If Gay Marriage is approved birth rates would fall
Image via WikipediaOne of the most fundamental tasks of any society is to reproduce itself. That is why virtually every human society up until the present day has given a privileged social status to male-female sexual relationships—the only type capable of resulting in natural procreation. This privileged social status is what we call “marriage.”
Extending the benefits and status of “marriage” to couples who are intrinsically incapable of natural procreation (i.e., two men or two women) would dramat
ically change the social meaning of the institution. It would become impossible to argue that “marriage” is about encouraging the formation of life-long, potentially procreative (i.e., opposite-sex) relationships. The likely long-term result would be that fewer such relationships would be formed, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, and fewer babies would be born.
There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” At this writing, five U.S. states grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in relation to the population of women of childbearing age).63
Even granting marriage-related benefits to same-sex couples is associated with low birth and fertility rates. There are sixteen states which offer at least some recognition or benefits to same-sex relationships.64 Twelve of these sixteen states rank in the bottom twenty states in birth rate, while eleven of them rank in the bottom seventeen in fertility rate. Vermont, the first state in the U. S. to offer 100% of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through passage of its “civil unions” law in 200065, ranks dead last in both birth rate and fertility rate.66
Similar data are available on the international level. Currently there are ten countries which permit same-sex “marriage.”67 Six of these ten fall well within the bottom quarter in both birth rates and fertility rates among 223 countries and territories. All ten fall below the total world fertility rate, while only South Africa has a birth rate that is higher (barely) than the world rate.68
It could be argued that the widespread availability and use of artificial birth control, together with other social trends, has already weakened the perceived link between marriage and procreation and led to a decline in birth rates. These changes may have helped clear a path for same-sex “marriage,” rather than the reverse.69 Nevertheless, legalization of same-sex “marriage” would reinforce a declining emphasis on procreation as a key purpose of marriage—resulting in lower birth rates than if it had not been legalized.
Of course, there are some who are still locked in the alarmism of the 1960’s over warnings of over-population.70 However, in recent years it has become clear, particularly in the developed world, that declining birth rates now pose a much greater threat. Declining birth rates lead to an aging population, and demographers have warned of the consequences, . . . from the potentially devastating effects on an unprepared welfare state to shortages of blood for transfusions. Pension provisions will be stretched to the limit. The traditional model of the working young paying for the retired old will not work if the latter group is twice the size of the former. . . . In addition, . . . healthcare costs will rise.71
The contribution of same-sex “marriage” to declining birth rates would clearly lead to significant harm for society.
