THE UNBEATABLE INFERTILITY ARGUMENT: Maggie Gallagher

Every man and woman who married is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. Every man and woman who marry and remain faithful to their vows (regardless of wehther or not they have children) will not be creating fatherless (or motherless) children in fragmented families. The existence of infertile married couples does not contradict the public purposes of marriage, even though they may not always further them to the fullest extent.

So no, I don't think it is only that it is too expensive and difficult to "root out" the infertile couples. But still there is something absurd in the idea that if unless we intrusively root out men and women's fertility status, marriage has nothing to do with making the next generation. There have always been infertile couples. And yet we have always (until the lawyers got their hands on the matter, quite easily and naturally considered marriage to be about creating the next generation in some fundamental way).

In truth you could do the same thing with any given charactieristic of marriage. Marriage is an expression of love, even according to the Supreme Court "intimate to the point of being sacred." But not every couples marries or stays married for love. Does that mean marriage is not about love? Marriage is a sexual union, but not every married couple has sex, so does that mean marriage is not a sexual relation? Marriage implies fidelity, but not every couples is faithful, so does that mean marriage is not about forsaking all others?




posted by maggie at 12:25 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home