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 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #41
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,570

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    What about seniors whose children have already grown up and gone, should their marriages be dissolved with the rationale that they are no longer capable of procreating? Should their marriage break up, or one partner die, should those who are beyond child bearing years be prohibited from marrying?

    Or is marriage really about more than making babies?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #42
    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 Redress View Post
    It's an arbitrary distinction. It's entirely meaningless. Doctors are used in the process of childbearing. The ability is there for gay couples to have children. Saying this does not count because, well, because you think it shouldn't does not change the facts.

    Sorry my friend, but there is a huge difference between requiring a doctor or "friend" to concieve and/or carry a child, and "it would be nice to have someone to assist with the delivery, but we could manage if one isn't available."


    The distinction is not arbitrary or meaningless, it is fundamental. A man and a woman can produce children without outside intervention; this is NOT possible for fem-fem or male-male.


    Straight couples tend to produce children, and outside aid is unnecessary. Homo couples are completely unable to produce children without outside aid.

    If Group A is an isolated tribe of straight couples, and Group B is an isolated tribe of homo couples, in the absence of modern technology (or the willingness to break with one's presumed orientation), Group A will likely reproduce and expand, Group B will die off.

    Hardly a trivial difference.

    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.'.."

  3. #43
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    What about seniors whose children have already grown up and gone, should their marriages be dissolved with the rationale that they are no longer capable of procreating? Should their marriage break up, or one partner die, should those who are beyond child bearing years be prohibited from marrying?

    Or is marriage really about more than making babies?

    Again, the point is not about there being exceptions to the general rule, as I've said plainly there are. The point is that as a building-block of society, straight marriage fulfills the function of family and children without outside aid, while SSM is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling that role without the use of sperm, ova or wombs that do not belong to the two partners-in-marriage.


    A million straight couples: some will reproduce, some will not. As a group, they will typically produce millions of children, typically without the need for intervention from outside the marriage in the conception of same.

    A million gay couples will not produce even ONE child without that outside intervention, because their fundamental nature is non-reproductive.
    Last edited by Goshin; 06-18-10 at 07:33 PM.

    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.'.."

  4. #44
    User sweEt Mauritius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    07-15-12 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Sorry my friend, but there is a huge difference between requiring a doctor or "friend" to concieve and/or carry a child, and "it would be nice to have someone to assist with the delivery, but we could manage if one isn't available."


    The distinction is not arbitrary or meaningless, it is fundamental. A man and a woman can produce children without outside intervention; this is NOT possible for fem-fem or male-male.


    Straight couples tend to produce children, and outside aid is unnecessary. Homo couples are completely unable to produce children without outside aid.

    If Group A is an isolated tribe of straight couples, and Group B is an isolated tribe of homo couples, in the absence of modern technology (or the willingness to break with one's presumed orientation), Group A will likely reproduce and expand, Group B will die off.

    Hardly a trivial difference.
    In that regard, there is NO difference between same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples. And yet the infertile opposite-sex couple who is AS capable as the same-sex couple of reproducing through sex is deserving of marriage but the same-sex couple is not? Why?? I'm not talking about the general tendency or nature of opposite-sex couples. I'm talking specifically about infertile opposite-sex couples compared to same-sex couples, who are identical with regards to production and raising of children. Why should they be treated differently by the law?
    Last edited by sweEt Mauritius; 06-18-10 at 07:36 PM.

  5. #45
    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

    Terribly sorry, a friend is picking me up and I have to go. We'll pick this up later if someone comes up with anything new...

    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.'.."

  6. #46
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Sorry my friend, but there is a huge difference between requiring a doctor or "friend" to concieve and/or carry a child, and "it would be nice to have someone to assist with the delivery, but we could manage if one isn't available."


    The distinction is not arbitrary or meaningless, it is fundamental. A man and a woman can produce children without outside intervention; this is NOT possible for fem-fem or male-male.


    Straight couples tend to produce children, and outside aid is unnecessary. Homo couples are completely unable to produce children without outside aid.

    If Group A is an isolated tribe of straight couples, and Group B is an isolated tribe of homo couples, in the absence of modern technology (or the willingness to break with one's presumed orientation), Group A will likely reproduce and expand, Group B will die off.

    Hardly a trivial difference.
    But it is a meaningless distinction. The aid is available, just as doctors, delivery rooms, lamaze, spinal blocks, fertility treatments, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers are all available to couples who can or want to use them. Some of those things are standard practice nowadays. The idea that because gay couples cannot have kids without help in today's world is a meaningless statement. So what? Almost no one does have kids without outside help any more, and many cannot conceive without help from an outside source.
    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.

  7. #47
    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 sweEt Mauritius View Post
    In that regard, there is NO difference between same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples. And yet the infertile opposite-sex couple who is AS capable as the same-sex couple of reproducing through sex is deserving of marriage but the same-sex couple is not? Why?? I'm not talking about the general tendency or nature of opposite-sex couples. I'm talking specifically about infertile opposite-sex couples compared to same-sex couples, who are identical with regards to production and raising of children. Why should they be treated differently by the law?

    Sigh. I can't answer half a dozen different people in any reasonable time frame. See post number 43.

    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.'.."

  8. #48
    User sweEt Mauritius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    07-15-12 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Terribly sorry, a friend is picking me up and I have to go. We'll pick this up later if someone comes up with anything new...
    I've asked you the same question three times and you haven't addressed it at all. See my previous post when you return because I honestly would like to know your response.

  9. #49
    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 Redress View Post
    But it is a meaningless distinction. The aid is available, just as doctors, delivery rooms, lamaze, spinal blocks, fertility treatments, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers are all available to couples who can or want to use them. Some of those things are standard practice nowadays. The idea that because gay couples cannot have kids without help in today's world is a meaningless statement. So what? Almost no one does have kids without outside help any more, and many cannot conceive without help from an outside source.

    Redress, in the fundamentals of biology, male-female is a reproductive unit.

    Male-male is not. Female-female is not. Not without adding a third person to the equation.

    You can deny that it is important, but you can't deny that it is a fact.

    I really do have to go now, sorry.

    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.'.."

  10. #50
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Again, the point is not about there being exceptions to the general rule, as I've said plainly there are. The point is that as a building-block of society, straight marriage fulfills the function of family and children without outside aid, while SSM is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling that role without the use of sperm, ova or wombs that do not belong to the two partners-in-marriage.


    A million straight couples: some will reproduce, some will not. As a group, they will typically produce millions of children, typically without the need for intervention from outside the marriage in the conception of same.

    A million gay couples will not produce even ONE child without that outside intervention, because their fundamental nature is non-reproductive.
    You are starting to have an awful lot of exceptions. Childless marriages, exception. Strait couples who need help conceiving, exception. Gay couples who have kids already, exception. It's starting to look like your exceptions to the rule are to the point of invalidating the rule.
    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.

Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •