Redefining marriage legally has upstream effects culturally. Walter Schumm and Jason Carroll at Public Discourse give one example:
Many countries have rolled out new policies to encourage citizens to have more children. Such policies range from reduced support for contraception, to monthly allowances for couples with children, to paid maternal and paternal leave, as well as free or subsidized daycare. It is worth noting that, to date, every European country that has adopted same-sex marriage has also had to implement some form of pro-natalist policy. Although some of these programs may be effective, they come at a great economic cost.
It hadn’t occurred to me to view the center-right Aussie Liberals’ daycare plan as a post-liberal response to liberal infertility. Perhaps instead of fostering birth, though, they should foster family formation by repealing universal contraception, divorce on demand, and marriage whatever-ism. Turning back the clock wouldn’t be all bad.
In the Atlantic, Sophie Gilbert reviews a book on the stigma of willful childlessness. She writes:
That attitude might indeed be selfish, but is it any more selfish than bringing ever more humans into an overpopulated world? Is it more selfish than having a baby simply because you want to, which is often the case? Has anyone in recent memory declared that they were procreating out of a selfless desire to perpetuate the human race, when the human race has never, ever, been less in need of perpetuation? The sense that having children is the most worthy of human activities is questioned by the writer Tim Kreider, who argues that it’s “a pretty low-rent ultimate purpose that’s shared with viruses and bacteria.” Ditto Geoff Dyer, who writes in his very funny essay that “not having children is seen as supremely selfish, as though the people having children were selflessly sacrificing themselves in a valiant attempt to ensure the survival of our endangered species, and fill up this vast and underpopulated planet.”
Has anyone in recent memory declared that they were procreating out of selfless altruism? Not having children isn’t selfish. Not having children is a perfectly rational and reasonable response given that humans are essentially parasites on the face of a perfectly lovely and well-balanced planet, ploughing through its natural resources, eradicating its endangered species, and ruining its most wonderful landscapes. This might sound misanthropic, and it is, but it is also true.
Sounds like an ideological foundation to justify mass murder and suicide. The question I have is why hasn’t she killed herself yet. What’s she waiting for? (To be proven wrong, probably, to validate her subconscious instinct to defend and value life, which she can’t deny.)
I’d have more respect for this dying sect if they were chaste. But they’re not. They’ve divorced reproductive acts from their reproductive results. The technological dissociation of sex and children has become part of their ideology. Not having state license to murder a gestating baby in the womb is the same as “compelling” women to have babies.