Should Gay Marriages be Allowed? Becker

Many gay couples want to be allowed to call their union "marriage" mainly because they believe this will give their relation a degree of acceptance that is closer to that given to heterosexual unions. They also believe that marriage connotes a more stable long-term relation, although gay unions have a well-known tendency to dissolve at even higher rates than heterosexual marriages, and that very likely would continue even if their unions are called marriages. The narrowly economic gains from being married are a decidedly minor part of the desire by gays to have their matches called marriages. For the reasons just stated, one can understand why many gay couples want to be allowed to marry. What I find difficult to understand is why there is so much opposition; for example, I doubt if a referendum legalizing gay marriage would pass in many states. As Posner indicates, allowing gay couples to marry will have little effect on either the attraction or stability of marriages between heterosexuals. I believe this opposition reflects hostility to gays and their unions that can no longer be expressed in other more traditional forms, such as calling them names or harassing them. As a result, the marriage issue has become a rallying point that allows hostility to gays to be hidden behind other reasons. To be sure, it is a strange way to express that hostility in light of other options that have been allowed to gays that are far more radical. I am mainly thinking of the recent practices of allowing gay couples, married or not, to adopt children, allowing lesbian couples to bear children through sperm supplied by sperm banks, or allowing male gay couples to use their sperm to impregnate women who bear children that a gay couple raises. Although rather few gay couples have children as yet, that practice is a far bigger venture into the unknown than is permitting gay couples to be married. It is still too early to have reliable evidence on the effects on children of being raised by gay parents, but I suspect these effects will be more negative than positive, in part because even married gay couples are likely to dissolve their match at relatively high rates. I also find it strange that gays having and raising children arouses much less opposition than does polygamy, where several women voluntarily agree to be married to the same man (a far rarer form of polygamy is when several men agree to be married to the same woman). Why should society care if two (or more) women are willing to be married to the same man, especially in an environment where men and women rather than their parents generally make their choices about who to marry? We trust women to make many other decisions that seem strange to others-such as when a twenty year old woman marries a 65 year old man- so what logical grounds are there to disallow several woman voluntarily accepting marriage to the same man? Moreover, since polygamy would increase the demand for women as marital partners-however slightly since polygamy would be very uncommon- the argument that it is a form of exploitation of women is also without foundation. I have proposed for many years that marriage should be basically a private contract between the men and women involved-they can add a religious ceremony if they so desire. There is no reason why the standard contract should be supplied by the government rather than by market forces. An explicit contract would be compulsory, even if it only has a minimum number of stipulations and rules. Most persons marrying might use such a standard contract, but others would have special provisions, such as the allocation of assets in event of dissolution, responsibilities for housework and other activities, and obligations toward children. The state would set minimum obligations toward children since society has an interest in how children are treated. Such contracts would be equally available to homosexuals, as they are already in some countries and many states of the United States. These contracts would reduce the role of governments in marital arrangements where they have no special competence or interests- again, aside from the protection of children. It would also eliminate the gay marriage issue since gays would have access to contracts as fully as heterosexuals. It would also allow couples to stipulate in writing any special arrangements they want to see enforced in their unions. Such contracts are unlikely to replace government determined marital terms in the foreseeable future. So until then, it would be wise to expand the concept of marriage to include homosexual relations, and perhaps polygamy as well.

Comments

[Asia]

In my opinion, the private contracts of marrige that have been referred have their own merits, but government law should also be used to prevent commitments such as deterrence,etc.

[DDG]

I wish Becker would elaborate on his totally unfounded, unsupported, objections to children being raised by gay couples. Whatever happened to the "going from theory to empirics" so present in hi Theory of the Family?

Sadly, in this case, there happens to be no compelling theory and no compelling evidence to support his claim that the negatives outweigh the positives for children and gay families.

Professor Becker, it would have been a wonderful column if not for this paragraph reflecting prejudice and stereotypes.

[DDG]

Mr Chris Graves says that "The family is the main source of social welfare of its individuals coupled with a personalistic, caring ethic. As people become less connected with people who care for them in a tender and special way, they become more callous and less willing to care for others. People cannot live alone without ties to others. As Aristotle noted, only a beast or a god can live alone."

Precisely Sir: that is why everyone, gay and straight, should be allowed to form families and be in committed relationships.

You fail to see how your own comment makes absolutely no sense. Your bigotry gets in the way of your thinking and you come across as someone badly in need of some logic, and writing courses. Check it: you'll see how nonsensical it is.

[GP]

HH writes: "one cannot marry an animal any more than one can marry a chair - animals are property under the law..."

Hm - since an animal is my property I am entitled to kill it, cut it into pieces, and consume it, but marrying it is quite out of the question? Interesting perspective on "property rights".

Who says you can't marry a chair. Or an animal. Or a fictional character. Just because it doesn't conform to YOUR idea of what marriage is about? Who are you to force your narrow-minded views on others? Life is short and painful enough as it is - who are you to go around and tell people they can't do something that they think might bring them a little happiness.

"[this one guy] wants to keep an open mind—up to a point. He chuckles and chides at those quaint reactionaries who won't carry open-mindedness as far as he thinks it should be carried, but rolls a scandalized eye and clucks a warning tongue at those foolish radicals who carry it farther than that." - Hugh Nibley

[mckasklep]

The main "practical" objection to polygamous marriages seems to be that they usually result in undue subjugation of the female partners. This often seems to be the case even where it is legal as in Muslim dominated countries. I think it is unlikely that even "enlightened" courts such as those in MA and CA would ever sanction polygamous marriages (although the rationale used for same-sex marriages would apply equally to polygamous marriages). The main reasons these courts wouldn't is probably a combination of much greater public distaste for polygamy, and the probability that many, if not most, polygamous marriages involve subjugation of the female partners.

But, what if three gay men want to marry. The subjugation argument fails, and if "equal protection" in this context means what the MA and CA courts say it means, and if these courts are honest, they should approve a polygamous marriage between three (or more) same sex individuals.

[HH]

"Hm - since an animal is my property I am entitled to kill it, cut it into pieces, and consume it, but marrying it is quite out of the question? Interesting perspective on "property rights".
Who says you can't marry a chair. Or an animal. Or a fictional character. Just because it doesn't conform to YOUR idea of what marriage is about? Who are you to force your narrow-minded views on others? Life is short and painful enough as it is - who are you to go around and tell people they can't do something that they think might bring them a little happiness."

As much as I hate to engage in silly arguments, but I'm taking the bait if this is serious. If we're actually talking about marriage, or any other contract, it requires two parties that are aware that they're entering a contract. Two gay persons would count. Insane people, animals, inanimate objects, etc, clearly doesn't count. You can't foist an obligation on someone who doesn't know they're taking obligations on.

[GP]

HH: "As much as I hate to engage in silly arguments..."

Nothing silly about it if it establishes a point. The meaning of "marriage" thus shown to be mutable, why should it not change further? Perhaps someday people will chuckle and shake their heads when they think back at the quaint idea that marriage had to be a contract between consenting people.

Now, what marriage means has changed a lot in the last hundred years, and has had many different significances throughout the millennia and across cultures - and homosexuals wanting to marry hasn't had much to do with it. Their case is a symptom, not a cause. People do seem to have definite ideas about what marriage means to them and to their community, and it changes but not always very quickly.

Even now, the average person seems a little leery of homosexual marriage, if for no other reason than that it doesn't quite square with their idea of what marriage is all about. Given time to get used to the idea, of course, they'll wonder why they ever thought homosexuals shouldn't marry, and what the big fuss was abount anyway.

I am genuinely interested in seeing what the next generation of Westerners makes of marriage. With legal and social controls out of the picture, I imagine an impressive variety of arrangements and practices. For, who are we to tell someone what they can and can't do?

[HH]

"For, who are we to tell someone what they can and can't do?"

Aye, the eternal conflict: are we telling someone they can't do something or are we protecting someone who can't protect himself? I don't disagree that marriage has a mutable meaning. Any word does. Are we telling someone "you can't rob this person" or "you can't marry this person"? Is the difference one of degree or one of absolutes? Can we never stop someone or are there times when intervention is justified?

I was placing my comments in the current legal and political world, though I think they would hold up in most human societies: don't some people/animals/things deserve protection from others, in a sense? Don't very young people or animals deserve protection from people who would "marry" them and then, under the guise of marriage as we understand it, physically violate them? Wouldn't it be silly to say that an object incapable of suffering [like a chair] has been violated, or than an object incapable of agreeing to obey a contract [like a chair] has agreed to fulfill the duties under a contract.

We can talk about the proper scope of marriage and of contracts some other time. But right now, the discussion is limited to marriage as a contract conferring rights and obligations on parties, and I feel it doesn't help to undermine the meaning of the central term in the discussion.

[Chris Graves]

DDG makes the following reply to my comments on Gary Becker's views on homosexual marriage. Below his comments and his excerpt from my original post is my reply denoted by "CR" for "Chris' Reply."

Mr Chris Graves says that "The family is the main source of social welfare of its individuals coupled with a personalistic, caring ethic. As people become less connected with people who care for them in a tender and special way, they become more callous and less willing to care for others. People cannot live alone without ties to others. As Aristotle noted, only a beast or a god can live alone."

Precisely Sir: that is why everyone, gay and straight, should be allowed to form families and be in committed relationships.

You fail to see how your own comment makes absolutely no sense. Your bigotry gets in the way of your thinking and you come across as someone badly in need of some logic, and writing courses. Check it: you'll see how nonsensical it is.

CR (Chris' reply): Thanks for your comments, DDG. First, homosexual men have much less stable relationships than do heterosexual men who are married. Very few married men break up a marriage although about 20% of married men do things to provoke women to divorce them--adultery, abuse. Women seem to civilize and stabilize men.
Lesbian relationships are more stable than male homosexual relationships, but they may lack the ability to provide for the family in many cases. Women are also more likely to be victims of crime than men. There is a reason for men's traditional role in the family. Men also can act as emotional "containers" and provide an emotional stability for women.
In either case, children lack the direct experience of forming close relationships with both sexes as well as observing the intimate interactions between the sexes.
Finally, providing various permutations for sexual and emotional relationships introduce competition for traditional marriage, which has a proven track record for working well for everyone. CR

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

I will never understand why nosy politicians need to come into the bedroom.

[Anonymous]

ny0lXQ

[Anonymous]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
I am from Eritrea and too poorly know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Mexico vacation specials villa la estancia vacation packages nts."

THX :), Thais.

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
ed hardy

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

thanks for your

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

XlQZrW I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Good Day. As a scientist, I am not sure anymore that life can be reduced to a class struggle, to dialectical materialism, or any set of formulas. Life is spontaneous and it is unpredictable, it is magical. I think that we have struggled so hard with the tangible that we have forgotten the intangible.
I am from Emirates and learning to write in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Advantages of hoover vacuum cleaners."

:-) Thanks in advance. Lindhaus vacuum cleaner.

[Anonymous]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™
شات صوتى