The answer is yes, according to the latest argument posted at Discussing Marriage. Check out the full article here: http://discussingmarriage.org/argument-from-limited-government.php#.U7GzBsbsGI4
Be sure to like the Facebook page to be updated as new installments are published! www.facebook.com/discussingmarriage
(Or subscribe at www.discussingmarriage.org/subscribe)
Here’s the video:
New Post: Should those Who Support Limited Government Also Support Traditional Marriage?: The ans… http://t.co/Y5a8F7Kx5d #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Should those Who Support Limited Government Also Support Traditional Marriage? http://t.co/jLu3H23JiO #lds #mormon
Absolutely awesome, LDSP
As a libertarian, I believe in leaving that choice to the various states to decide for themselves. The Feds should be totally out of marriage. If one state is for traditional marriage and another is for same sex marriage, it allows for individuals to choose where to live, where they do not have to abide by a law they do not like.
As long as there is freedom of movement and association, then there is no problem in this thing.
I really have trouble with the term “traditional marriage.” Even in the United States we have “traditions” and laws which allowed polygamy, arranged marriages, child marriages, no miscegenation, common law unions, serial monogamy, widow marries spouse’s single brother and the like. A more accurate term would be “marriage only between a man and a woman.”
I often think the term “traditional marriage” is part of the Frank Luntz effect. The term resonates, in this case positively, with people more. Much like the opponents of the inheritance tax want to use the tern “death tax” or proponents of allowing abortion like to say “pro choice.”
2nd and 3rd links are incorrect, missing http prefix, and therby defaulting to this web site.
The video argues that marriage is a “natural” state that arises from the procreation of men and women. I would take issue with this statement. To me it seems like promiscuity is the “natural” state of mankind. This can clearly be seen in the pornographic instinct in modern society which afflicts LDS men as much as anyone. Also, it is clearly “natural” that fathers feel much less of a commitment to care and provide for their offspring than mothers. I would say that probably most scientists and sociologists would describe marriage as a cultural and religious construct whose primary purpose is to subdue the promiscuous instinct and give men a duty to provide and care for their offspring, for which they are not as naturally inclined as the mother is. Without the commitment of marriage, children are not provided for, leading to societal decay. But its not just children. Promiscuity itself also spreads disease and hurts women, particularly older women, who will be continually cast away for younger models. A marriage commitment breeds greater happiness in both partners as sexuality becomes an expression that transcends pure sexual appeal, and becomes an expression of love. This leads to satisfaction, which leads to stability in society.
So even if same-same sex marriages don’t technically lead to procreation, they still lead to many of the same benefits which are healthy for society at large. It subdues promiscuity by promoting a commitment to fidelity, limiting the spread of disease among homosexuals. It creates greater happiness in same-sex partners by encouraging discipline in fidelity, focusing sexual behavior upon a single partner, leading to love, satisfaction, and ultimately contributes to stability in society.
How might this understanding effect the libertarian argument, or must marriage be ONLY about rearing children in order to work?
Nate,
The video argues that marriage is a “natural” state that arises from the procreation of men and women. I would take issue with this statement. To me it seems like promiscuity is the “natural” state of mankind.
We’ve had this exact same conversation about this exact same misunderstanding on this exact same subject on this exact same blog before. There is a technical use of the word “natural” in natural law theory that is wholly distinct and different from the “natural man” use of the word natural. “Natural” in this context is a philosophical term that has nothing to do with how often something occurs in nature. For example, someone could have a “natural” right to property, even though the “state of nature” is anarchic and does not respect it.
Have you brushed up on your understanding of natural law / natural rights theory since last time? Or are you going to continue to think that natural means something different in this context than how we are using the term? I seem to remember that you admitted last time to being unaware of the philosophical use of the term in the context of natural law or natural rights theory — have you corrected that yet, or will it continue to be a stumbling block for you?
Marriage is by no means “natural” in the sense that people will do it “naturally” without strong societal norms channeling them in that direction. Tradition and law are needed, because without tradition and law, people do gravitate towards promiscuity. If marriage were natural in the sense that you describe, there would be no need for concern. But since that’s not how we’re using the word “natural” at all, your response is grounded in a deep misunderstanding of the argument at hand.
On any other day, I would attribute this misunderstanding to a lack of communication on our part. But since the way we’re using the term here is actually quite common — any time someone talks about a “natural” right, they are using the term this way — and since you have already expressed ignorance on this regards, I humbly suggest that you spend some time learning about the philosophy of natural rights and natural law (and the “state of nature” thought experiments often used to get at them) before responding again.
I don’t know whether people or more prone to promiscuity versus long term coupling or not. Certainly there have been times and places where virtually no real form of government existed, so that people were either in tribes or some other form of “community,” and I would think they still tended towards long term pairing off. I certainly believe legal constraints are a good thing, though we seem to be moving towards a society that only half way believes marital stability is a good thing, and then only when “the kids are young.” More and more couples are divorcing after 25 years of marriage as kids leave the home and because more women don’t need to rely on their husbands financially. I think the promiscuity aspect is more dominant in the 20’s and 30’s, but begins to level out and go away heading into the 40’s and 50’s and beyond. It’s hard to know what would actually happen if we did completely away with ‘marriage’ because it’s been around for so long. I know Ram wants to have it as a states right thing, but then you run into the issue a SSM in Hawaii moving to a state with no SSM and whether the non-SSM state would have to recognize the Hawaiian SSM, etc. I sort of would like to see government completely out of the marriage business, but I don’t believe that’s what church leaders want.
I’m all for as many state records documenting marriages and provenance for kids as I can possibly get. It’s the genealogist in me.
Jeff T. ” Or are you going to continue to think that natural means something different in this context than how we are using the term?”
I don’t think I’m the only one that doesn’t understand Natural Law Theory. Plus Natural Law Theory seems to have wildly different manifestations, from Aquinas’s Natural Law, which is not “natural” at all, because it only works under rigorous self-control. Then Hobbes, who says the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. So whatever the video’s interpretation of Natural Law, it is only one particular version of it, which is by no means universally accepted. Maybe if you used a different word than “natural.”
If I understand correctly, your use of the word “natural” relates to our intrinsic moral sense. We have some kind of intrinsic morality which motivates us towards monogamy and fidelity, i. e. marriage. You could say “humans are endowed with a conscience, or moral sense of right and wrong, which leads them to make vows of fidelity to each other.”
Family, clan, tribe, state, all have an interest in identifying the male parentage of children. Female parentage is pretty much self evident except in situations where some entity has provided for caring for anonymously abandoned children in which situation the entity assumes responsibility for caring for the child. It is one of the important purposes of marriage to protect children by assigning responsibility for their support. The terms for an unacknowledged child and a woman who bears children out of marriage bond or who is suspected of cuckolding her husband are insults in every culture I know of before our era.
When the family or clan assumes responsibility for children it is usually because the father is known but is unable to provide for his children because of death or incapacity and the mother continues to have responsibility. When a state provides for children the equation of responsibility is twisted. I have known young women who resisted marrying the fathers of their children, even when the man was willing. In our current social environment there is little or no shame involved in bearing children to satisfy emotional cravings and rely on the state to provide support when the mother’s efforts fall short.
This inevitably undermines one of the primary reasons for marriage. More and more it becomes a matter of emotional attachment and sexual attraction. When either begins to fail short, the marriage is abandoned.
The statistics for divorce in first time marriages have been mistaken because most were based on projection rather than current reality which is somewhat lower. Even so, as divorce becomes easier to obtain, some view marriage as a test drive rather than a lifelong commitment meant to provide stability and support for offspring.
To sum up, I believe it is the socialization of child support that threatens marriage more than any other influence.
Nate, read Locke or Mill or Rothbard or even Barnett (writing in the last decade) to understand what LDSP means about natural law.
Pat, one complex exception. In the U.S. slaves followed the status of the mother. It was permissible for a male slave owner to molest female slaves. If we followed common law, any resulting children would have been free. Thus laws were passed to protect “the property rights” of the slave owner and status came through the mother in that situation. Of course, women were not allowed to molest male slaves as that would be sinful as well as a challenge to the white male’s fear for his sense of masculinity.
So even if same-same sex marriages don’t technically lead to procreation, they still lead to many of the same benefits which are healthy for society at large. It subdues promiscuity by promoting a commitment to fidelity, limiting the spread of disease among homosexuals.
Given that fifty-odd percent of American marriages supposedly end in divorce, as well as the incidents of adultery and “open marriages” in relationships that don’t end in divorce; I’m afraid we have moved beyond the time when we can equate “marriage” to “sexual monogamy”.
It creates greater happiness in same-sex partners by encouraging discipline in fidelity, focusing sexual behavior upon a single partner, leading to love, satisfaction, and ultimately contributes to stability in society.
That’s very nice; but I don’t pay county clerks to track marriages, or subsidize spousal retirement/health care/social security benefits, or support laws allowing Americans to petition their non-citizen spouses into the country, so that people can “be happy”; or even because I think that their 50%-chance-of-a-lifelong-union will contribute to some nebulous notion of “stability”. I pay for this stuff because it fosters an environment where children can be raised, ideally by at least one stay-at-home parent.
If marriage is no longer inherently tied to sexual monogamy or child-rearing, then what exactly am I paying for?
JimD,
We don’t even have to cite the moral mess of American marriages in general. We can simply point to the fact that gay and lesbian relationships have never been monogamous, generally speaking. Promiscuity has been a hallmark of homosexual activity from the beginning. Honest gays and lesbians are quite open about this. (Just do some research — it’s all out there). There ain’t much monogamy going on with that crowd.
Michael Towns, promiscuity is a halmark of homosexual activity, because homosexuality has always been seen as a subversive, countercultural activity, unfit to be held to even the lowest of Western cultural standards (until now.) Now that homosexuality is mainstream, the desire exists among gay couples to get married and to be monogamous, to adopt heterosexual values and apply them to homsoexuality. I know a number of gay married couples who are not fooling around, and for whom an affair would constitute a great betrayal. This is not for religious or cultural reasons, but because monogamy is an expression of love and loyalty, a love that transcends the physical.
Among men, homosexual relationships will always be more open than heterosexual ones, because men are naturally more promiscuous than women. Men understand men and they are more tolerant of each other. Women are completely intolerant of men being men, so men have to be more like women in marriage. I think you will find lesbian relationships to be far more monogamous.
But gays also have more than their fair share of feminine attributes, primarily nesting instincts. Ever been to a gay couple’s house? The cleanliness, order, and artsiness of an average gay home would put any Martha Stewart supermom to shame. So there is an instinct for domesticity, for peaceful coexistence with a partner, for a white-picket fence and impeccable garden. Most gays eventually want to leave the den of promiscuity for something more like this.
Nate,
Don’t shoot the messenger. Do some research and read a few books on the subject. As I stated earlier, gays are upfront about promiscuity in the LGBT communities. No doubt there are some gays that want to mimic fidelity. Those exceptions rather prove the rule.
Pointing out truths doesn’t have to be inherently mean-spirited. We gain nothing by pretending something is so when it isn’t so. And you’ll note, I don’t deny the radical promiscuity of your average American couple. There is a reason why swinger clubs are booming.