Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[Stone holm]

Even if one may not agree that population growth or maintenance, and thus procreation, is of interest to modern governments (including the U.S.), reasonable people believe otherwise, including those arguing and enacting laws in modern governments.

As evidence in support of modern governments having an interest in and taking action to promote procreation, and in addition to the evidence presented by others here where nations are paying people to have babies, here is a U.N. report on EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE. Here is a Rand Study on population implosion and Low Fertility and Policy Responses in the European Union. See also: The Coming Global Population Decline.

Here is a recent book that not only talks about the decline in fertility and population (the why's and wherefores), but also speaks to the socio-economic and political problems arising from that decline: "What to Expect When No One is Expecting.

And, while the U.S. may not have the same level of concern about population implosions as Europe and Japan and Russia and other 1st-world nations, it is heading in that direction. See HERE, and HERE and HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is that the real question? I thought the question was whether the purpose of marriage laws was procreation?

[wenglund]

I don't think people are arguing that the government doesn't subsidize population growth and hence procreation, what they are questioning is that marriage laws have much if anything to do with that or that was the purpose of marriage laws. There is no question in my mind that the government is subsidizing the creation of kids, there is a substantial question in my mind tha such has much to do with our marriage laws which are mainly aimed at promoting stable relations between adults.

It has been my understanding that some of the participants here have rejected the notion that modern governments have an interest in population growth and procreation. Evidence has been presented to counter that rejection, and to further establish that modern governments have, in fact, instituted polices to encourage procreation.

However, if you are saying that no one is now rejecting or questioning this, and if you are correct, then I am fine with shifting the focus back to the marriage aspect. I just wanted to make sure that we were all in agreement on the basic principle that governments, including modern governments like the U.S., have an interest in, and have taken action, to encourage population growth through procreation.

Does anyone disagree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is that the real question? I thought the question was whether the purpose of marriage laws was procreation?

That "real" question is foundational to addressing the question whether the purpose of marriage laws was, in part, procreation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

It has been my understanding that some of the participants here have rejected the notion that modern governments have an interest in population growth and procreation. Evidence has been presented to counter that rejection, and to further establish that modern governments have, in fact, instituted polices to encourage procreation.

However, if you are saying that no one is now rejecting or questioning this, and if you are correct, then I am fine with shifting the focus back to the marriage aspect. I just wanted to make sure that we were all in agreement on the basic principle that governments, including modern governments like the U.S., have an interest in, and have taken action, to encourage population growth through procreation.

Does anyone disagree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Some modern governments do seem to have an interest in population growth and procreation (two separate issues as the former could include immigration). Other modern governments do not. I don't believe you can definitively state that in the U.S. our government is completely in favor of population growth or increasing procreation.

And, there is the question as to whether or not that "interest" is justified or if there is any constitutional basis for the government taking action to increase procreation.

[wenglund]

Assuming that Stone holm is now correct that we all agree that that governments, including modern governments like the U.S., have an interest in, and have taken action, to encourage population growth through procreation, lets then revisit what has already been presented about governments using marriage as a means to promote procreation, and move forward with the discussion.

First, evidence has been presented showing that ancient Greek and Roman governments did in fact use marriage as a means for encouraging population growth and procreation through marriage. Furthermore, In this article we find early philosophers claiming "population trajectory is partly the product of marriage laws." And, in that same article there is said, "Recent population declines coincide with recent developments in family experience, loosely labeled the 'decline of marriage.' As marriage rates and the marriage culture decline, divorce rates, cohabitation rates, and living-alone rates rise. There is a snowball effect as these alternatives become more attractive and marriage less normative. Childlessness is much more accepted than it once was, as are the alternatives to marriage. Birthrates are at their lowest in places where, generally, trends away from marriage are most pronounced."

So, we see that marriage laws have been instituted to encourage procreation through marriage, and that the lack of marriage legislation may cause a decline in procreation.

Then, more significantly, we looked at the compelling rationale for using marriage as a means, or as the preferred means, for encouraging procreation. The argument was presented that while governments (ancient and modern) have an interest in in encouraging population growth through procreation (this premise is now presumably not in question), it was in their interest to promote procreation in a way that the benefits in doing so will continue to outweigh the cost, or where the costs are minimized, and it was established, at least in the mind of many people and law-makers, that marriage, as compared with other alternatives such as "free love," was the preferred means for governments encouraging procreation. And, other laws, such as those against adultery and promiscuity, and restricting divorce, bolster this point.

In short, once it is clear that governments, ancient and modern, have an interest in encouraging procreation, then reason suggests that they ought promote procreation through marriage, and history attests to them having done so.

Therefore, one of the reasons that governments have become involved in marriage is to promote responsible and beneficial procreation.

This seems so obvious to me as to go without saying, but evidently in the minds of some participants here, it evidently needs to be said and substantiated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Assuming that Stone holm is now correct that we all agree that that governments, including modern governments like the U.S., have an interest in, and have taken action, to encourage population growth through procreation, lets then revisit what has already been presented about governments using marriage as a means to promote procreation, and move forward with the discussion.

First, evidence has been presented showing that ancient Greek and Roman governments did in fact use marriage as a means for encouraging population growth and procreation through marriage. Furthermore, In this article we find early philosophers claiming "population trajectory is partly the product of marriage laws." And, in that same article there is said, "Recent population declines coincide with recent developments in family experience, loosely labeled the 'decline of marriage.' As marriage rates and the marriage culture decline, divorce rates, cohabitation rates, and living-alone rates rise. There is a snowball effect as these alternatives become more attractive and marriage less normative. Childlessness is much more accepted than it once was, as are the alternatives to marriage. Birthrates are at their lowest in places where, generally, trends away from marriage are most pronounced."

So, we see that marriage laws have been instituted to encourage procreation through marriage, and that the lack of marriage legislation may cause a decline in procreation.

Then, more significantly, we looked at the compelling rationale for using marriage as a means, or as the preferred means, for encouraging procreation. The argument was presented that while governments (ancient and modern) have an interest in in encouraging population growth through procreation (this premise is now presumably not in question), it was in their interest to promote procreation in a way that the benefits in doing so will continue to outweigh the cost, or where the costs are minimized, and it was established, at least in the mind of many people and law-makers, that marriage, as compared with other alternatives such as "free love," was the preferred means for governments encouraging procreation. And, other laws, such as those against adultery and promiscuity, and restricting divorce, bolster this point.

In short, once it is clear that governments, ancient and modern, have an interest in encouraging procreation, then reason suggests that they ought promote procreation through marriage, and history attests to them having done so.

Therefore, one of the reasons that governments have become involved in marriage is to promote responsible and beneficial procreation.

This seems so obvious to me as to go without saying, but evidently in the minds of some participants here, it evidently needs to be said and substantiated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope not obvious to me that marriage laws were intended to promote population growth in fact don't see that at all. I do believe that governments seek to promote, sometimes accidentally, population growth -- just don't see how that relates to marriage. Sorry the two just don't connect and I have sincere doubts that they connected anciently either.

[wenglund]

Some modern governments do seem to have an interest in population growth and procreation (two separate issues as the former could include immigration).

The former also includes procreation, and so it isn't a separate issue. From what I have read, immigration may help in growing populations, though it may not always be the best means, or a sufficient means for growth. In fact, one of the studies I linked to above (I don't recall which), suggests that immigration tends to have little positive impact on population growth, particularly with nations with a large aging population and emigrating population.

Either way, it is clear from the evidence presented thus far, that there are modern governments who are interested in encouraging procreation.

Other modern governments do not. I don't believe you can definitively state that in the U.S. our government is completely in favor of population growth or increasing procreation.

My intent isn't to definitively make that universal claim. All I need to reasonably substantiate my point is to show that, in early and modern U.S., there are logical and compelling reasons for the government to encourage population growth through procreation, and that there are laws now on the books that are dependent upon such procreative growth, if not also laws that have been, and are being considered to promote procreative growth. This, I believe, I have done in my previous posts.

And, there is the question as to whether or not that "interest" is justified or if there is any constitutional basis for the government taking action to increase procreation.

Or, whether there is any constitutional basis restricting the government from rationally taking action to increase procreation?

Since procreation has been considered by the courts (including SCOTUS) to be a fundamental right (as well as marriage--defined as between a man and a woman), that seems enough, in addition to rational basis, for constitutional justification, and I can't think of any constitutional restriction on the government promoting that fundamental right. Can you?

Besides, the governmental interest in procreation and marriage isn't reserved just to promoting population growth, Even if the U.S. government has no interest in growing its population, it still has an interest in promoting procreation through marriage. See my response to Stone helm to follow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

One need but run a quick Google search to find ample lists of economic, social, and political benefits of population growth (not the least of which is strength in numbers), particularly to emerging and developing nations, One can also pursue the histories of the world to find significant evidence in support thereof, particular by comparing, over time, nations with growing populations as contrasted with nations of declining populations. So, I won't bother to list them here.

And, while most everyone here, if not everyone, may accept that there have been benefits of population growth to nations in the distant past, some participants seem to reject the notion that population growth, or population maintenance, as a general rule, is beneficial today.

There are several counters to this rejection, which apply to the U.S. today.

First, there is simple economics. Economic viability, even in todays world, is dependent upon economic growth, which is dependent upon market expansion, which is dependent upon population growth. This principle may be most evident in the housing market, where a decline in demand due to decline in population, may produce of glut of homes on the market, which drives down the price of homes, which in turn shrinks equity, and may likely cause a decline in production, which puts people out of work, and so on and so forth, causing a decline in the economy. In fact, one of the key indicators experts use to gage housing markets, is population figures. And, while the struggling housing market today may not be due much to decline in population rates, it is hard to argue against evidence suggesting that reasonable population growth over the last several decades or so has been a boon to the U.S. housing market and the economy.

Second, there are political factors--laws and policies that have been put into place which were specifically designed with an expanding population in mind, and/or which are only sustainable through, and are dependent upon, a stable or growing population. This is most evident with Social Security, where support of our aging population rests, in large part, on the shoulders of rising generations. And, while the potential for insolvency of Social Security in the U.S. may not be entirely due to the declining rate in population, it is hard to argue against it being a factor. It is also hard to argue against strong indications that growth in population over the last several decades has greatly benefited Social Security (if nothing more than preventing it from being worse off), if not also other welfare, entitlement, and governmental programs. At the very least, it has expanded the tax base--which is vital given the rapid expansion of government in recent times.

Now, the informal and abbreviated nature of discussions such as this doesn't pragmatically permit an in-depth analysis of these points, but hopefully the general principles and examples I have presented above will suffice in making the point, to the reasonably minded,that even today, population growth, and thus procreation, is beneficial to and in the interest of current governments, including the U.S.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not arguing that population growth is not good for a country. Is all I am stating is that the United States does not have laws in place that encourage population growth. But the government does have laws in place that discourage population growth. And none of those laws are based on what the Romans or Greeks were doing 2000 years ago. It is as simple as that.

Perhaps you could come up with laws that the government uses to encourage population growth other than the small tax writeoff given for children which is certainly not an incentive to have more children compared to the acutal cost of rearing children.

And perhaps you can explain why the government passed legal abortion which certainly does not encourage population growth.

Finally, can you explain why the government has such strict immigration laws which also limit population growth.

Edited April 29, 2013 by california boy

[Stone holm]

The former also includes procreation, and so it isn't a separate issue. From what I have read, immigration may help in growing populations, though it may not always be the best means, or a sufficient means for growth. In fact, one of the studies I linked to above (I don't recall which), suggests that immigration tends to have little positive impact on population growth, particularly with nations with a large aging population and emigrating population.

Either way, it is clear from the evidence presented thus far, that there are modern governments who are interested in encouraging procreation.

My intent isn't to definitively make that universal claim. All I need to reasonably substantiate my point is to show that, in early and modern U.S., there are logical and compelling reasons for the government to encourage population growth through procreation, and that there are laws now on the books that are dependent upon such procreative growth, if not also laws that have been, and are being considered to promote procreative growth. This, I believe, I have done in my previous posts.

Or, whether there is any constitutional basis restricting the government from rationally taking action to increase procreation?

Since procreation has been considered by the courts (including SCOTUS) to be a fundamental right (as well as marriage--defined as between a man and a woman), that seems enough, in addition to rational basis, for constitutional justification, and I can't think of any constitutional restriction on the government promoting that fundamental right. Can you?

Besides, the governmental interest in procreation and marriage isn't reserved just to promoting population growth, Even if the U.S. government has no interest in growing its population, it still has an interest in promoting procreation through marriage. See my response to Stone helm to follow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I have conceded that some governments have an interest in pro-creation, although I think that is somewhat inadvertent in the case of the U.S. which is primarily interested in the care and rearing of the children who are here rather than necessarily encouraging people to have more although inadvertently subsidize the care and rearing tends to promote having more. Europe is experiencing issues with trying to build populations via immigration namely you are having conservative Muslims flooding into liberal countries. But where marriage fits in is a bit cloudy, obviously governments have an interest in some stable group being vested with the responsibility to care for children -- but that doesn't have much connection with marriage except those who have the mindset that the traditional marriage coupled with biological parents is the absolutely best way to go, which seems to be fairly debatable at this point in time in America.

[california boy]

I am not arguing that population growth is not good for a country. Is all I am stating is that the United States does not have laws in place that encourage population growth. But the government does have laws in place that discourage population growth. And none of those laws are based on what the Romans or Greeks were doing 2000 years ago. It is as simple as that.

Perhaps you could come up with laws that the government uses to encourage population growth other than the small tax writeoff given for children which is certainly not an incentive to have more children compared to the acutal cost of rearing children.

And perhaps you can explain why the government passed legal abortion which certainly does not encourage population growth.

Finally, can you explain why the government has such strict immigration laws which also limit population growth.

[california boy]

dup. sorry

[rockpond]

My intent isn't to definitively make that universal claim. All I need to reasonably substantiate my point is to show that, in early and modern U.S., there are logical and compelling reasons for the government to encourage population growth through procreation, and that there are laws now on the books that are dependent upon such procreative growth, if not also laws that have been, and are being considered to promote procreative growth. This, I believe, I have done in my previous posts.

Which laws are those?

Or, whether there is any constitutional basis restricting the government from rationally taking action to increase procreation?

Since procreation has been considered by the courts (including SCOTUS) to be a fundamental right (as well as marriage--defined as between a man and a woman), that seems enough, in addition to rational basis, for constitutional justification, and I can't think of any constitutional restriction on the government promoting that fundamental right. Can you?

A restriction? No. My point is that I'm not aware of an justification for the U.S. Government to be promoting procreation other than just making sure that the freedom to do so exists.

Besides, the governmental interest in procreation and marriage isn't reserved just to promoting population growth, Even if the U.S. government has no interest in growing its population, it still has an interest in promoting procreation through marriage. See my response to Stone helm to follow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is also governmental interest in controlling access to guns and magazines. There is governmental interest in restricting highway speed. There is governmental interest in encouraging free trade. There is governmental interest in many things but that doesn't necessarily mean that the government has a right to act or legislate upon that interest.

[wenglund]

Nature and its drive for biological success takes care of that impulse sufficiently.

For the sake of argument, let's set aside all the evidence presented thus far clearly demonstrating that your assumption is incorrect, and assume that the natural drive to procreate is sufficient to take care of any need for population growth, and consider whether the government may yet have another interest in promoting procreation through marriage.

Again, the best way to consider that question is to compare and contrast marital procreation with alternative forms of procreation like those outside of marriage (common law or otherwise), As a case study, examine the socio-economic impact of out-of-wedlock births in the black inner-cities as compared with those of in-wedlock births of say certain predominately LDS communities.

If this doesn't compel your mind to see good cause for governments promoting procreation through marriage, then it is doubtful that anything of reason will reach you from a differing point of view than your own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 29, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Nope not obvious to me that marriage laws were intended to promote population growth in fact don't see that at all.

Astonishing!!! However, you are certainly free to ignore all the evidence and rational argumentation already presented to the contrary. But, that would say more about your resistance to reason and sense than it does about the soundness and validity of my claims. Closing your eyes and retreating into denial will not make the evidence and reasoning go away except in your mind.

I do believe that governments seek to promote, sometimes accidentally, population growth -- just don't see how that relates to marriage.

What do you view governments non-accidentally doing to promote population growth through procreation? In other words, if, as you said earlier, you accept (don't question) that ancient and modern governments have an interest in, and have taken action to, promote population growth through procreation, then what, in your mind, have the governments done in that regard, if not through marriage? And, what evidence do you have to support your position.

You see, it isn't enough for you to simply reject my position (regardless of ample substantiation). Reason suggest that you offer your own arguments to explain the data, and put it up against my arguments. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 29, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I am not arguing that population growth is not good for a country. Is all I am stating is that the United States does not have laws in place that encourage population growth.

Okay. Your argument has changed a bit, but that is okay. It still doesn't stand up to facts and argumentation. Here is a brief summary of my argument (the substantiating facts can be found earlier in the thread):

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

B. In terms of overall cost/benefits, it has been in the interest of governments, including modern U.S., to promote procreative population growth through marriage.

C. It is also in the interest of governments, including the U.S., to channel the procreative drive into marriage, or in other words, promote procreation through marriage.

D. Marital laws, including in modern U.S., then, are laws that promote population growth through procreation and promote procreation through marriage.

Since there are marriage laws in the U.S., then, contrary to what you suggest, there are laws in place in the U.S. that encourage population growth. Simple as that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Astonishing!!! However, you are certainly free to ignore all the evidence and rational argumentation already presented to the contrary. But, that would say more about your resistance to reason and sense than it does about the soundness and validity of my claims. Closing your eyes and retreating into denial will not make the evidence and reasoning go away except in your mind.

What do you view governments non-accidentally doing to promote population growth through procreation? In other words, if, as you said earlier, you accept (don't question) that ancient and modern governments have an interest in, and have taken action to, promote population growth through procreation, then what, in your mind, have the governments done so, if not through marriage? And, what evidence do you have to support your position.

You see, it isn't enough for you to simply reject my position (regard of ample substantiation). Reason suggest that you offer your own arguments to explain the data, and put it up against my arguments. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was just deferring to those who were asserting that some governments were paying a bounty to people pop out kids. In America I don't think we are intentionally trying to create population growth at all. We do probably non-intentionally promote people having kids by giving them tax deductions, in some cases childcare assistance, assistance for dependent children, public education, etc. etc. But the intent is to take care of kids who are already here, not to produce more kids. There clearly have been countries in the past which have sought to dramatically increase birthrates of certain classes of society, for example Germany in the second quarter of the 20th Century. America tried to suppress the population growth of certain groups, for example Coolidge supported eugenics here in Vermont which called for the sterilzation of the Abenaki Indian tribe which is why Vermont does not have a Native American reservation because the Abenaki hid their ancestry in order to avoid being sterilized. I do think that polygamy was instituted for the specific purpose of raising up seed to the Lord, but that was a very limited thing and America in general was not adopting laws to spur population growth in America and marriage laws are a particularly ineffective way of trying to do it. Marriage laws were initially intended merely to add certainty to legitimacy -- in that they were successful since a married man until rather recently was not allowed to contest the legitimacy of any child born during his marriage to his wife. But America tossed out "bastardy" laws quite some time ago as offending equal protection. So currently, marriage laws primary function is to establish stable relations amongst adults -- any impact on procreation is very tenuous, and probably could be overwhelmed with the argument that marriage laws may well reduce birth rates. Comparing rates of various relgious and cultural sectors is singularly ineffective because the question is not whether religion can spur birth rates, the question is whether marriage laws spur birth rates. I would be the first to admit that religion can spur birth rates, it can also spur marriage rates as Mormons tend to want to stay married even though they may have quantitatively established that perhaps marriage is not for them as they go through marriage after marriage after marriage -- but that is because they are trying to comply with the requirements of the law of chastity even though they may not actually be capable of sustaining a longterm stable marriage. I think we can all think of men who have left a trail of former wives and children by various wives behind them, and women who have several legitimate children by several different husbands.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Stone holm

[wenglund]

Which laws are those?

Marital laws are intended, in part, to intelligently and responsibly promote population growth through procreation.

The laws that are dependent upon population growth, particularly through procreation, are Social Security and other welfare and entitlement programs. Governmental budgets and tax laws are also dependent, to a degree, on population growth.

There is also governmental interest in controlling access to guns and magazines. There is governmental interest in restricting highway speed. There is governmental interest in encouraging free trade. There is governmental interest in many things but that doesn't necessarily mean that the government has a right to act or legislate upon that interest.

Okay. However, again, I can't think of a single constitutional argument that would come anywhere close to questioning the "right" of federal or state governments to legislating marriage, even were the intent of the marital legislation, in part, to fulfill the government's (i.e. people's) interest in promoting population growth through procreation. Can you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 29, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

Okay. Your argument has changed a bit, but that is okay. It still doesn't stand up to facts and argumentation. Here is a brief summary of my argument (the substantiating facts can be found earlier in the thread):

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

Wrong. You have yet to provide any basis for the government having an interest in population growth through procreation. If the government has an interest in growth through procreation, why does the government have legal abortion laws. Yeah I have asked this question repeatedly. I guess it takes multiple times asking to get an answer. churp, churp.

B. In terms of overall cost/benefits, it has been in the interest of governments, including modern U.S., to promote procreative population growth through marriage.

Increased populatons helps some industries as you mentioned such as housing etc. But increased population also costs the government money in terms of increased infrastructure, more schools etc. You are making a leap here that has yet to be proven.

C. It is also in the interest of governments, including the U.S., to channel the procreative drive into marriage, or in other words, promote procreation through marriage.

I agree with this statement. I am very pro marriage. Committed stable relationships have proven to be the best environment to raise children. I wish that every child was born into a marriage relationship.

D. Marital laws, including in modern U.S., then, are laws that promote population growth through procreation and promote procreation through marriage.

Wrong. Marital laws in the United States are not tied to procreation at all. It is not a requirement or even a question when applying for a marriage license.

Since there are marriage laws in the U.S., then, contrary to what you suggest, there are laws in place in the U.S. that encourage population growth. Simple as that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As you can see, you are totall wrong in this wild assumption.

[Stone holm]

Marital laws are intended, in part, to intelligently and responsibly promote population growth through procreation.

The laws that are dependent upon population growth, particularly through procreation, are Social Security and other welfare and entitlement programs. Governmental budgets and tax laws are also dependent, to a degree, on population growth.

Okay. However, again, I can't think of a single constitutional argument that would come anywhere close to questioning the "right" of federal or state governments to legislating marriage, even were the intent of the marital legislation, in part, to fulfill the government's (i.e. people's) interest in promoting population growth through procreation. Can you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I think they have only a limited amount of discretion anymore in what they can legislate about marriage. I have never heard of anyone arguing that creating more babies in and of itself was a legitimate government interest. I somehow don't think it would be very convincing, and I cannot think of any case it would be utilized with respect to marriages.

[CASteinman]

There is also governmental interest in controlling access to guns and magazines.

But this is restricted by the 2nd Amendment.

There is governmental interest in restricting highway speed.

And they do that.

There is governmental interest in encouraging free trade.

And they do that.

There is governmental interest in many things but that doesn't necessarily mean that the government has a right to act or legislate upon that interest.

You give a list of things where they have an interest and do enact legislation as support for them not having the right to enact legislation in those areas?

How does that pass for support for your argument?

Of course Government has the right to pass laws in support of most things in its sphere of interest. It is restricted only by the Constitution.

[wenglund]

I was just deferring to those who were asserting that some governments were paying a bounty to people pop out kids. In America I don't think we are intentionally trying to create population growth at all. We do probably non-intentionally promote people having kids by giving them tax deductions, in some cases childcare assistance, assistance for dependent children, public education, etc. etc. But the intent is to take care of kids who are already here, not to produce more kids. There clearly have been countries in the past which have sought to dramatically increase birthrates of certain classes of society, for example Germany in the second quarter of the 20th Century. America tried to suppress the population growth of certain groups, for example Coolidge supported eugenics here in Vermont which called for the sterilzation of the Abenaki Indian tribe which is why Vermont does not have a Native American reservation because the Abenaki hid their ancestry in order to avoid being sterilized. I do think that polygamy was instituted for the specific purpose of raising up seed to the Lord, but that was a very limited thing and America in general was not adopting laws to spur population growth in America and marriage laws are a particularly ineffective way of trying to do it. Marriage laws were initially intended merely to add certainty to legitimacy -- in that they were successful since a married man until rather recently was not allowed to contest the legitimacy of any child born during his marriage to his wife. But America tossed out "bastardy" laws quite some time ago as offending equal protection. So currently, marriage laws primary function is to establish stable relations amongst adults -- any impact on procreation is very tenuous, and probably could be overwhelmed with the argument that marriage laws may well reduce birth rates. Comparing rates of various relgious and cultural sectors is singularly ineffective because the question is not whether religion can spur birth rates, the question is whether marriage laws spur birth rates. I would be the first to admit that religion can spur birth rates, it can also spur marriage rates as Mormons tend to want to stay married even though they may have quantitatively established that perhaps marriage is not for them as they go through marriage after marriage after marriage -- but that is because they are trying to comply with the requirements of the law of chastity even though they may not actually be capable of sustaining a longterm stable marriage. I think we can all think of men who have left a trail of former wives and children by various wives behind them, and women who have several legitimate children by several different husbands.

As with california boy, your comments above simply reaffirms and clarifies your baseless position, meanders somewhat tangentially, and doesn't engage the arguments and substantiations that has been presented. At best, it is question begging.

Here is a brief summary of my argument (the substantiating facts can be found earlier in the thread):

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

B. In terms of overall cost/benefits, it has been in the interest of governments, including modern U.S., to promote procreative population growth through marriage.

C. It is also in the interest of governments, including the U.S., to channel the procreative drive into marriage, or in other words, promote procreation through marriage.

D. Marital laws, including in modern U.S., then, are laws that promote population growth through procreation and promote procreation through marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wrong. You have yet to provide any basis for the government having an interest in population growth through procreation.

Since you keep repeating this demonstrably false statement, it has now become a lie. I am the only one who has gone to great lengths to provide logical reasons and supportive evidence for each of the points I have made.

If the government has an interest in growth through procreation, why does the government have legal abortion laws. Yeah I have asked this question repeatedly. I guess it takes multiple times asking to get an answer. churp, churp.

The government has made certain abortion laws legal because the courts require it, and not because it is in the government's interest to allow, let alone, promote abortions. The court-mandated allowance of abortions in no way suggests that the government doesn't have an interest in population growth through procreation. It simply means that the government's interest is impeded, or made all the greater because of the court ruling.

Increased populations helps some industries as you mentioned such as housing etc. But increased population also costs the government money in terms of increased infrastructure, more schools etc. You are making a leap here that has yet to be proven.

If you look at the economic history of our nation in relation to the population, and correcting for increased costs, you will plainly see that there has been a significant net benefit to population growth, thus evidentially bridging the so-called leap,

I agree with this statement. I am very pro marriage. Committed stable relationships have proven to be the best environment to raise children. I wish that every child was born into a marriage relationship.

Great!

Wrong. Marital laws in the United States are not tied to procreation at all. It is not a requirement or even a question when applying for a marriage license.

This also is now a lie. I have gone to great lengths setting forth a reasoned argument with ample substantiation for that point. You, on the other hand, have simply repeated the same false and baseless counter assertion.

Since you persist in ignoring my arguments and evidence, there is now good reason to not discuss this further with you.

Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well, I think they have only a limited amount of discretion anymore in what they can legislate about marriage. I have never heard of anyone arguing that creating more babies in and of itself was a legitimate government interest. I somehow don't think it would be very convincing, and I cannot think of any case it would be utilized with respect to marriages.

Hello wall! Again, you are simply reasserting your position, and begging the question. And, if what I have already set forth hasn't registered in your mind, then I suppose it wouldn't help to quote you court rulings, including those from SCOTUS, indicating that procreation is, indeed, a government interest and one of the very reasons that marriage is considered a fundamental right. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Since certain people seem to be struggling mightily to avoid accepting the reasonable position that government involvement in marriage was due, in part, to their interest in population growth, I am wondering if they will struggle as much, if not more, with the seemly obvious notion that governments have become involved with marriage because of their interest in promoting "responsible procreation"?

How about it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Hello wall! Again, you are simply reasserting your position, and begging the question. And, if what I have already set forth hasn't registered in your mind, then I suppose it wouldn't help to quote you court rulings, including those from SCOTUS, indicating that procreation is, indeed, a government interest and one of the very reasons that marriage is considered a fundamental right. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No go ahead and quote SCOTUS opinions that government has an interest in increasing population through marriage laws.