Take California

[featherynscale]

Judge rules against gay marriage ban.

Now the interesting part of this article, to me, anyway, is the bit down at the very, very end... it could be my first sighting of an argument against gay marriage that is not based in the Christian religion. Let's take a look, shall we?

Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

OK. Let's forget for a moment that forbidding same-sex couples to marry does not necessarily in any way encourage the individuals involved to procreate. That's not important right now. This is the question I'm interested in: Is it in the state's interest to encourage procreation in the first place?

Discuss.

Comments

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Whether it's in the state's interest or not depends entirely on the circumstances. If you've had a series of massive battles and lost much of your breeding population, it can be in the state's interest to encourage procreation. Oddly enough, however, most coutries that concern themselves with influencing procreation rates right now are trying to discourgage breeding, not encourage it. Maybe there's an argument there for "We have to breed more red-blooded Americans to outnumber those Commies," but I don't think so.

what really scares me about this argument is that if people accept it, it opens the door to limiting access to birth control, abortions, etc. After all, if we need more procreation than we shouldn't have condoms. Those just encourage people to have sex for pleasure instead of procreation, and besides, think how quickly this gay marriage question would go away if all the gay people died of AIDS.

I really wish that I could believe there weren't people out there who think like that. Unfortunately, I've met them. Some of them were even very intelligent, otherwise well-educated young women at my college.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

most coutries that concern themselves with influencing procreation rates right now are trying to discourgage breeding, not encourage it

Well, see, that was my point. The state of California is already facing massive problems due to overpopulation - there's not enough room in the schools, there's not enough room in the prisons, there's not enough money for public health initiatives, etc., etc., all because they're trying to service too many people. You'd think that the State would have an overwhelming interest in limiting procreation. I mean, certainly, there is a legitimate interest in ensuring that there is a next generation of taxpayers, but I don't think that's what's in jeopardy here.

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

Of course, the article states that these groups claim that the state has a legitimate interest, as opposed to just an interest. For our purposes, we mean practically the same thing, but it isn't quite. The questions then becomes what criteria there are that would legitimize the state's interest and who determines them.

Given that our nation is not under any threat of losing a critical mass of citizens to maintain our current society, I can't think of any. Most of the ones usually cited--moral decay, public health, etc.--are impossible to attribute to any monocausality that would warrant such interest and are pretty much straw men anyway.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I have a serious problem accepting "moral decay" as a legitimate threat to the government. Ethical decay, certainly. But to distinguish between the two is not done in this country.

And with regards to public health, California already can't support its public health system -- it's trying to serve too many clients as it is.

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

I'm in total agreement with you on both points. I was just citing the usual threats to society mentioned by usual politicos to justify their usual decisions. A major fallacy with the public health straw man is, of course, that withholding marriage changes the statistics for the number of people having sex. And as we agree, defining "moral" decay is squiffy at best. I wouldn't trust the moral decay folks with the ethical decay either, if it came to that.

Four words:

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Every sperm is sacred...

[malvito.livejournal.com]

Since I don't particularly want kids, my first impression would be to tell the %#@&-in' state to mind its own %&#$!*@ business.

Was going to break out into a chorus of Every Sperm is Sacred, but triadruid beat me to the punch there.

[agrnmn.livejournal.com]

What I find interesting is that most people who wish to encourage procreation, discourage practing the act that leads to procreation.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Sure. If you're doing it for procreation only, you don't have to do it that often, and there's no reason to be good at it, you know. A lousy lay can get you as pregnant as a good one.

[agrnmn.livejournal.com]

I wonder if there is any correlation between good sex and the chance of getting pregnant...I think I have just found an area of sexual experimentation I have no desire to participate in.

Don't know, but

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

there has been some gender-planning research done on whether there is more likelihood of a baby's being a boy or a girl based on whether the mother had an orgasm during the sex that led to conception. Not being the sort who cared one way or the other, I don't remember exactly which way it went, but I think orgasms lead to more boys.

*Whoops. Screwed up the averages on that data.*

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Actually, there is. Due to the physics and particular pattern of muscle contractions in the female oragsm, it is far more likely for sperm to make it past the cervix and into the uterus if the female orgasms than if she doesn't.

At least, that's what they said on the Discovery Channel.

[fionnabhar.livejournal.com]

Kind of analagous to warp drive into hyperspace, isn't it?

Well, there you go

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Further evidence for intelligent design a system that works to encourage procreation and reproduction of the species, but has fuck-all to do with marriage and living arrangements.