Remember far back in history, 1979 to be precise, Monty Python’s Life of Brian gave us words that ring through today. Those immortal words were from a young man pronouncing, “I want the right to have babies.” The response from another character was to explain how pointless of a right that was. The silly interchange was based in one man arguing for a right that was biologically impossible. This is a good analogy for what the “Gay-Marriage” crowd is claiming. They want to undo the nature of the genders.
We all learned, (hopeful) at one in our lives, that men and women are different. Men and women have very different biological, as well as psychological, makings. A marriage is, a bringing together of two people from different sexes to, ideally, build a family. I know not every married couple has kids but still marriage is a combination of two separate sexes.
The next argument from the proponents of a broader marriage definition would say, “but the love I share is just as real as yours.” Okay, that argument is non sequitur. It isn’t about who has a deeper love, it is also not about “equality.” There are defining attributes that separate the sexes. Therefore, a sanctioned relationship between two people of different sexes is by nature very different from a relationship of two people from the same sex. The two are simply not equal. No religious designation required.
In fact, societies that attempt to make the two very different relationships equal, pay a very stark price for doing so.
Argentina made news by becoming the first Latin American country to adopt a wider definition of marriage. This is really no surprise, Evita’s beloved land is one of the least religious countries in the region. It has also regularly flirted, and at times embraced, the European welfare state. But, rather then arguing that Argentina has sold her collective soul, there is a more convincing argument that applies to the U.S. debate.
The more substantive argument is to remind countries that to have a future, your country has to have babies. Babies become your future have tax payers, workers, entrepreneurs and investors.
In fact, according to the CBO, the US should have a 3.0% birthrate to keep up with the increased burden on the Medicare budget alone. Just for population sustainability the birth rate of a country should be around 2.2%.
Argentina and other countries with wider definitions of marriage, have dangerously low birth rates. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Sweden are all listed by the Pew Forum as countries which have redefined marriage and their low birth rates are illustrated here.
South Africa 2.33
The Netherlands 1.66
Statistics from the CIA website (World Facts/ Total Fertility Rates 2010 estimates)
Many other countries with dangerously low birth rates, also have large Welfare States. For the sake of this article, I will leave those arguments to writers like Dennis Prager and Mark Steyn. However, often looser marriage definition and larger Welfare States run together.
Back to the crux of the non-religious argument. According to the Rand Corporation Survey (2005), the aforementioned European countries have had large declines in birth rates since the 1970’s. This is the era when “alternative lifestyles” were growing more and more acceptable. The birth rates eventually evened out but at a much lower rate than before the 1970’s.
With many pulling the US in the direction of redefining marriage, we have the European model as a precedent. That model, quite plainly, is a miserable one. With growing deficits and the potential insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, don’t we need more babies? Redefining marriage at a national level has had a history of driving birthrates to dangerously low levels and raising the average worker’s age. So when history is the better evidence, there is no need to make traditional marriage a religious argument.