View Poll Results: Marriages without children should be dissolved

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agreed, dissolve them!

    2 3.23%
  • Disagree, marriage ain't just about children

    60 96.77%
Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This triggers the question of whether those who are known to be incapable of having children without intervention should be barred from marriage. i.e. a young woman who had to undergo a hysterectomy for some reason before marriage or a man who is paralyzed.
    Whetheror not she has a hysterectomy is medical knowledge and the government isn't privy to it.

    Paralysis to my understanding is protected under laws regarding handicap and I'm unsure how it would apply in regards to a situation like this and the type of argumnent that's ACTUALLY used rather than the hyperbolic one used by the OP. In regards to the OP's, yeah it'd likely clash with it despite the whole disabilities protection thing. Based on what the argument ACTUALLY typically is, I'd go no (see my comments above regarding broad coverage, high efficiency, deferment to recognized rights).

    All SSM does is treat marriage exactly as it is treated in these two-gender instances where child production is known to be totally impossible without 3rd party intervention.
    Which, as I pointed out earleir, makes the system and the goal of what you're striving for inefficient by allowing a siginficantly larger pool of people who are counter to the (as stated by the premise) goal of the act.

    To put it into numbers, if you want it broad and efficient and assuming both take the same amount of work to discover:

    If you can allow 100 people in and 10 of those 100 are not what you're looking for then you have essentially a 90% efficiency rate.

    If you can somehow bump it up to allowing 150 people in but 60 of those people are now not what you're looking for then you've reduced your essential efficiency down to 60%.

    Now you could perhaps only let 90 people in and weed out those 10, but doing so would also potentially be less efficient as you'd then have to research each individual beyond a simple test to see if they qualify as well as potentially invade individuals privacy.

  2. #22
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hey look everyone, someone made an actual legitimate counter point against the actual argument rather than twisting the argument around and using hyperbole to try and counter it or ignoring the argument and arguing against stereotypes rather than what's actually being said.

    Amazing how that can happen.

    And in honesty I agree with you Redress. I don't buy the studies that say somehow homosexual parents are worse than hetero ones as there's too much evidence on both sides to say conclusively. I think "different" would be a better explanation as "worse". I also think the "oddity" of it would be reduced greatly within a decade or two of gay marriage/civil union being legalized as the "oddity" is primarily out of the rarity of it currently. Its why I don't fully agree with the whole "government interest in potential to raise a child" idea.

    Though my stance has been long stated on the forum, which is the word marriage needs to be stripped from the law complete and replaced with "civil union" in all cases, and then open it up to any two individuals baring pairings that violate the law (such as pedophilia, incest, etc).
    I don't even think different is accurate. Based on the preponderance of evidence, gays are almost surely just as good of parents as straits, and I do not see the children of gays being different. It's something I know of on a very personal level(I have a gay parent as I have mentioned before), and even from my generation, when gays had a much much larger stigma than they have now, the end result seems the same. Any issues kids of our generation have with having a gay parent is from societies views on gays and handling that. In today's environment, that is much much less.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #23
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
    I've got to hand it to you, that's a pretty clever way to frame the question.

  4. #24
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Whetheror not she has a hysterectomy is medical knowledge and the government isn't privy to it.

    Paralysis to my understanding is protected under laws regarding handicap and I'm unsure how it would apply in regards to a situation like this and the type of argumnent that's ACTUALLY used rather than the hyperbolic one used by the OP. In regards to the OP's, yeah it'd likely clash with it despite the whole disabilities protection thing. Based on what the argument ACTUALLY typically is, I'd go no (see my comments above regarding broad coverage, high efficiency, deferment to recognized rights).
    Fair responses to those arguments.

    Which, as I pointed out earleir, makes the system and the goal of what you're striving for inefficient by allowing a siginficantly larger pool of people who are counter to the (as stated by the premise) goal of the act.

    To put it into numbers, if you want it broad and efficient and assuming both take the same amount of work to discover:

    If you can allow 100 people in and 10 of those 100 are not what you're looking for then you have essentially a 90% efficiency rate.

    If you can somehow bump it up to allowing 150 people in but 60 of those people are now not what you're looking for then you've reduced your essential efficiency down to 60%.

    Now you could perhaps only let 90 people in and weed out those 10, but doing so would also potentially be less efficient as you'd then have to research each individual beyond a simple test to see if they qualify as well as potentially invade individuals privacy.
    Let's go with new marriages involving post menopausal women.

    Using the data found here: Age at the menopause and onset of the climacteric ... [Int J Fertil. 1975] - PubMed result

    We can see that the average age of menopause onset is 51.21 with a standard deviation of 4.4 years. By 55.61 years of age, 84% of women are sterile. By 60 years of age, pretty much 98% of women are sterile.

    Using the same reasoning that was given for prohibiting SSM, we should also prohibit new marriages that involve women above the age of 60 for sure (with an excpetion for women who can show that they are in the 98th percentile or has children that are minors at the time of teh marriage), and could go as far as making this prohibition include women above the age of 56 while still allowing for proof-of-fertility/minor children exception. And there's no way that a woman over 65 should be allowed to get married (assuming that ability to have children naturally is really a major factor) since at most, 0.1% of them even have an outside chance of having children.

    New marriages involving women above the age of 52 are, more often than not, identical in function to Same-sex marriages. Hell, the majority of new marriages involving women over 52 fit this classification. Especially if the woman's children are already adults and/or she is childless at the time of the marriage.

    That's the flaw in the reasoning against SSM for natural procreative reasons. There is no push to limit the age of sterile women from getting married. One can use statistics as the basis and only allow exceptions when fertility is proven or the woman currently has minor children.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
    Marriage was never for making babies since the dawn of it's existence. In fact, it wasn't even about love or sex for most of history (it used to just be used for political purposes) - the modern Disney movie image of "I now pronounce you man and wife" is a very modern thing.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
    Marriage is nobody else's business except for the two involved in the contract.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #27
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Though its as asanine as a question as going "Should we allow marriage between a Man and his pet rock" because "Some" on the pro-gay marriage side say its just about love and nothing else.
    When pet rocks are able to enter themselves into voluntary contract, then yes.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You're taking a general point and trying to make it a specific one.

    The argument is not that all marriages that do not produce children are invalid.

    The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children.

    Almost all straights who marry have at least the potential of fulfilling this function. Not all actually do, of course. This has been acknowleged. But the vast majority do.

    Gay marriage is incapable, by its very nature, of producing children without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage. That is the difference.

    That is the difference. It is a general principle, and like all general principles there are exceptions to the rule. An object whose mass-density is less than water can float, whether it ever actually goes in the water or not; one whose mass-density is greater than water cannot float. Gay marriage cannot produce children without going outside the relationship; straight marriage can and usually does.

    It points out that SSM does not fit the historical purposes or functions of marriage and family, and that allowing SSM requires a redefinition of the purpose and function of marriage. It is not a "stand alone" argument against SSM in and of itself, but rather a point of fact relating to why gay relationships do not fit the existing definition of marriage.
    So, when this technology comes to fruition: Scientists step closer to producing sperm and eggs from stem cells - Telegraph - will you then support gay marriage?

    By your logic, once gays and lesbians can procreate then their marriages should be legalized.

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    When pet rocks are able to enter themselves into voluntary contract, then yes.
    Yes, thus why I was equating a stupid hyperbolic argument that few if anyone is making as its presented and is idiotic to one that is stupid and hyperbolic that few if anyone actually is making as its present.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    So, when this technology comes to fruition: Scientists step closer to producing sperm and eggs from stem cells - Telegraph - will you then support gay marriage?

    By your logic, once gays and lesbians can procreate then their marriages should be legalized.

    Point out to me where I said that this was the sole, stand-alone-by-itself argument against gay marriage.

    (You can't, because I didn't.)

    The fundamental point remains. The primary societal reason for encouraging marriage is for the purpose of producing and bringing up children. Straight marriages fulfill this function in the vast majority of cases without the need for outside intervention. Gay marriage is incapable by its very nature of producing children without outside intervention. This is simply fact. SSM does not fit the historical function and definition of marriage. Making same-sex unions into legal marriages involves changing that definition, not simply "ceasing to deny access".

    It isn't a stand-alone argument. If you're okay with changing the historical purpose of marriage in society, then you won't care about this argument. I am dubious about such a drastic change to what has been society's fundamental building block for millenia, so I view it as a matter worth considering.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •