research on the subject to find out why. Kids in households where both of their biological parents are married do much better (on average) than kids in any other situation, including married step-parents.


So the article twists its tongue in a form of poli