Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
Back from family vacation to (hopefully) wrap up my series on marriage in the next few days or so. (Incidentally, today Suz and I celebrate 20 years of wedded bliss!)
In Part 5 and Part 6, I argued that a key part of the social impetus for the institution of marriage—not the transcendent or interpersonal meaning of marriage, or the motivation for individuals to marry, but a key part of the value of marriage to the society that recognizes, supports and honors it, of why it “works” or benefits society, why all known civilizations and cultures throughout history have always recognized the enduring union of a man and a woman as a unique institution and the privileged context for sexual relations—is to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation.
From society’s perspective, uncommitted sex is a liability, largely because it disadvantages the children of such liaisons. That’s why societies throughout history have always, to one degree or another, discouraged such behavior—why marriage has always been the normative context for sexual relations between a man and a woman.
I’ve also argued that this social function of regulating sexual relations between men and women is contingent upon the social mechanism of problematizing sex outside of marriage. In combox discussion it was noted that while sex before marriage was far from unknown, e.g., in the 1950s, if a pregnancy did occur marriage often followed. Such patterns are obviously not identical to the practice of Christian sexual morality, but they converge closely enough with the social impetus for the institution of marriage to provide a useful level of regulation, and to provide the necessary support for the next generation.
It follows that the less socially problematic sex outside of marriage becomes, the less effectively the institution of marriage functions to regulate sexual activity between men and women. Unfortunately, this is precisely what our society has lost over the last several decades. Due in significant part to the rise of the contraceptive culture (Part 2), sex outside of marriage is no longer socially problematic in the way that it was not many decades ago, and as a result marriage as a social institution no longer effectively functions for the good of society. Premarital sex, cohabitation and serial divorce have risen catastrophically, with a disastrous rise in illegitimacy and children growing up without fathers—and the economic, educational and behavioral disparities that correlate with fatherlessness.
Because marriage as an institution no longer effectively fulfills its social raison d’etre, marriage in our day has become to an extent a social institution without a recognized mission—an institution we retain but no longer understand. Many people today no longer see the point of marriage.
In particular, a growing marriage gap increasingly divides social haves and have-nots. Not only is it the case (as it has been throughout history) that intact families and present fathers enhance the economic, social, and educational potential of their children, now the reverse is also the case: those least likely to get married and stay married are increasingly the less well-off and less educated. The meme “Marriage is for white people,” which hit the news cycle about five years ago, reflects a particularly catastrophic marital collapse in the black community. (This has not always been the case; not many decades ago poor people and minorities married at much higher rates, to the benefit of their children.) Thus the correlation of non-intact families with economic, educational and social limitation becomes a vicious cycle, a downward spiral for those caught in it.
Along with the value of marriage, the constitution of marriage as regards both fidelity and permanence is increasingly called into question. There is still a viable emotional and contractual objection to adultery as an act of betrayal and injustice—but this is predicated on an accepted ethic of fidelity that is rooted in part in the procreative meaning of the sexual act. That ethic of fidelity is greatly weakened in our day (though it is actually somewhat improved from its low point in the 1970s). While it is still reasonably clear that furtive and dishonest running around is shameful and hurtful, why marriage should be understood from the outset as an exclusive commitment, why allowances for extra-monogamous relationships should not be made from the outset, is no longer taken for granted.
For example, the New York Times best-seller Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, by the husband-wife team of Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, argues that monogamy is contrary to mankind’s evolutionary origins and that human beings are naturally polyamorous. (The paperback edition subtitle is “How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.”) Although the authors claim that they aren’t arguing against monogamy (Ryan has likened monogamy to vegetarianism, saying that people can choose it if they want to), their thesis certainly undermines the moral normativity of marriage, which they claim is an economically motivated institution that subordinates women. (Not that they’re putting it down or anything.)
Sex columnist Dan Savage, who is gay, has breathlessly hailed Sex at Dawn as “the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948.” Savage is among a number of commenters who want to see society at large redefine its conception of marriage, not only to qualify same-sex relationships as “marriage,” but also to change its unrealistic expectations of fidelity for heterosexual couples, adopting a model more like, well, what a gay sex columnist thinks relationships should be like, which is basically a loosey-goosey pledge of mutual love in which expectations for outside sexual fulfillment may be negotiated by the partners.
Savage has even argued that openness and honesty about outside sexual gratification in his relationship with his partner has made their home a more “stable” environment for their adoptive child. In part, of course, that’s an easy claim for a man interested in men, where outside flings don’t involve potentially procreative acts. It’s also an arrangement more likely to be congenial to two men than to a man and a woman, given the woman’s greater investment in having sex with a man. (For some good perspective on Savage’s views, see Ross Douthat.)
More to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
Steve has conflated premarital sex with the consequences of unintended pregnancy. First he admits, as studies have shown, premarital sex has always been fairly common (at least insofar as the data is available.) But the consequences of unintended pregancy are different. Then, marriage followed (as it does today in many “red” southern states). But today we see the states with the highest divorce, abortion, etc. rates, are exactly those which ‘problematize’ sex outside marriage. States where sex outside of marriage is common BUT which also reduce the rates of out of wedlock pregnancy, don’t have the problem the ‘red’ states do. And the basic premise of his argument is unfounded. Marriage is a solution in search of a problem? Given the fact enormous numbers of people STILL get married AND that gays want to do this as well, the orientation of marriage, so to speak, may have changed, but people still value it. Marriage has NEVER been a static institution. But only by re-defining premarital sex as being EQUIVALENT to premarital pregnancy can Steve make his case. And that link is unwarranted.
Great article. Congratulations on your 20th anniversary.
@ Bob: I want you to know that I keep reading your comments, because there’s always a chance that one of these days you might say something that engages what I’ve said and that I would want to respond to. Cheers.
@ Tim: Thanks.
Happy anniversary, Steve and Suzanne!
A little long, but great article. Keep it coming. You identified points that I had not considered. The question now is when will we hear this in a homily. As an engineer trained in root cause analysis I realized sixteen years ago that contraception was at the root of this culture of death, four separate priests at my parish, two bishops, and I still have not heard a homily on the evils of contraception.
Gee David, send me the fishbone diagram on THAT root cause! wf3h@comcast.net. I’d like to see your data, and how you removed confounding variables like increased data collection across ethnic groups, effects of urbanization, etc.
@ Bob: Because, of course, no sociological work on the relationship of the Pill to the sexual revolution has ever been done before.
@Bob: I could send you a fishbone diagram, it would include the young woman I know who lost her father to divorce, sought male company in the wrong place, conceived a child, had an abortion, a hysterectomy and became an alcoholic. What her boyfriend said to her the night she told him she was pregnant and he abandoned her was “This wasn’t supposed to happen”. Why would he say that? Why would he think that this wasn’t supposed to happen? -contraception….It would include a homosexual friend of mine who, in the sexual revolution brought on by “the Pill”, engaged in anal sex, because of the frequency of exposure and the nature of this act (abrasion and blood transfer), he died of AIDS. He died because of “the Pill” – contraception.. It would include the many people I know who are divorced, they grew apart, sex was not satisfying, they did not give themselves to each other totally.-contraception. It would include persons I know who are not able to conceive because the woman has been on the pill so long or had an abortion -contraception. It would include the many persons I know who say later in life that they wish they would have had another child or a child. They were not thinking about having children, they were thinking about “not having children” –contraception. For data, how about the general statistic on divorce: couples who use contraception have a 30 to 50 percent chance of divorce. Those who use some form of NFP have less than 5%. If I gave a presentation on, let’s say, power cable installation failure rates, and having identified one method that had a 30-50 percent failure rate and another with less than a 5 percent failure rate, then failed to recommend we follow the method with the overwhelming small failure rate, citing we need more data and study, I would (and should) be fired. To be a good Root Cause Analyst, one needs, not an advanced degree and piles of data, but the inquisitive and non-prejudicial nature of a three year old child, one who asks a lot simple questions. One last thought. God only permits evil, especially this great disorder for a very good reason. One RCA prediction I have is less than a hundred years from now there will only be one Church left, and it will be His. This could be it, this could be the thing.
@ Bob: Because, of course, no sociological work on the relationship of the Pill to the sexual revolution has ever been done before.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-7?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register&utm_content=Google+Reader#When:2011-08-3#ixzz1U1mbI4ZM
David, Wonderful comment!
This is what I have been trying to explain to friends.
This will be my go-to discussion when a group gets to talking about how wonderful it is that a priest asked a pre-cana couple “How are things in the bedroom?” “Gee, isn’t it great that some priests finally get with the times?!”
Barf.
Although… I fail to see how the gay man engaging in anal sex is related to the pill.
The Pill was the catalyst of the Sexual (de)rEvolution. Open promiscuity, sex without children. This effected the whole population. Homosexual men were released from Chastity. This, global travel, and AIDS led to death.
@David: A little less than a year ago, the Parochial Vicar at my parish did give a homily on the evil of contraception. So there are some priests out there will preach on it. The Gospel was when the Sadducees ask Jesus whose wife will the woman who married seven brothers be at the Resurrection. (Luke 20:27-38) The gist of the homily was: Jesus replied that at the Resurrection we will not die, and therefore there is no marriage after the Resurrection. This must mean we marry in this life because we do die, and therefore one of the chief purposes of marriage is to procreate children. Any acts that prevent this are contrary to the will of God and gravely immoral.
Great comments David. Thank you.
Great comments, David.
I would have laughed at your suggestions ten years ago, but much life has happened in the meanwhile. Now I see very clearly firsthand how contraception was the catalyst that brought about the current Culture of Death.
I thank God that he showed me this as a young man. My extended family is filled with the carnage left behind: fatherless children, unknown and lost siblings and cousins, unnecessary hysterectomies, and more divorce than I care to think about.
It is not only Catholics who see this. I am a young Catholic convert and family man, but many of my non-Catholic family members have come to agree with the same assessment of the root cause that you have laid out so well in your examples.
Alex’s logic is kind of like saying we should ban religion because it causes wars. Anyone believe that? You’re playing the margin against the middle. Most people use contraception. There’s no proof it leads anywhere, anymore than there’s proof having religious people causes wars. You can always find those who abuse any freedom, but it’s simply useless to say the freedom is wrong because some abuse it.
David, 400,000 people died of cigarette related illnesses last year. I, as a former hospice volunteer, have seen this up close. Why isn’t cigarette smoking as immoral as homosexuality? Certainly smoking is a form of assisted suicide. Any reason it’s not ‘objectively morally disordered’?
Bob, with contraception the causal relationship is demonstrable. With violence vis a vis religion, the relationship appears coincidental since just as much war (or more!) happens is the absence of religion.
Alex, I await your proof that the relationship between contraception and social evils is demonstrable. As to religion, it’s no accident that “Crusade” and “Jihad” are concepts in the Christian and Muslim lexicon. These are not coincidences. People have gone to war for religion…in fact these religious wars split Europe and were an instigator for Jefferson’s views on separation of Church and State.
@Bob, The idea that “religion causes wars”, that is “it is the usual source of wars”, is a Big Lie, examples from the last century: WW1 (15 million dead), WW2 Hitler (66 million dead), Stalin (29 million dead), Pol Pot (2.5 million) and Mao Tse-Tung (45 million dead). All these wars have in common a Secular society departed from God. More people “died on a good day” in any of these conflicts, than in the whole 56 year Spanish Inquisition, which by the way was Secular by monarchs. As for the Crusades, that was a defense, not an aggression. Were there atrocities committed by Christians, yes, I am ashamed to say there were, but generally religion, especially Christianity espouses a love of God AND Neighbor, in the knowledge that God is the Sovereign Ruler of all human life, not man. Secular societies without religion espouse just the opposite. Jefferson knew that the virtue of religion was a good thing, but a very bad thing in the hands of the state. What we have today is a Secular state religion that has at its’ heart a hatred of God. How else could a State think that it could redefine marriage and legalize the killing of innocent unborn? Contraception has at its heart: “I want to do what I want (not ought which is true freedom) and that God should mind His own Divine Business…” As for your comment to Alex “I await your proof that the relationship between contraception and social evils is demonstrable”. What about my proof? Can you refute it? Do you need more?
It’s really good for our planet that we’re cutting down on reproduction. We could be looking at major famines on God’s planet in the next few decades. If we let homosexuals marry and adopt they won’t be bringing any more children without families into the world. They can adopt all the unwanted children who are not currently adopted. Glad people are catching up. Although birth control pills were to allow some to not conceive when they were not prepared for a child gave way to a lot of sexual freedom, promiscuity became the rage even without contraception. Now it can be more than just a convenience issue for forming families with some planning, but also to avoid contraception in order to save room for adopting children.
We’re seeing a lot of good things happening in all the confusion.
Forgive me for jumping in without reading all the comments (I hate it when people do that!), but this subject came up on another blog, and someone suggested that I read this series, which I did. Then I was posting some responses on the other blog, but I’m going to transfer them here. This was for part 1:
“Marriage has been redefined for decades in our society, and it isn’t homosexuals or politicians who have done it. It’s our culture as a whole. And that’s why we are where we are.”
Okay I read Part 1, and so far he is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Every society defines marriage differently, and every society is (almost) constantly re-defining it. It rings very hollow with gays, when the Church all-of-a-sudden wants to be politically involved with marriage, when the Church never politically opposed divorce-on-demand. And then to add insult to injury, the Church started handing out annulments to everyone so they could get remarried in the Church! And then proclaim that GAYS are destroying the family? It just doesn’t work.
Part 2 is mainly about contraception being the root problem. Unless am getting my encyclicals mixed up, I believe that was what Pope Paul VI was saying in Humanae Vitae, that contraception would lead to a rise in the divorce rate, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, etc. That brings me back to the fact that the Church did not oppose contraception in the political realm, not even the abortifacient types—and still does not.
“Same-sex marriage advocates may bristle at this: What has this to do with them and their issue? Nothing, at least directly. That’s actually my point.”
Part 3 is about kids growing up without fathers, and I can see that, obviously that would be the case in a lesbian marriage. But that is also the case in divorce-on-demand, which is not opposed politically by the Church.
My children are growing up without a father, because their father died when they were ages 7, 5, and 3. I can tell you from my own experience, I think the hardest part is being single. In other words, not having a partner to assist with training and discipline. Not having someone to take turns wearing the black hat, and therefore having to always be the bad guy, the mean parent. It gets old, and you start to get a little more permissive than you would have been with a partner. So I guess what I’m saying is, it would be great to have the support of another parent. But honestly, if I were so inclined, I don’t think it would make any difference whether that partner were male or female. The issue is not having to go it alone.
Part 4 concerns the definition of marriage, but at no point spells out the Catholic definition, so I will attempt: A sacramental union between one man and one woman, which is lifelong, mutually exclusive, and open to procreation.”
No society, anywhere, has ever insisted on these things as a matter of law. The fact that same-sex marriage is unprecedented does not mean it is bad for society. Only time will tell. But in my experience, it is amazing to me to see the way same-sex couples treat one another, compared to heterosexual couples. Guess which group could take lessons from the other in that department?
But the point still is this: Church law cannot dictate civil law. Nor, in the case of marriage, has it ever tried to do so. Until now.
JoAnna—What I mean by the difference in this case is that in no other marriage issue has the Church been politically active. If a vote to outlaw divorce-on-demand were brought before Congress, I don’t think that Catholics who voted against it would be threatened with ex-communication. Yet that is what happened with the gay marriage vote in New York. As has already been noted, it is entirely possible to believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and also to believe they have the civil right to marry, just as it is possible to believe divorce & remarriage is wrong, but still believe those couples have the civil right to marry.
I can not find historical evidence of the Church threatening ex-communication to candidates who supported the legalization of chemical birth control. If you know of it I would appreciate that. But if it came to Congress for a vote today, I doubt that candidates would be threatened with ex-communication for voting to keep it legal.
Part 5 seems to be about restricting sexual activity between men and women (via monogamy) so that the children produced will have a stable environment, financial support, etc. Again I don’t see how gays marrying would undermine heterosexual monogamy, domestic stability, or financial security for their children. I certainly DO see, right before my eyes for the past four decades, how divorce-on-demand undermines all these things.
Of course the Church has always opposed divorce-on-demand in her teachings, and may well have tried to oppose legislation in its favor (though I find no evidence to indicate that) The point is, the Church seems to have been content to affirm her teachings on marriage apart from political action, until now. No one is threatened with ex-communication in regard to chemical birth control, even if they openly use it in their own marriage, and that is potentially killing a newly formed fetus! No one is ex-communicated for getting a divorce on the grounds of ‘incompatibility’. Instead they are given an annulment so they can re-marry! These things (and more) add up to a lot of inconsistencies, and it really makes one wonder.
@ Evan, Jeff and Alex, thanks for your earlier responses. The key to being part of the solution to the problem of contraception is awareness, most people are not fully aware of the connections. They are also not aware of how NFP works. We be leaven. God Bless, Dave WS.
I think one thing we can all agree on is that sex is a wild thing and that its results (e.g. children) and negative consequences (e.g. sexually-transmitted infections) have to be contained, for our own good and the good of the new people who might result from it. We can do this by limiting sex to a context where its results can be managed in an orderly fashion and its negative consequences are unlikely to occur, or we can let it run wild and try to contain its results and negative consequences artificially.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of artificial containment has been disastrous for our society. Not only that, but the mentality behind this strategy is grounded in a fear of the consequences of sex, whereas its alternative allows much more appreciation of its fruits and frees one from fear. It’s amazing how many people claim that sex is natural and should be available to everyone, then go to incredible lengths to defend against its consequences, even using the sexual faculties in perverted ways in order to avoid them. In the face of evidence that even condoms cannot stem the spread of disease, many now simply minimize it, arguing that diseases like genital Herpes are merely a “fact of life.” It is as G.K. Chesterton said, “Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”
It’s ridiculous to pretend artifical contraception has disasterous effects. What’s obvious is the neurotic crippling of proper sex education in this country, hobbled by religious conservatives, has been the disaster. More religious states have greater problems than less conservative. Less religious western countries have fewer problems than America does with its sexually obsessed religious conservatives. So no it’s not ‘pretty clear’ because such an assertion defies both logic and evidence.
bob said, “What’s obvious is the neurotic crippling of proper sex education in this country”
What is “proper” sex education? And you seem to be ignoring some notable possible signs of success in this department. For instance, a few months ago it was widely reported that a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) survey revealed a significant increase in the number of young people who had had no sexual contact with another person for the years 2006-2008 compared to 2002. Of course, the mainstream news media was careful to avoid connecting this with the increase in abstinence-only sex-ed programs over the past decade or so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/us-more-us-youth-say-they-having-sex-idUSTRE7227XC20110303
Kevin, proper sex education is that which informs kids of all options. That includes proper use, risks, etc. Abstinence doesn’t work. It delays the initial sexual experience by almost a year, but kids are STILL going to have sex. I’m not sure what you have against sex, but 90% of people have PRE MARITAL sex and that’s not going to change, nor should it. Sex is fun, healthy and there’s no reason not to engange in it with proper precautions.
bob, abstinence always works. I can attest to its effectiveness myself. Unlike artificial contraception, it never fails at preventing unwanted pregnancy or the transmission of disease, even if you practice it all the way until you get married, no matter how many years that is. (And if you happen never to get married, it works until the day you die!) How you can beat that, I don’t know.
“90% of people have PRE MARITAL sex and that’s not going to change”
That very well may change, as societal attitudes tend to swing back and forth much more than continue in a straight line, and we’re certainly due for a correction. One thing that definitely won’t change, however, is the consequences of premarital sex.
“Sex is fun, healthy and there’s no reason not to engange in it with proper precautions.”
I agree totally. Of course, the only really proper precaution is marriage, followed by fidelity.
“sex education is that which informs kids of all options”
Would that include informing them of the relative merits of the “options,” or just telling them what those options are and letting them figure out for themselves which ones work better than others?
bob:
Abstinence is definitely 100% effective against preventing pregnancy and STDs. People who want to teach kids how to use contraception always use old stand-by: “Abstinence doesn’t work because kids will have sex.” However, if you think logically this is a ridiculous argument. Not having sex, a state otherwise known by the term “abstinence,” DOES work at preventing pregnancies and venereal disease, every single time. Because, you know, you are not having sex. If you end up having sex anyway, then abstinence has not failed you. YOU have failed to be abstinent. This is more an indictment of how bad some people are at controlling themselves than of abstinence-only education.
I know, I know. The point they are trying to put across is that kids can’t possibly be expected to keep their pants on, ever, not in a million gajillion years, thus they should be taught to contracept so they won’t do something phenomenally stupid like conceive an infant child—bleh!—but why make a clear statement like that when you can say something vague and politically charged like “Abstinence-only education is a failure”? Much easier!
bob said, “it’s not ‘pretty clear’ [that the strategy of artificial containment of sex’s results and negative consequences has been disastrous for our society] because such an assertion defies both logic and evidence”
Over a million abortions are performed in this country each year. Guttmacher has collected statistics about the women who procure abortions, and only 12% indicate that they lack access to artificial contraceptives for financial or other reasons. And 13-14% report having used a contraceptive method correctly in the month before they became pregnant. The statistics don’t include the number of women seeking abortions who were abstinent, but I’m guessing it’s pretty close to 0. I don’t have any source of statistics regarding the percentage of those with new cases of sexually-transmitted infections who have or don’t have access to artificial contraceptives, but given that the CDC has found “no clinical proof that condoms are effective in reducing the risk of infection from chlamydia, genital herpes, HPV, syphilis, chancroid or trichomoniasis,” I’m guessing they wouldn’t be much different than they are for abortion. (http://www.choicesaz.org/pregnancy/birth_control/condoms.shtml)
So Kevin’s argument that failure to USE birth control means birth control fails. First, many MARRIED women get abortions. So abstinence isn’t really the issue. Responsible birth control use IS. Again, America, one of the most religious countries in the world, has high birthrates out of wedlock, etc. Other countries which are LESS religious, and where premarital sex is quite common, DON’T have the problems we do. So it’s not BIRTH CONTROL that’s the problem, it’s RELIGION, poor education and irresponsibility. Many women in the more religious states, for example, say they don’t use birth control before marriage because they’re not supposed to have sex, even though they will. Illogical? Yep. Yet that’s one result of religion.
“abstinence always works. I can attest to its effectiveness myself.”
So it works when you tell others to commit to abstinence and not give them another means of contraception? Does this work?
“what a gay sex columnist thinks relationships should be like, which is basically a loosey-goosey pledge of mutual love in which expectations for outside sexual fulfillment may be negotiated by the partners.”
How is marriage as defined by one’s state “loosey-goosey” and why are you implying that all gays want this?
bob said, “So Kevin’s argument that failure to USE birth control means birth control fails.”
Pardon me, but how is that not the exact same argument you use when you suggest that “abstinence doesn’t work”?!
—
“First, many MARRIED women get abortions. So abstinence isn’t really the issue. Responsible birth control use IS.”
In those case, abstinence before marriage isn’t the issue, but abstinence within marriage is certainly a reasonable solution. Not the long-term absolute abstinence required before marriage, of course, but periodic and temporary abstinence, which is just as effective at delaying pregnancy or spacing births as any artificial method, but without the health hazards (e.g. oral contraceptives are the top risk factor for breast cancer). Except for the marginal improvement in abortion rates and out-of-wedlock births that could be expected from making contraceptives available to the few people who still don’t have access to them, making significant improvements in these statistics with either method - abstinence or artificial contraception - requires getting people to voluntarily change their behavior. Is there a reason to think that one is going to be more successful than the other?
The end does not justify the means;
we need to have a good means and end. Contraception literary means “against the beginning”. To contracept is to act against the beginning, to then have sex. Abortion follows easily if a child is conceived after a contraceptive act occurs outside of marriage, but also inside marriage, because an action has already been taken against conception. Abstinence is not taking any action, abstaining from both a contraceptive action and sex. Knowing when your wife is fertile is not a contraceptive action, it is simply awareness. Yes the end is the same, but very different means.
Not to mention children without sex.
Thanks MK. I’ve been thinking of the word “Indifference”.
Contraception brought indifference to procreation being part of sex, sex belonging in marriage, and therefore marriage being for family. Then the plague of divorce abetted by contraception brought indifference to the permanence of marriage.
Gay marriage brings total indifference to procreation; indifference to marriage being for complementary sexes only. Gay marriage will also bring indifference to exclusivity within marriage; gay men are not adaptable to only one partner.
These are the things that have defined marriage for two millennia or more: complementary, permanent, exclusive and open to life. What do you think?
David WS,
I think you’re brilliant. I wish I had said that!
Sounds pretty irresponsible to be overpopulating the world when we’re in such bad shape. Why do you think the gay gene turns on?
“Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Wednesday, Aug 3, 2011 3:28 PM (EDT):
@ Bob: Because, of course, no sociological work on the relationship of the Pill to the sexual revolution has ever been done before.
that’s simply not true.
Check this out: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/birth_control_pills_helped_empower_women_changed_world.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_revolution.html
Asbell, Bernard. The Pill: A Biography of the Drug That Changed the World. 1st ed. New York: Random House, 1995.
Epstein, Barbara. “Feminist Consciousness after the Women’s Movement.” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 54, no. 4 (2002): 31-37. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed March 27, 2009).
“Freedom from Fear.” Time, April 7, 1967. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html.
Lawrence, Leah. “Reproductive Liberty and Social Reform in the Shape of a Pill.” Endocrine Today 6, no. 12 (July 10, 2008): 20. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 31, 2009).
Leitzell, Katherine. “The Passions Behind the Pill.” U.S. News & World Report 143, no. 5 (2007): 68-69. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 31, 2009).
Maynard, Joyce. “The Sexual Revolution Exists All Right.” In Second to None: A Documentary History of American Women. Vol. 2. Lincoln [Neb.]: University of Nebraska Press, 1993, 311-313.
McCormick, Katharine to Margaret Sanger, June 19, 1954. In Women’s Letters: America from the Revolutionary War to the Present, edited by Lisa Grunwald and Stephen J. Adler. New York: Dial Press, 2005.
McLaughlin, Loretta. The Pill, John Rock, and the Church: The Biography of a Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, 1982.
Sanger, Margaret. Family Limitation. New York: s.n, 1917. Available online at http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/familylimitations.pdf.
Solinger, Rickie. Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America. New York: New York University Press, 2005.
“The Pill: American Experience.” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/index.html (accessed March 3, 2009).
“The Pill and Morality.” New York Times, November 21, 1965. Historical Newspapers, ProQuest (accessed March 31, 2009).
“U.S. Approves Pill for Birth Control.” New York Times, May 10, 1960. Historical Newspapers, ProQuest (accessed March 31, 2009).
Looking at some of the earlier articles and comments there is a persistent tendency to create as fact statements that are simply wrong.
Roma,
Overpopulating the world??? Gay Gene???
First, define “overpopulate”? Exactly how many are too many and why? What criteria are you using to decide when there are too many people? WHO decides? Who decides which ones get to live and which ones do not???
Second, what “gay gene”? As far as I know there is no evidence that a gay gene exists. I’m not saying there isn’t one, but you speak as if it’s accepted fact. Even if there is, what do you mean by “turns on”?
Roma,
While we’re at it, what do you mean by such bad shape? We’re living longer than ever, able to grow more food than ever, have advanced in medicine, can now reach the entire world…I don’t get it. When it comes to better living, we are in our prime. Distribution of resources is a far different thing than lack of resources.
@ Roma: Thanks for providing some supporting documentation on the point of my ironic statement. (You do realize that the real import of my statement was “Ample sociological work on the relationship of the Pill to the sexual revolution has been done, so it’s just silly to say ‘There’s no evidence that the Pill has had any effect on the trends you’re talking about’”?)
I’ve now posted Part 8.
Part 9 is up.
Part 10 is now up.
purchase online to get new coupon
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.