Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Union’s goal should be procreation

Letter by Alice C. Hori, Auburn on March 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm with 23 Comments »
March 23, 2011 2:33 pm

Re: Leonard Pitts Jr.’s column (TNT, 3-23).

The question of same-sex marriage is usually approached as though the state awarded couples the benefits of marriage by right of their mutual affection – and shouldn’t all affections be included as a matter of justice?

But it is not the purpose of state-sponsored marriage to promote every manner of fond feeling. Same-sex romantic partnerships (or same-sex platonic friendships) are by their nature unrelated to the production and raising of children, and are thereby not the kind of friendships suitable for marriage.

Sexual love between a man and a woman, in contrast, is fundamentally ordered to the procreation of children. Children are the expected natural outcome of the relationship, which forms, not coincidentally, the ideal arrangement for their care and raising.

The statistics are beyond dispute at this point: Children do best socially, emotionally, academically and materially if they are raised and nurtured by their own parents in a single household. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best incubator of future citizens; hence governments since time immemorial have tried to promote and fortify the institution.

Others may “pinch-hit” in the raising of children when the natural family structure has collapsed, but an intact natural family is statistically preferable, and society recognizes this fact through the rights and benefits conferred by state marriage.

Leave a comment Comments → 23
  1. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    So then, because I am physically incapable of producing offspring with my fiancee, our pending nuptials should not be sanctioned by the state… even though we’re straight?

  2. My wife and I can’t have children – does this make our marriage invalid?

    And……while we are on the subject……why should I have to subsidize your spawn through tax credits? If you want to have children – fine – but the government shouldn’t be giving you tax breaks to encourage you to reproduce.

  3. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    Agreed. I don’t think I should have to educate anyone else’s little bastards and it doesn’t seem fair to me that I have to pay more in taxes, even though my family is sucking up fewer public benefits. I think those of us who don’t breed ought to get the tax credit.

  4. Fibonacci says:

    It is the interest of our society that all the “little bastards” get educated.So suck it up and pay your taxes. I don’t have kids in school either but am smart enough to recognize that it is to the benefit or society to have as highly educated population as possible.

    Alice, honey, Ozzie and Harriet or Ward and June Cleaver are a myth. I was lucky enough to grow up with one mother and one father who stayed married, but that is not the norm. Many heterosexual couples either can’t or choose not to hae children. Maybe we should only marry people after they have kids, and the rest don’t need to be married anyway.

  5. I have no problem with defining marriage a religious sacrament, and leaving the who, what, why and when to the church.

    Which under the ‘Separation of Church and State’ civil authorities cannot performer marriage ceremonies but can issue legal contracts that bestow certain legal rights and privileges, and the State cannot decimate against couples who wish to form Civil Union.

  6. MarksonofDarwin says:


    You mean discriminate, right?

    I generally don’t comment on anyone’s mistakes because I make a number of my own on a regular basis, but the idea of the State decimating couples made me smile!

  7. Rollo_Tomassi says:

    Marriage law according to Alice…

    -infertile couples could not marry
    -elder couples past child bearing age could not marry
    -married couples could not choose to forego children
    -their would be a prohibition on birth control methods
    -all sexual practices must have the end goal of procreation

    Sorry Alice, your line of reasoning is just too weak. Back to the drawing board for you.

  8. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    Kids need an education, but not necessarily one provided by their neighbors. If parents choose to procreate, they should be choosing to shoulder the ENTIRE financial burden of providing for their kids’ needs. I never said I had a problem with paying taxes; I’m saying I have a problem with my taxes paying for something that in no way benefits me… and before you say it, no, I don’t benefit from the kid who goes to public school and grows up to be my doctor — at least no more than I benefit from the kid whose parents had enough foresight to plan for his existence, save, send him to private school or home school him, and then grows up to become my doctor.

  9. MOD, good catch and yes I meant discriminate. But I’m sure we can both come up with a few groups we would not mind seeing decimated.

  10. pazzo242 says:

    A union between two people, whether it be a marriage or other contractual obligation is just that, a contract. It doesn’t matter what the union is for or what you want to call it. But if you are talking about the church, that is a different story. Any Christian church who endorses a marriage between same sex couples is violating the doctrines of Christ Jesus—plain and simple. So, in short, the government can allow what ever it wants but the Church is subject to a higher authority.

    To APimpNamedSlickback: As for those “little bastards”, when you are old and gray they will be the ones paying into your Medicare and Social Security—so in fact you should be the one paying huge taxes given it will be my “little bastards” taking care of your sorry butt.

  11. A “pimp” complaining about “bastards”.

    How ironic.

  12. The “sacred contract” religious folk would have a little more credibility if so many of them hadn’t put asunder what “God had joined”.

  13. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    Your argument is unconvincing. Your little bastards will be paying into my Medicare and Social Security (that is, assuming they’re both solvent by the time I’m eligible) wheter I pay to educate them or not. If you choose to breed them, it’s your responsibility to teach and feed them.

  14. Pimp, don’t complain then when they come to your house and clean you out while you are gone or manage to get themselves elected and terminate Medicare or SS.
    Educated people generally don’t do those things.

  15. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    Where are you people getting this idea that I don’t want kids to be educated? That is the exact opposite of what I said. I just don’t think kids need to be educated at public expense. Parents (the selfish people who either couldn’t figure out how to use a condom or just wanted to see what the biological Xerox machine would crap out) should bear 100% of the costs related to their children — not everyone else who (like me) couldn’t care less if your little sprogs were alive or not.

    Those of you who choose to procreate, good for you. That kid is going to require food, clothing, shelter, and yes, an education. You don’t expect me to pay your mortgage or grocery bill, so why should I pay your kid’s tuition?

  16. Alice, please show me any studies that back up your claim that children do better in their own homes with their natural, heterosexual parents. In fact, the literature shows that children of same sex parents do better in some ways, but mostly, there is no difference. WebMD sums up the studies like this:

    “Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

    Studies found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

    In fact, ” studies showed that heterosexual parents’ children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex,” Children with same sex parents “did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school.”

  17. Pimp said: “…..so why should I pay your kid’s tuition” That was probably the same argument some had when they were paying for yours while you attended school. Sorry you can’t see the big picture and I don’t have enough time, energy or space to explain it to you.

  18. Just to clarify: I am absolutely for public education.

    That is a different issue than the IRS providing tax incentives to spawn. Definitely feel it is inappropriate for you to pay less taxes because you have children.

    I have mixed feelings about aid to dependent children. Perhaps a better solution would be free contraceptives and abortion upon demand with proof that your income is below a certain level.

  19. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    I’m sure they did make that argument about me, and those who did were right. I’m not totally against public education; just against it being paid for by those who don’t use it. Those who have kids and put them in public schools should be assessed a separate tax for the school district. Once your kids get out, you should no longer be assessed that tax. That would provide incentive for parents to take a more active role in their kids’ education and make sure they’re actually learning and progressing. It would also ensure that no one without dependent children had to pay for a public service they would never use or benefit from.

  20. I am firmly in support of public education paid as the price of maintaining a strong middle class and our democracy. It is necessary to have a well-educated middle class for our democracy and economic systems to work. I’ve not been one to support tolled roads and bridges that area primary and basic means of transportation, for example. Only additional, enhanced services and not basic services should have a toll or extra charge for those who use them.

    For example, football stadiums and band uniforms should be paid by direct users and not general taxes. I know I had to sell many donuts and fudge pieces to afford my tuba and my uniform way back in football-crazy Texas, while the football team had everything paid by taxes.

  21. Pawnbroker1 says:

    That is just silly.

  22. theogsters says:

    What nonsense, Ms Hori dishes up. Marriage is public commitment and a legal contract, it has little to do with children. This author misses the point and has made her own definition, most likely a divine revelation. It may be divine for her but makes no sense for the rest of us.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0