In an earlier post on Family Scholars, David Lapp accuses Stephanie Coontz of determinism in this radio interview. David writes:
Coontz treats it as an incontrovertible reality that high numbers of young women will continue to have lots of sex outside of marriage, bear children outside of marriage, and that couples will choose to cohabit instead of marriage–to hear her talk, you’d think it was a law of human nature that came into effect sometime after 1960. As she said multiple times “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”
Our question for Coontz is this: would you say it’s an incontrovertible reality that income inequality will only increase, that the poor will only get poorer and the rich get richer? That poverty will only increase? That unemployment will only continue to rise at alarming rates?
David’s analogy badly misrepresents Coontz’s actual views. Coontz doesn’t argue that divorce will only increase, for example, or that marriage rates can only go down. A more accurate analogy would be that Coontz is like an economist saying that although we can reduce poverty and unemployment, there will always be some poor people and some unemployed people.
According to what Coontz says in the interview, she does think more people could be in healthy, lasting marriages, and she favors policies to bring about that change. But she also thinks there will always be some people who aren’t married — people who are cohabitating, single parents, etc.. — and she favors policies to help those people have better lives, too.
At the conclusion of the radio show, Coontz sums up her views (emphasis added by me):
I don’t think [marriage will ever be something only a minority of Americans do], but I do think that it’s impossible to go back to a situation that we had in the 1950s and 1960s (and that was in fact actually a historical aberration), where 95% of the population was married. I think we can improve people’s changes at entering and staying in good marriages. But I think that unwed couples are going to continue to cohabit, that some people will have kids out of marriage, and that divorce will continue to occur. [...]
I’m just in favor of a kind of holistic program that emphasizes commitments and relationships. Marriage is an important part of that program but cannot be the only part of it.
David’s post obscures how much common ground actually exists. Coontz and Wilcox (and those who share their respective views) are not implacable enemies; on the contrary, the two academics spent much of their “debate” agreeing with each other. I suspect that David, if he listened more carefully to what Coontz said, might find that he too agrees with her some of the time.
Categories: Marriage
[...] [Crossposted from Family Scholars Blog.] [...]
I’m just in favor of a kind of holistic program that emphasizes commitments and relationships. Marriage is an important part of that program but cannot be the only part of it.
YES. THIS. How could anyone possibly disagree with that statement?
I agree that there is much common ground, and I do appreciate that Koontz wants to strengthen commitment in relationships. What I don’t understand is what that looks like (to me, that’s what marriage is about–increasing commitment). For most people, marriage signifies the ultimate commitment. Cohabiting often means that the relationship is not to that level of commitment yet.
So what does Koontz mean? Should we tell cohabiting couples that it’s wrong for them to break up? That if you decide to move in with someone, that means you need to be committed to them? I suppose we could do this, but without legal involvement how would you encourage people to not just leave? And if you did make cohabiting unions legally registered unions that required paperwork to end, how would this be different than marriage? Marriage is a way to make commitment harder to get out of. With cohabitation, one can just walk away–that’s one reason it’s so popular.
I guess what I’m asking is this: if we try to strengthen commitment in cohabiting unions, how will this differ from marriage?
Oops, I spelled “Coontz” wrong! Sorry! : )
Amber, my question would be how does one continue to justify discrimination amongst LGBT relationships while trying to maintain that “commitment” is a good thing?
To answer that question, we’d have to talk about our differing assumptions of what marriage means. If marriage were merely a private relationship between two individuals who love each other, then it would be discrimination to exclude LGBT relationships. But, I think that (and I have most of human history to back me up on this) marriage is also about bringing together mother, father, and child. In other words, it is linked to the procreative, and the plain biological fact is that two men or two women can’t procreate, even though they can love.
But that leads us into a whole different discussion about assumptions. If we set that issue aside for a moment and just talk about heterosexual cohabiting couples, what are some ways we could strengthen their committment apart from preparing them for marriage?
But, I think that (and I have most of human history to back me up on this) marriage is also about bringing together mother, father, and child.
So then you’re against allowing marriage between people who are not, for any reason, co-fertile? No marriage for post-menopausal women or infertile people? What about couples who are infertile together but each might be fertile in a different couple? Should their marriages be forcibly dissolved? What about people who simply don’t want to have children? Should they be allowed to marry? Should their marriages be dissolved if no children appear after a certain amount of time?
In addition to what Dianne just said, I’d point out that your point makes no sense because you included the word “also.” Also implies that marriage is about procreation among other things.
Your argument really only makes sense if you’re saying that marriage is exclusively about procreation, and not about anything else in any significant way.
Social institutions don’t develop on a case-by-case basis.
The social institution of marriage developed as a framework for reproduction, its primary purpose. It developed in a manner that would maximize its goal, which meant that it everyone belonging into the category who fits the bill (meaning male or female) is automatically included, without a case-by-case evaluation.
Men-Men or Female-Female relationships don’t belong to a category that fits the bill.
Social institutions aren’t based on the circumstances of particular individuals.
I’m confused about what this means for same-sex marriage.
You say it’s not decided on a case-by-case basis. If that’s so, then what’s the harm in having some same-sex couples get married, since the overwhelming majority of marriages would still be straight people? Yes, there will be some instances of non-biologically-reproductive marriages on a case-by-case basis — just as there are today, when infertile heterosexuals marry. So what’s your objection?
You seem to say that it’s okay if there are some “case by case” examples of non-reproductive marriages, unless the people involved are lesbian or gay, in which case it’s suddenly not okay. How does that make sense?
Are you worried that heterosexuals will stop having babies if same-sex couples are treated equally?
Social institutions don’t develop on a case-by-case basis.
So, then, why should we go through case by case, peaking at people’s genitals and/or chromosomes before deciding if they can get married. Why not simply say any two adults who are not married already and desire to marry each other may marry? That’s a nice simple rule that requires nothing but mutual consent and lack of pre-existing commitment and requires no case-by-case consideration.
Dianne, I’d add the word “unrelated” before “adults,” since what marriage does is turn unrelated people into each other’s closest kin. Otherwise, I completely agree.
and I have most of human history to back me up on this
What does most of human history have to do with anything? If doing things differently from most of human history is wrong, then you shouldn’t be reading these words since for most of human history the vast majority of the population was illiterate. Indeed, for most of the existence of humanity, writing was unknown. I suppose that’s mostly human pre-history so we can let that one go by, but still, a common person reading? Unnatural.
I’m not even going to bother making the argument that the internet is a new invention. If you’re over 15 that should be self-evident.
I’d add the word “unrelated” before “adults,”
Good point. I knew I was leaving something out.
The exclusion of same sex relationships from a procreative institution is by definition and is categoric, not a case by case exclusion.
“Most of human history” doesn’t prove what is right or wrong, but it does define a social institution for what it is.
I am glad you agree then than regarding the innovative revolutionary nature of including same sex couples in the framework of marriage. We are left only to debate whether it is beneficial or not to society.
So why can’t we say that the exclusion of (say) post-menopausal women is by definition and is categorical?
There are two states in the U.S. with laws allowing first cousins to marry each other as long as they can prove that they’re infertile. So apparently “infertile” CAN be a category — and apparently there’s nothing wrong with the law explicitly stating that there’s some purpose to marriage other than reproduction.
I’m unaware that I did agree. I don’t think it is “revolutionary.” Have you been to Massachusetts recently? The buildings aren’t on fire; the sky has not fallen; the divorce rate remains much, much lower than the divorce rate in states that have banned same-sex marriage. Where’s the revolution?
The fairly obvious fact is, the sexual ethic that says lgbt are equal is better at creating stable families where kids are likely to be raised by both their parents than the sexual ethic that says lgbt people are second-class citizens. If you want to see a society where kids are most likely to be raised by their two married parents, you wouldn’t go to Arkansas or Wyoming; you’d go to Massachusetts or Connecticut.
I think that same-sex marriage is harmless to straight families and beneficial in obvious ways for same-sex couples, same-sex parents and their children, and to lgbt children and teens. (And more broadly, I think the sexual ethics associated with acceptance of lgbt people is more successful for straight families as well; that is, “remain a virgin until you get married young” is more likely to fail then “have sex responsibly if you want to and use birth control responsibly and get married in your mid-20s or above” is.)
So what are the costs of inequality? Maintaining inequality does significant harm to the dignity of lgbt people everywhere, because it doesn’t treat them as full and equal citizens. It harms our whole country, by damaging our traditional and much-admired dedication to legal equality. It also harms children being raised by same-sex parents, because those children don’t benefit from the extra family stability that some researchers believe marriage brings. More broadly, keeping lgbt people in a second-class status sends a message of inequality that echos throughout society, including harming the self-esteem of lgbt kids and teens, and makes it more likely that those kids will be rejected by their families. This leads to harms like increased gay suicide.
(I’m not saying that marriage equality alone will solve the problem of society-wide homophobia. Rather, I’m saying that marriage equality is necessary to solve that problem. Necessary, but not sufficient. LGBT people will never be broadly accepted as equal citizens while the law still treats them as second-class citizens.)
So if we’re going by a cost/benefit analysis, then obviously we should legalize same-sex marriage. Glad to have that settled!