The Fall of Fertility: How Redefining Marriage Will Further Declining Birthrates

[AgeofKnowledge]

"Redefining marriage undermines the ties between marriage and procreation. This will contribute to already declining fertility rates in the United States as marriage rates drop and marriage becomes even more adult-centric in meaning and function. The consequences to the economy and society will be harmful and multifaceted."

Publication: You are being redirected...

 

[Nautilus]

after reading the article I must say I don't agree. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the fact that straight couples already aren't having kids for a variety of reasons. Nowadays a lot of people just dont want kids. Sure you could loosely and probably erroneously tie it into gay marriage, but the birth rate was declining well before that.

 

[Angela53510]

I know so many heterosexual couples that have not had children (and many regretting it!) and I know that gay couples, especially women often have children.

So I think that a declining birthrate cannot be correlated to same sex marriage.

I do not believe or like gay marriage, but I don't think this article is doing anything but extrapolating from data which is not correlated to a cause-effect relationship between gay marriage and the birth rate.

In fact, in Canada we have had gay marriage for 10 years and we are now have a bit of a baby boom, with the children of baby boomers finally deciding to have children. That's how I got 4 grandchildren in less than 3 years!

Canada’s latest baby boom caught experts by surprise — in part because our birth rate is declining | National Post

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I think you two are missing the point of the article which is that society's dismissal of God's sexual ethic of "absolute monogamy" between men and women results in negative societal (and civilization) consequences that include the devaluation of marriage as an institution amongst most members of society and subsequently a participation rate decline amongst a population who no longer hold it sacred followed by a declining birth rate.

Statistically, consequential evidence of same-sex "marriage" is already manifesting in a birthrate reduction. For example, in 2007, a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in five U.S. states that granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples reveals that four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in relation to the population of women of childbearing age).

Twelve of the sixteen states granting benefits to same-sex couples rank in the bottom twenty states for birth rate, while eleven of them rank in the bottom seventeen in fertility rate. In fact, Vermont, the first state in the U. S. to offer 100% of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through passage of its "civil unions" law, ranks dead last in both birth rate and fertility rate. See: "Births: Final Data for 2007," National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 58, No. 24, August, 2010, Table 11.

The same pattern is seen internationally for nations that permit same-sex "marriage." See: "Country Comparison: Birth Rate," The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency). [FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][FONT=ACaslon Regular,ACaslon Regular][/FONT][/FONT]

It's true that many factors can play into a rise or decline of a nation's birthrate (e.g. food production, mortality, patterns of birth control usage, etc...); however, the present devaluation and decline of marriage between men and women certainly stands out as a primary driver for the latter (and I would argue especially when the ability of government to artificially maintain out of marriage procreation is finally curtailed due to escalating interest expenses on the rapidly rising debt).

The available statistics support the assertions made in the article which offers sound scholarly reasons why: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14885/

 

[PoetMary]

Correlation does not equal causation.

You could do another study and find that the eating of peanut butter is lower in the states that first allowed gay marriage. Would we then be prepared to blame the legalization of gay marriage for the anti-peanut butter sentiment?

There have been declining birthrates in Europe for much longer than the legalization of civil unions. I remember hearing about child-bearing incentives offered in various European countries in the late 80s/early 90s.

I think there's a greater case to be made for the devaluing of children as the cause of lowered fertility rates. Most people (even Christians, mind you), don't view children as a gift from God, but as a "responsibility" (and possibly a burden). Culturally, we are programmed that children must be provided with various (material) goods--their own bedroom, various electronics, a car at 16, a college education. People are (erroneously) considered to be irresponsible parents if they don't meet this cultural standard. Even a lot of Christian parents prioritize say, paying for a college education, over having another child.

As a result, most married Christians engage with various kinds of birth control methods (some more disruptive than others). They view procreation within their purview of control (as opposed to previous generations that saw it as a manifestation of God's will). So, if the idea is that children are a "responsibility", and you control when and how many children you have (as opposed to submitting to God's will regarding your family), it makes sense that people would be more likely to underestimate what they are capable of in regard to their own family.

And this doesn't even touch the Western abandonment of the idea that Christians bearing many children are an opportunity to bring more of Christ to the world. (Something most modern Western Christians would find to be "quaint" at best, or view quite cynically at worst).

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obviously the correlation between eating peanut butter and a declining birth rate, if such a correlation exists, for the purpose of demonstrating that causation would be so weak as to be nonsensical when qualified statistically, scientifically, and in a scholarly way.

While you're correct that a correlation does not always equate to a causation for a particular result, the existence of non-weak correlation does warrant scholarly and scientific qualification to see if it is strong enough to demonstrate causation.

This would be a good time for you to acquaint yourself with Pearson's r correlation and Cramer's V correlation toward understanding that strong correlation is material toward demonstrating causation.

Eating peanut butter cannot be shown to cause birth rate decline; however, dismissal of God's sexual ethic of "absolute monogamy" between men and women can and has been already by scholars using scientific methods.

You invoke Europe's declining birth rate as proof that the decline of marriage does not correspond with a decline in birth rate apparently because you are completely oblivious to the fact that the opposite has already been proven (e.g. fewer marriages, more divorces, lower birthrate). Recent EU demographic data clearly shows that the number of marriages per 1,000 persons decreased within the EU-28 in recent decades while the number of divorces increased at the same time the birthrate decreased (except for the out-of-wedlock birthrate which fell far short of constituting any replacement value for the overall birthrate decline statistic).

In fact, since 1965 the crude marriage rate in the EU-28 has declined by close to 50% in relative terms (from 7.8 per 1,000 persons in 1965 to 4.2 in 2011) at the same time the crude divorce rate increased from 0.8 per 1,000 persons in 1965 to 2.0 in 2011. See: Marriage and divorce statistics - Statistics Explained

And reread the original article. The scholarly studies shared clearly ties a society's devaluation of marriage to the devaluation of procreation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

You could do another study and find that the eating of peanut butter is lower in the states that first allowed gay marriage. Would we then be prepared to blame the legalization of gay marriage for the anti-peanut butter sentiment?

There have been declining birthrates in Europe for much longer than the legalization of civil unions. I remember hearing about child-bearing incentives offered in various European countries in the late 80s/early 90s.

I think there's a greater case to be made for the devaluing of children as the cause of lowered fertility rates. Most people (even Christians, mind you), don't view children as a gift from God, but as a "responsibility" (and possibly a burden). Culturally, we are programmed that children must be provided with various (material) goods--their own bedroom, various electronics, a car at 16, a college education. People are (erroneously) considered to be irresponsible parents if they don't meet this cultural standard. Even a lot of Christian parents prioritize say, paying for a college education, over having another child.

As a result, most married Christians engage with various kinds of birth control methods (some more disruptive than others). They view procreation within their purview of control (as opposed to previous generations that saw it as a manifestation of God's will). So, if the idea is that children are a "responsibility", and you control when and how many children you have (as opposed to submitting to God's will regarding your family), it makes sense that people would be more likely to underestimate what they are capable of in regard to their own family.

And this doesn't even touch the Western abandonment of the idea that Christians bearing many children are an opportunity to bring more of Christ to the world. (Something most modern Western Christians would find to be "quaint" at best, or view quite cynically at worst).

 

[Angela53510]

I think you two are missing the point of the article which is that society's dismissal of God's sexual ethic of "absolute monogamy" between men and women results in negative societal (and civilization) consequences that include the devaluation of marriage as an institution amongst most members of society and subsequently a participation rate decline amongst a population who no longer hold it sacred followed by a declining birth rate.

Statistically, consequential evidence of same-sex "marriage" is already manifesting in a birthrate reduction. For example, in 2007, a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in five U.S. states that granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples reveals that four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in relation to the population of women of childbearing age).

Twelve of the sixteen states granting benefits to same-sex couples rank in the bottom twenty states for birth rate, while eleven of them rank in the bottom seventeen in fertility rate. In fact, Vermont, the first state in the U. S. to offer 100% of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through passage of its "civil unions" law, ranks dead last in both birth rate and fertility rate. See: "Births: Final Data for 2007," National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 58, No. 24, August, 2010, Table 11.

The same pattern is seen internationally for nations that permit same-sex "marriage." See: "Country Comparison: Birth Rate," The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency).

It's true that many factors can play into a rise or decline of a nation's birthrate (e.g. food production, mortality, patterns of birth control usage, etc...); however, the present devaluation and decline of marriage between men and women certainly stands out as a primary driver for the latter (and I would argue especially when the ability of government to artificially maintain out of marriage procreation is finally curtailed due to escalating interest expenses on the rapidly rising debt).

The available statistics support the assertions made in the article which offers sound scholarly reasons why: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14885/

Since the USA has just started the experiment with same sex marriage, and we have been at it for over 10 years, I will take the Canadian stats of a minor baby boom as more valid.

The fact is, same sex marriages make up a TINY bit of the marriages in western society.

The latest stats from Canada and the US estimate that less than 2% of marriages are gay. But perhap only 1-2% of our population idenifies as gay.

"The Forum Research poll, commissioned by the National Post and taken twice in June to confirm its accuracy, found that 5% of Canadians identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. And contrary to the popular wisdom that the same-sex marriage rate is surprisingly low, the poll found that a third of LGBT people say they are in a same-sex marriage."

"That 2009 survey found 2% of Canadians aged 18-59 said they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual — a full 8% lower than the “one in 10” truism that has circulated since 1948, when American biologist Alfred Kinsey pronounced that 10% of all men are gay. Gary Kinsman, a Laurentian University sociologist and leading Canadian expert on sexuality issues, said the new Forum poll will undoubtedly provoke contestation from both the gay community, which will say the rate is under-reported and far too low, and social conservatives, ‘‘who will argue the results are somehow bogus and too high.”But Forum’s 5% figure jibes with the latest number out of the United States, where a University of California Los Angeles think-tank last year found 4% of Americans are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. University of British Columbia professor Amin Ghaziani said it is “terrific” that Canada has joined the U.S. in producing a more comprehensive snapshot of its gay community."

New poll reveals landscape of gay Canada | National Post

So that obviously means that the 98% of marriages, which are heterosexual are NOT producing enough children.

So how many children do you have AoK? I know you are against marriage in the US, because it somehow discriminates against men. Could be, but it is not my country, so I don't know. (I have 4 children, and 4 grandchildren, by the way!)

What I do know, is that you are part of the problem, not the solution. By refusing to marry, you are not producing children. Therefore, you personally contribute to the declining birth rate.

I would stop trashing gays for the declining birth rate, and instead look to your own backyard, which obviously has no children playing in it!

And although I am against gay marriage, I would not be so naive as to suggest that it is responsible for the declining birth rates, when the correlation is slim and none! Let's put the blame where blame is due - on people choosing to remain single, and heterosexuals who remain childless or have only 1 or 2 children!

 

[Nautilus]

Im not sure why a declining birthrate is even a big deal. I mean so what less babies were born this year than last. It really doesnt even seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well, she's simply flinging mud at the wall. Her assertions with respect to the U.S. (pop. 321,485,614) and Europe (pop. 851,605,800) are false so now she's grasping at Canadian (pop. 35,757,523) data.

But she's wrong there too for Canada's birth rate had been in decline for many years. The United Nations reports Canada's birthrate in 1970 was 17, in 1990 it was 14, in 2011 it was 11, in 2014 it was 10.29, and in 2015 it so far is 10.28. See: https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=SOWC&f=inID%3A90

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It does matter in the grand scheme of things, you just don't yet know why it matters. That wasn't the point, however.

Im not sure why a declining birthrate is even a big deal. I mean so what less babies were born this year than last. It really doesnt even seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Nautilus]

i mean im sure if you had notes throughout history the birthrate has both declined and increased depending on a variety of factors. this one fluctuation isnt a sign of anything major.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You don't have a clue but it's close to 1 am here and I'm going to bed. Au Revoir.

i mean im sure if you had notes throughout history the birthrate has both declined and increased depending on a variety of factors. this one fluctuation isnt a sign of anything major.

 

[Nautilus]

so a cyclical birth rate is too much to consider? I mean thats not even a tough question. Not to mention you are 52, you wont live long enough to see any large-scale effects even if the birthrate is in such a drastic tailspin. And hey if you are at least the world will be less crowded

 

[didymos]

"Redefining marriage undermines the ties between marriage and procreation...

There could still be another reason for the birth rate to drop