tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post8937330482387914423..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: You just knowPhoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-69635664563486604272008-11-13T21:39:00.000-05:002008-11-13T21:39:00.000-05:00I think we have enough child-production now. Socie...I think we have enough child-production now. Society's vested interest these days is much less in the conception of more children, and much more in structures of mutual support, not only from adult to child but also between adults. Marriage between two people of the same sex, when those people otherwise would not marry or would contract unstable and unhappy marriages, therefore is in societal interest because it adds to those structures. This is one reason to discourage incestuous marriage even when it will not produce genetic offspring of the pre-related spouses; people who are already related have a preexisting support relationship, so it is in societal interest for them instead to create a new relationship outside the existing ones.<BR/><BR/>To give an example, I'm doubtful as to whether I'll have biological children. However, my marriage is of social utility because a) I intend to adopt, which means a child who otherwise would be parentless will have two parents; and b) I now provide support to my in-laws, they to me, my spouse to my family and they to him. I think we feel this particularly because I had only sisters, he only a brother, so now we've each gained a <I>kind</I> of family member we've never had before.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-9456602444064365072008-11-10T23:58:00.000-05:002008-11-10T23:58:00.000-05:00It has nothing to do with the specifics of childre...It has nothing to do with the specifics of children - it is simply the observation that children produced other than via natural means are a tiny percentage of the whole, and a society interested in ensuring a steady supply doesn't get all that much return if they invest in these alternatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-83336588122797301722008-11-10T14:20:00.000-05:002008-11-10T14:20:00.000-05:00What about "unnaturally" produced children--throug...What about "unnaturally" produced children--through adoption, IVF, surrogates--raised by heterosexuals? Are those more OK that the same raised by gays? That argument doesn't hold water.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-54477241627476655992008-11-10T13:41:00.000-05:002008-11-10T13:41:00.000-05:00It is extremely likely that we would see much less...It is extremely likely that we would see much less heterosexual monogamy than we do know if there were no social pressure supporting it. So think for a moment about why heterosexual monogamy is important <I>to a society</I>. This is not a question of what feels good to individuals. Civilization is not one enormous encounter session. Society has a very large vested interest in the production of a next generation which is law-abiding and productive and has absorbed its values. Monogamy promotes this, which is why society cares.<BR/><BR/>Children are naturally produced by a relationship in which a woman is regularly intimate with a man whom she can count on to provide for her and any children she may bear, and help to rear them. No other form of human relationship comes close to accomplishing this societal need. That is why societies subsidize such relationships and give them preferential treatment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com