Does having kids make you happy?

So you're totally against the concept, let alone its recognition in law, and yet you are willing to characterize Sullivan as married--not even leaving the term in quotation marks?

Just because some unelected judges say the law means one thing doesn't meant you have to bend your own heart and language to accommodate those rulings. If you aren't willing to draw a line in the sand with respect to your own personal convictions and how you express them, why do you constantly chide Republican politicians for paying lip service to the issue? Why the hell should they--if ideologues like you will surrender without a shot?

Three cheers for your graciousness toward Andrew, Rod.

Rod:

Sullivan is in a relationship that simulates marriage. He ain't married. It is important not to make such linguistic concessions.

Graciousness to Sullivan is one thing--fidelity to his own convictions is another. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Besides, the citation is inapt, because his "marriage" isn't operating under the same ground rules: Sullivan has said that he doesn't believe his relationship, or any gay "marriage", is bound by hertero-bourgeois notions of marital fidelity, and that he certainly won't act as if he is.

Of course he won't say this in Time or his own blog. Only in his interviews with the Advocate or similar homosexual publications has he been so honest. It's a little like those English language versions of Arab media outlets that say one thing (moderate and rational) for western consumption while their real opinions are kept "in the family"...

This is kind of sappy but from the beginning I felt my son was the reason for and the meaning of life. My job - my purpose - my heart. However to quote my mother.

"I wouldn't sell this one for a million dollars, but I wouldn't buy another one for a nickel."

I have a brother who agrees with me (to the tune of 4 kids) and another brother who just can't be arsed.

In a lot of ways the childless brother is the best person of the 3 of us, because he has time to be. He can not in anyway be described as hollow or narcissistic with his difficult job educating low frequency handicapped kids and his extensive volunteer work. The brother with 4 kids hardly has time to sleep.

I'm much happier married with children than I was when I was single. Dating, constant fear of failure, fear of not being attractive enough or thin enough to find a mate. Please. It's just like high school writ large.

In a very unexpected way, having children of my own enabled me to break free from the almost-paralyzing need to please my parents in all matters - from choice of friends to choice of religion. It gave me confidence that I did not have. That's no small thing. Perhaps the experience is different for those not raised in a very constraining, fear-based religious box.

I've been married for 15 years and have three children, a cat and a dog. I cannot imagine not being married and not having children. It just seems so lonely to me. Having a family can be messy, aggravating and exhausting, but so can being a single person. I am blessed to have all of them even if they do leave sticky handprints on the wall, wet towels on the floor, and fur everywhere.

Of course, like most women, I yearned for the security of marriage and family perhaps more than men do. Seems that my single female friends are pretty much focused on either meeting Mr. Right, or else getting Mr. Right to commit. Men seems to have different priorities, especially nowadays when sex is available for the price of a dinner and drinks, rather than a wedding ring.

Everyone told me I was nuts to get married so young (24) but I am glad I did. My hip, single, New York friends who are likewise pushing forty are finding that all the single men their age are either gay, chasing much younger women, or else have a lot of baggage in the form of ex-wives, children, and/or commitment issues.

While my children can be exhausting, challenging and aggravating at times, I love them all dearly and they are my hope for the future. It does amaze me how many people look upon children as some sort of vermin to be stamped out; they are rather lucky that their own parents presumably did not share this attitude, as they would not be here today to eat at their fancy restaurants and buy $9 beers at trendy clubs.

Thank you, Rod, for the kind words about Andrew Sullivan. I've read him for years, and really respect the man. In some of his writings he has said some extremely positive things about committed relationships.

This is just based on my limited personal observation (people I know), but I think there are many out there who would love to be married, but for one reason or another can't find a partner, or can't find someone they think is a suitable partner. (Obviously there are many content with their singleness; I'm not talking about them.) Sometimes I think these "Does marriage and kids make you happy?" articles are simply a way to soothe these ranks of the disappointed.

"Choice" is overrated. The less wise you are, the more choices you think you have, since you don't know yourself, your gifts, or vocation.

Who had more choices, Hugh Hefner or Tim Russert? When you die, who would you rather be thought of as more like?

Narcissus is a jealous god.

It's almost impossible to say whether -- as a married guy with two kids -- I'm happier than I was as a single dude.

Within the span of 10 minutes, I can go from the most unadulterated joy to the very depths of frustration. Kids will make you happy and miserable.

It's peaks and valleys, man. Hard to find level ground.

I don't see any hypocrisy in Rod's comment on Sullivan, even though it does seem like a slightly odd choice of example, given Rod's well-known views.

On the opic: I've been married, divorced, and am now remarried. When getting divorced, I thought I would be happy as a result of the autonomy of being single again. What a disaster! I'll take the solid joys, and the demands (which are closely entwined with the joys), of married life every day of the week. And children, too. At the ripe age of 46, I'm a father again. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything.

On the tangential issue, I think Erin nailed it perfectly.

On the main topic, it reminds me of the discussion on the proper translation of the Beatitudes - with regard to my children, I'm not sure I'm always "happy", but I'm sure that I'm "blessed".

Being married was never an end in itself for me. My goal was to create a family. And while admittedly, visceral attraction aided me in my choice of a wife, it isn't the thing that sustains my marriage. In some respects, I can understand how people who are in arranged marriages can claim to be happy, which they overwhelmingly claim. It is that shared end in the building on the next generation that brings joy to me when I look into my wife's eyes. Yes, she is certainly still beautiful, but I can find beautiful women most anywhere. (Of course, none more beautful than her.) It is truly the purpose and order than bringing forth the next generation offers that is the reason behind my joy that I share with my love.

Because that statement would have consequences which to him are difficult. It might jeopardize a friendship or two. It might cost him an invitation to dinner parties the next time he returns to NYC or DC. It might mean he won't ever get a commission from the Atlantic Monthly.

You really are a piece of work. I have no idea what to say to this. Actually, I have a great idea what to say to this, but it would be meaningless anyway. For perhaps the second or third time in this blog's history, I agree with Daniel: do we really need to have another tedious discussion about gay marriage? I think everybody knows where everybody else stands.

Anyway, I cited Andrew because it's where I encountered the link to McArdle, and I happened to agree with his point of view about the effect of marriage.

Again, all due respect as always, Rod, but if I were to hold up as an example of how marriage makes you happy a man and his six wives from the FLDS community, should I be surprised at being called to account for the moral incoherence of that statement?

Don't back down, Rod! With all due respect to Erin and others, you have nothing to apologize for. We all know where you stand. At least we should. But some people just don't get it. I see they're already attacking you over at the Political Cesspool blog. Well, you should wear their criticism as a badge of honor.

"It does not contain within it the intrinsically sacrificial and sacramental elements of a Christian marriage, nor does it contain within it those echoes of those things which a purely natural but not sacramental union of man and woman may contain. It is radically opposed to those elements, in fact, and could not be ordered more vehemently away from them than it is."

An utter lie. All committed, lifelong relationships require sacrifice of immediate gratification. That is such an obvious truth even you should get it. As for the sacramental elements, the presence of God is indeed manifested in loving, committed relationships that nurture and grow the individuals, families and communities involved. Christians (I am one) should actually rush to support same sex marriage as a way of renewing the sacredness of the institution.

The religious arguments against same-sex marriage just don't convince.

And Rod, I go back and forth from being pissed at your condescending contempt for gay relationships to respect for the fact that you make room for the reality of them. As for marriage and kids making people happy, I agree that its the wrong question. Is family a social good? That is the right question. As for happiness, I've experienced happiness and misery when I was single, and also now that I am permanently partnered. I hope that I can find happiness and meaning in whatever situation I find myself in. But I think it's better for me and those I love that I'm partnered.

the man from k street says;
But I'll bet he won't say, without any qualification, the simple statement that "Andrew Sullivan and X are not married."

Because that statement would have consequences which to him are difficult. It might jeopardize a friendship or two. It might cost him an invitation to dinner parties the next time he returns to NYC or DC. It might mean he won't ever get a commission from the Atlantic Monthly.

Posted by: The Man From K Street | July 18, 2008 5:57 PM

Give me a freaking break please. I disagree with Rod about a lot, and especially about the "control others lives" aspects of Christianity. But, you notice how everyone else here, Erin Manning, Scurvy Oaks, everyone, is respectfully disagreeing with him. There's a lot of reasons for that. One of the least (though it should be sufficient) is that he's our host. There's also the fact that he has posted honestly about his thoughts, he's never hidden his views, there's no way Atlantic Monthly doesn't know his views. In short, he's shown himself to be worthy of respectful dissent. As, apparently, he believes Andrew Sullivan and others involved in gay relationships are. Just because someone is in a gay marriage doesn't mean they don't get joy out of it (or out of the children they might adopt). Rod has apparently recognized this. You can disagree with his reasoning in a respectful way (see Erin Manning's posts), but that doesn't mean he's doing it for financial gain or something.

Let me say it a different way, K. Don't you think Sullivan is fully aware of Rod's views? I don't think anybody seriously thinks Rod has gone squishy on the issue just because he chooses to be generous toward his friend on a particular occasion. There's much to be said for friendships between people who have fundamental disagreements. I vote for cutting our host some slack.

Stefanie, I almost included in my comment, before posting it, a preemptive strike in the direction of my Romish brethren. So here it is: "For the love of our common Lord, please save your breath. All your bile, previously directed toward me, is hereby incorporated by reference." Also, if I had it to do over, I wouldn't call Sullivan a butt-pirate, notwithstanding the fact that I really don't like him one bit.

I really liked being single and marriage was a difficult adjustment. I was used to doing what I wanted to do, when I wanted to do it and the way I wanted to do it. You have to be fair but what exactly is fair between two adults.

For some reason having kids was pretty easy by comparison. The whole 50-50 thing in marriage leaves lots of space for testing boundaries and learning when they are exceeded the hard way. With kids it was always just obvious that it is just a total surrender to their needs. It places limitations that both my wife and I easily agree on. Whats best for them is what's best. Easy.

"Andrew Sullivan is no more married than I'm the N.L. batting champ."

It was an odd thing to say, but Sullivan believes he's married and believes it benefitted him. If even that can make one feel better than it does have some power. It's like a placebo effect, but such an effect means the person believes in whatever it is.

What Erin, K, and the others are saying is that gays are not human, and therefore cannot marry.

Now, of course, this whole thread will be devoted not to whether or not marriage and children make one happy, or how we count happiness, but about whether Rod is a "hypocrite" for failing to use sneer quotes to describe Andrew Sullivan's legal arrangements with his partner.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | July 18, 2008 4:45 PM>

Okay, so does marriage/children make me happy?

I enjoy being married. I suspect that my life is easier married than single. On the down side, if I was not married to my wife, I would leave my inherited Christian tradition and go elsewhere. But we make our choices and live with them.

Children? As I said earlier, we adopted 2 special needs children. We did it because we believed it was right. I don't especially "enjoy" them; but then they do have "special needs" (my 17 year-old son has an autistic spectrum disorder: as a result he engages in repetitive, uncensored conversations).

On the other hand, I confess that I'm probably not the best father. But we (my wife and I) continue by the grace of God to do what we do, confess our sins, and move on.

Now that I answered the question from my standpoint, I repeat: happiness has nothing to do with it. I have taken my vows, and as God gives me strength will live by them.

ditto Mark Shea
It's essential for a Christian to find words that reflect the Beauty and Truth of the Logos:

The nuptial meaning of matrimony is filial piety

The narcissistic amnesia of gay marriage is debauched slavery

My use of "family-tree" terms is a deliberate Christocentric attempt at elucidating what irks my fellow posters about Rod's defense of the indefensible, in the sense that by baptism, he ceased to be a slave but rather an adopted son, an heir to a heavenly promise denied those who shrug their shoulders, shirking the yoke of mutual complementarity, in favor of an alienated self-absorption, and all 'for Frack's sake'? * You'll need a whole new category for the AEA (autoerotic attracted) permanently partnered if its for his sake only. How about 'for Swive's sake'? She at least keeps her husband Scripture tells us:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/hosea/intro.htm
and we could all learn a thing or two on constancy from him!
____
* see tinyurl.com/474aw,
somewhat related, incidentally, to the obscene gesture
en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Hand_gesture#Fig_sign
St. Theresa of Avila was ordered to use to keep the Deceiver at bay:
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=208
(since its better that he's condemned to amusing himself
rather than roaming around tempting others, right?)

I don't know what we mean by happy, exactly, but I do know that marriage and children makes me feel fulfilled, useful, and at peace.

John E is right. These criticisms against Rod for referring to Andrew Sullivan's relationship as a marriage, without sneer quotes or other markers of derision, really come off like a social conservative version of political correctness. Which is no surprise, I guess, given that PC is the lingo of victimology, and social conservatives have certainly mastered that art. Woe betide the person who inadvertently uses the wrong term in the presence of the permanently aggrieved.

"all I can say is that the ensuing debate shows that PC Police is not a phenomena exclusive to the Left." TR

TR: I kind of agree. I mentioned it because I felt I had too, but I guess I just don't care that much about the matter. I don't think it's the intent or purpose of the discussion. It's just sounding like a way to play "I'm more traditional than thou."

Well I could claim I'm more traditional than most of thou.

Council of Trent CANON X "If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."

Marriage and raising children is a form of askesis (spiritual training).

It is also a form of imitation of God.

"Can Sullivan's union be a source of divine grace for him and his partner.

No."

So says some dead theology, but that doesn't make it the truth. God has a mischievous way of confounding all our dogmas, and perhaps revelation does still happen.

Erin - "So my insistence that people in gay "marriages" ought not be held up as examples of how human beings can be made happy by marriage isn't about political correctness; it's about truth, and the notion that in our words we have a responsibility to reflect that truth to the best of our abilities."

No, not about truth, but about tradition. Not the same thing. I know it's scary, but . . .

Enough with the Andrew Sullivan comments already ! I'm beginning to suspect the man's got some of you on retainer.

Getting back to the Topic At Hand........

Marriage is only secondarily about "happiness". First and foremost, it's about perpetuation and preservation of the species. The ability of the people involved to please each other is part of this; children tend to do better in terms of their growth and development with two parents, biologically related to the child, around to provide for them and raise them. The ability of the parents to get along and enjoy each other's company is an evolutionary plus, since it provides emotional security for the children and tends to produce providers that will be more likely to stick around.

From where I sit, the proper raising of children is an OBLIGATION one assumes upon having children. Whatever "happiness" one derives from watching them grow and develop--and there is some, I will stipulate-- is strictly a fringe benefit. Being happy all the time is flatly impossible (anyone who smiles and claims to be happy about anything all the time is crazy as a loon and should be kept away from healthy people), so what keeps a person in the child-raising game when the going gets tough ? "Obligation"---a concept that evades all too many people in the pathetic, sick joke we call American society.

(Incidentally, there is some evidence that Humans are programmed to feel protective towards babies; my father once told me that babies are as cute as they are in order to help insure that their parents won't strangle them when they wake up crying at 2 AM....)

As for me personally; I am the father of five. Having been partly responsible for bringing them into this world, I carry out my obligation to provide for them and raise them as best I can. They can each be very nice to be around, on occasion, but the responsibility can really weigh at times---and the awareness of that responsibility NEVER goes away, not for a moment. (IMO, it had d-mned well better not.) I love each of my children, but raising them is by far and away the most difficult thing I've ever done; more so, even, than staying married. Running a law practice doesn't even come close.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Rod, Andrew Sullivan, who is married, says that he's been surprised by how much happier he is because of it. I'm with Andrew

You are indeed "with Andrew" in your vision of how happiness correlates with marriage. And this is why your opinion on this issue - based completely on your personal feeling (eros) and utterly devoid of thought, natural law, and mortal sin (agape) - has jumped the shark. Either you were seeking a reaction, or you weren't...either way, 'nuff said.

The very best post here (and there are a lot of good ones, David WL, Erin, K-St, even Karth) is M.Z. Forrest:

Being married was never an end in itself for me. My goal was to create a family. And while admittedly, visceral attraction aided me in my choice of a wife, it isn't the thing that sustains my marriage. In some respects, I can understand how people who are in arranged marriages can claim to be happy, which they overwhelmingly claim. It is that shared end in the building on the next generation that brings joy to me when I look into my wife's eyes. Yes, she is certainly still beautiful, but I can find beautiful women most anywhere. (Of course, none more beautful than her.) It is truly the purpose and order than bringing forth the next generation offers that is the reason behind my joy that I share with my love.

An excellent description of real love. Something the vast majority of the West has lost and will never find again.

Saying that Andrew Sullivan is married, period, is on its face a statement which advances a particular agenda, the normalization and mainstreaming of same-sex marriage. It is a politically loaded statement in the present context.

Givemn that Andrew was married in Massachusetts, a state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal, there is no political agenda beyond legal and facial truth.

Erin is encxouraging a PC standard that is as rigid as a Berkeley Women's Studies Professor's.

Yeah, I wonder if Erin would say Ronald and Nancy Reagan weren't married.

I'm the one who sent Rod the story he posted last month, about my parents' 50th anniversary party where I noticed that there was no one in the room under 40, because neither my sister nor I have ever had any kids.

I do sometimes feel lonely not being married or at least seldom having anyone in my life. But I've never had any desire to have a family. Even when I was younger, I can't remember a time when I imagined what it would be like to be a father with a family, or looked forward to having a family of my own.

The only thing that ever makes me with I had children is the fact that my parents would be wonderful grandparents, and even if I get married and have children now, my parents are already past the age where they could be really active, involved grandparents. So there won't be children who have memories of my parents as their grandparents.

My parents, God bless them, don't seem to care, even though they're and pretty much the only couple in their circle of friends without grandchildren.

But at the age of 46 I've gotten really used to being alone. When I've been in relationships, I found myself frequently preoccupied by the fact that I didn't seem to be able to get away and be by myself as often as I would like. Solitude is very important to me, and I've really gotten used to it. I also have serious commitment issues.

Still, there are times I wish I had companionship, if nothing else. But when I see a couple with young children, I don't think, "Gee, I wish that were me." Instead, I think, "There but for the grace of God go I!". I'm not defending that attitude, but that's the reaction I have. So I think it's just as well that I have never brought children into the world. I think I would be miserable, which would make them miserable.

The odd thing is that my sister and I had a pretty happy childhood and we are both close to our parents. So why didn't either of us want to carry that on to another generation? Beats me.

But I agree that happiness is a choice. You can't depend on other people to make you happy. If you try to, you'll just end up inflicting your own unhappiness on them.

"Following this line of thought, it makes good sense how many people find homosexuality a legit form of marriage and, like Rod, believe a homosexual union can be compared to a modern marriage for happiness reasons without any qualification." mdavid

I have mixed feelings here. It seems odd he'd use him as an example of marriage's benefits, but I kind of think this is getting weirdly obsessive.

Maybe he just forgot to put the word "civil" in "civil marriage." He was discussing some people who aren't at all religious. So we might be talking about whether civil marriage can bring good things or whether individuals believe it can.

Now mostly I think civil marriage is a nearly empty piece of paper authorized by a state that was created by a nest of Deists and Jacobins, (Or in the case of Massachusetts Puritans and Deists) Still for civil society purposes marriages contracted this way are generally called "marriages", for convenience, even if they are well outside of natural law.

For example I believe, from what I recall of Ivan the Terrible, that if you have three living ex-wives you can't remarry. (From a Catholic perspective one living ex-spouse is enough to render re-marriage invalid) Whether this means he's required to say Mickey Rooney's marriage of thirty years does not, in fact, exist I don't know. Rooney seems to believe he's married judging by these commercials I've seen on the TV. That he's mistaken is something I might believe, but it's a quandary.

Robb's is the prototype perfect post. On Beliefnet, anywhere circa 2008. Logical, linear, modern both in message and mind, and personally engaging and insightful. It is the exact tone that I find so utterly refreshing in this 20-something generation. It made my day.

This tone (in anyone of any age but widely represented by those born late 70s/early-mid 80s) is in every respect of his first paragraph solidly aware. Note how not one point he makes is by trouncing another's; his single life he was not saying was 'thinking I was happy'. He was happy and says so. BUT he found a joy, like Rod did, with his wife and children. Compare this with the usual ‘I was lost and now I’m found’ posts; not like he suddenly renounces every prior era of his life as he finds higher ground.

His impatience (disgust) with PC police on the left is as palpable as his with the hurling right rants re: 'gay agenda' et al. THIS is the guy whose family I wish lived next door. He is the wave of the future; devout at no one's expense. Threatened by no one else's religion, color, sexual orientation, gender. Happy to be happy being happy while being a responsible, objective observer of American values rather than an angry defender of worn out used-and-abused 'moral' veneers.

I love 2008. For all its fearsome faultlines, it is being changed by a highly educated alternative come-of-age generation that I think shows the savvy to balance intellect with enlightenment.