Children Make a Marriage into a Family, but SSM Does Not Follow

Here's a "same-sex marriage" (SSM) non sequitur.

See if you can follow this logic:

1) The institution of marriage is under duress.

2) The reason is because too many people see "love" as the most important reason for marriage.

3) In reality, child-rearing is more important in defining the purpose of family.

Ergo,

4) "...we need to tie it [marriage] more closely to the family as we now understand it--which is to say, to adults raising children. And that means, if nothing else, moving forward with SSM as quickly as possible."

One of the logical problems with the relationship of these premises to this conclusion is that there is some kind of ambiguity between the functional use of the terms marriage and family in this discussion. 

It's true that we need to connect the natural telos of marriage to child-rearing rather than some ephemeral or hormonal understanding of pseudo-romantic love. But that would seem to lead us toward the normativity of the institution of heterosexual marriage, wherein the same couple that join to beget the children stay together to raise them.

Update: The conversation continues at the Spiritual Politics blog.

Comments

[R.C.]

Put it more simply:

Every human child has an unalienable human right to be raised by his or her biological father and mother who are married.

The biological father can be replaced by an adoptive father without violating the child's rights, provided that the child knows the identity of the biological father.

The biological mother can be replaced by an adoptive mother without violating the child's rights, provided that the child knows the identity of the biological mother.

If the child is deprived of being raised by their father or mother through mishap, that is a tragedy.

But if the child is deprived of being raised by their father or mother through the willful action of a human being, whether as a matter of divorce or abandonment or some other human action, that is a violation of the unalienable rights of the child and ought to be prosecuted as a crime.

A same-sex "couple" may not therefore adopt a child: They deprive the child of either a father or a mother.

There should be no such thing as no-fault divorce for parents; depriving the children of married parents ought to be a crime except in cases of abuse and endangerment.

As a corollary, sperm donors should never be permitted anonymity: The child has a right to know the identity of their biological father.

In short: Our society is suffering from multiple injustices because of our failure to recognize and protect the unalienable human rights of children.

[Bob Suszka]

I totally agree with you. Parents this day in age contribute to their children's dysfuction. My aunt had 2 sons from her 1st marriage and he walked out on her, she remarried and had a daughter and her husband raised the boys as his own. I am impressed on how they turned out. Both US Veterans and very good people, so if they know, they know, but when someone else molds and influences them in a positive way that should also be commended. Parents also forgot to parent, they would rather be friends than parents, a friendship is good, but that comes when the child is older, not from birth on.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The author's piece at Spiritual Politics is philosophically incoherent. It depends upon imagining that we live in the world of Ozzy and Harriet where marriage is a social norm that society guards and enforces while at the same time assuming that we are in Will and Grace territory that sees no problem with homosexuality.

Marriage cannot be a stabilizing force when the society that is supposed to back it up already has given up onj it through easy divorce and now gay unions.

[Zoe Tucker]

May I ask the name of the person who came up with the title 'Children make marriage a family' as I think it is a very helpful quote I would be able to use in an essay for my university work.
As there is no name of the editor, it is hard to reference.

Thank you