Tag Archives: Procreation

MIT student offers a secular case against same-sex marriage

This is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology student newspaper. It’s written by a Ph.D student in financial economics.


When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. 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.

[…]Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

[…]Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes.

[…]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. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

[…]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?

You can learn the basics of defending traditional marriage from this column. But same-sex marriage is actually less of a threat to marriage than another policy called “no-fault divorce”. Let’s look at that policy.

No-Fault Divorce

Economist Stephen Baskerville wrote an article about how certain policies cause the decline of marriage and the family. The biggest one is the policy of no-fault divorce, which is really unilateral divorce. No-fault divorce refers to the ability of one spouse to end the marriage for any reason, or no reason. It’s probably the biggest reason why men refuse to marry today, because they are almost always the victim, and it costs them plenty.

Dr. Baskerville writes:

…80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under “no-fault,” divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails.

…Invariably the first action in a divorce is to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and does not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof–and financial burden–falls on him to demonstrate why they should be returned.

A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, regardless of the amount demanded. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist. There is no formal charge, no jury, no trial, and no record.

If these statements surprise you, I recommend you read the whole article to find out how this is done.

My secular case against marriage is here.

Marriage under attack by the left in Australia and India

From The Australian, separation between biological parents and child custody. (H/T Thoughts Out Loud)


A homosexual couple has been granted leave to appear before the Family Court in a bid to gain access to a girl who isn’t biologically related to either of them.

The men, who cannot be named, have successfully argued that they are important people in the life of the three-year-old.

The girl, who likewise cannot be named, was not conceived with sperm from either of the men. But her mother was, until last year, in a same-sex relationship with another woman who does have a child conceived with one of the men’s sperm.

Do children have a right to be raised by their biological parents? Shouldn’t we be enacting child-friendly policies? In Australia, it seems as though the needs of adults are trumping the needs of the children.

And from The Hindu, men are suffering discrimination by the feminist state.


Mr. Zaveri claimed that 98 per cent of all domestic violence cases were found to be baseless and false. He said: “We stand by the women who file genuine cases. But these laws, made for Sitas, have been cashed in on by Surpanakhas. Many women misuse these laws to exact alimony from their husbands. We are instead in favour of sponsoring professional courses for wives so that they become self-sufficient after parting from their husbands.”

Jaspreet Singh, a member of the IFF, said that he had to give 50 per cent of his salary to his wife as alimony, while she herself earned 50 per cent of his salary. The amount was huge considering that their marriage had lasted only a year and they had not had any children.

Dr. Sandeep Padwale, another member of the organisation, said that his wife was employed but had claimed to be otherwise in her affidavit. The emotional turmoil had cost him his job.

In order to address the problem of false cases, the men demanded a provision for punishment for all those misusing the law. They said that there should be a separate section in the IPC to safeguard the rights of men who were victims of the misuse of domestic violence laws. They also demanded the formation of a Ministry of Men’s Welfare “as it would take care of the very originator and contributor of the tax to the government.”

Mr. Zaveri said that the most basic problem encountered by men was that the police did not register cases against their wives. As a result there were no statistics regarding the number of men suffering because of false cases of domestic violence.

Indian men should consider avoiding marriage. Once discriminatory divorce laws are passed, it just becomes too risky for men to make any kind of legal commitment to women. Why can’t women understand how victimizing men with high taxes and punitive laws discourages men from marrying at all? The best way to avoid a bad man is to choose to marry a good man.