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 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #61
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    What's all this nonsense about marriage being about children?

    Historically, marriage was utilized because it resolved inheritance disputes, conferred titles and honors from the spouse's family, sealed alliances and agreements among leaders and businesses.

    Historically in many societies, women were merely property, having greater status than a slave but not an equal to a freeman or citizen.

    Marriage as an agreement primarily to facilitate the creation and upbringing of children, is a recent invention.

    But let's not leave out the influence of religion. Religion has played a major role in marriage because in the very popular Abrahamic religions, sex outside of marriage is a sin. And children are a natural biproduct of sex. Its important to keep in mind that historically Christianity and Islam do not support marriage because it produces children, but because it is only within a marriage that sex is not a sin.
    Good point. It is a business deal in which the female is more or less property of the male, as well as a sanction for having sex.

    Now, if women are equal to men, the business part of marriage changes dramatically.

    And, if sex outside of marriage is a sin, then the way to keep homosexuals from sinning is to allow them to marry.
    \
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #62
    Professor
    Layla_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,440
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Easy high lob.

    Because hetero couples, in the vast majority of cases, can reproduce and bear children without a doctor's aid. Proof: millenia of history.

    Homo couples are completely incapable, by the very nature of their relationship, of producing children without outside intervention.... to whit, the use of someone else's ovum, sperm, or womb. In essense they do not produce children, but rather get them from an outside source.

    This is a very fundamental difference. Subset A (straight couples) have the capacity in most cases to produce children that are an actual product of the marriage; Subset B (homo couples) do not, period. I consider it significant. Probably you don't... if you don't, then oh well you just don't. The point remains a fact, however.
    So a straight couple who have a child by some other than the traditional means are somehow less married? Maybe their marriage is less good? Maybe their marriage is damaged by the gay couples who have already married... maybe that's how gay marriage damages all marriage. This is just insulting and ridiculous.
    ~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
    ~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
    ~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
    George Carlin

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Layla_Z View Post
    So a straight couple who have a child by some other than the traditional means are somehow less married? Maybe their marriage is less good? Maybe their marriage is damaged by the gay couples who have already married... maybe that's how gay marriage damages all marriage. This is just insulting and ridiculous.

    I've lost count of how many times I've said this in this thread. This will be the very last time, and then I am done.

    You're all pointing out exceptions. I've explained repeatedly this is a general principle... every general principle is subject to individual exceptions.

    Historically the function of marriage in society is mostly about the production and upbringing of children.
    Hetero marriage as a general category is usually capable of fulfilling that function without resorting to resources (sperm, ova, wombs) outside the marriage.
    Homo marriage lacks this capacity entirely. It is entirely non-reproductive without the intervention of a third party that is not part of the marriage.

    I think this is relevant, as it is one way in which SSM does not meet the definition of marriage, because it is inherently incapable of independently fulfilling marriage's primary societal function.

    That fact cannot be denied. Homo coupledom is a non-reproductive relationship without the inclusion of someone from outside the marriage. You may think it is irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be made lawful; fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is true.

    Prove this statement false: ALL Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children without the aid of a third party.

    You can't prove it false, because it is true. You can argue it's irrelevance if you wish, but you cannot argue that it isn't a fact.

    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. #64
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I've lost count of how many times I've said this in this thread. This will be the very last time, and then I am done.

    You're all pointing out exceptions. I've explained repeatedly this is a general principle... every general principle is subject to individual exceptions.

    Historically the function of marriage in society is mostly about the production and upbringing of children.
    Hetero marriage as a general category is usually capable of fulfilling that function without resorting to resources (sperm, ova, wombs) outside the marriage.
    Homo marriage lacks this capacity entirely. It is entirely non-reproductive without the intervention of a third party that is not part of the marriage.

    I think this is relevant, as it is one way in which SSM does not meet the definition of marriage, because it is inherently incapable of independently fulfilling marriage's primary societal function.

    That fact cannot be denied. Homo coupledom is a non-reproductive relationship without the inclusion of someone from outside the marriage. You may think it is irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be made lawful; fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is true.

    Prove this statement false: ALL Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children without the aid of a third party.

    You can't prove it false, because it is true. You can argue it's irrelevance if you wish, but you cannot argue that it isn't a fact.
    Does this mean we should allow polyamorous marriages since multiple partners can produce more children and provide more resources to them?

  5. #65
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Does this mean we should allow polyamorous marriages since multiple partners can produce more children and provide more resources to them?
    No. That's another exception.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  6. #66
    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
    I've lost count of how many times I've said this in this thread. This will be the very last time, and then I am done.

    You're all pointing out exceptions. I've explained repeatedly this is a general principle... every general principle is subject to individual exceptions.

    Historically the function of marriage in society is mostly about the production and upbringing of children.
    Hetero marriage as a general category is usually capable of fulfilling that function without resorting to resources (sperm, ova, wombs) outside the marriage.
    Homo marriage lacks this capacity entirely. It is entirely non-reproductive without the intervention of a third party that is not part of the marriage.

    I think this is relevant, as it is one way in which SSM does not meet the definition of marriage, because it is inherently incapable of independently fulfilling marriage's primary societal function.

    That fact cannot be denied. Homo coupledom is a non-reproductive relationship without the inclusion of someone from outside the marriage. You may think it is irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be made lawful; fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is true.

    Prove this statement false: ALL Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children without the aid of a third party.

    You can't prove it false, because it is true. You can argue it's irrelevance if you wish, but you cannot argue that it isn't a fact.
    This "general category of opposite-sex couples" argument is nonsense, since infertile opposite-sex couples are more similar to same-sex couples than fertile opposite-sex couples with regards to reproduction. If your primary point is that marriage encourages production and raising of children, then why do you insist on creating this "general category" ? You keep saying things like opposite-sex couples are "usually capable" of reproducing without a third party's intervention, but how is that relevant when there is in fact a distinct group of opposite-sex couples that, like same-sex couples, are NOT capable of reproducing without a third part's intervention. If your primary point is that marriage encourages procreation, then don't the categories "can procreate without third party intervention" and "cannot procreate without third party intervention" make much more sense? Since you're talking strictly about procreation? Infertile opposite-sex marriage is AS inherently incapable of independently fulfilling marriage's primary societal function as same-sex marriage is.

    To simplify the question that you still have not addressed: since same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples have IDENTICAL reproduction capabilities, doesn't it make sense to treat those relationships equally different from fertile opposite-sex couples under the law?
    Last edited by sweEt Mauritius; 06-19-10 at 02:44 AM.

  7. #67
    Professor
    Layla_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,440
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I've lost count of how many times I've said this in this thread. This will be the very last time, and then I am done.

    You're all pointing out exceptions. I've explained repeatedly this is a general principle... every general principle is subject to individual exceptions.

    Generally, generalizing is a bad idea because those pesky exceptions just keep popping up. Try doing a google search on the purpose of marriage. You'll find many religious sites that talk about this and none that I saw even mentioned children.

    Regardless of this, let's tell the truth because the truth is good. This objection to SSM, lack of children, is a not so thinly veiled reason to justify the bigotry of some on the religious right. Marriage has many purposes now and throughout history; love, sex, power, money and yes to provide a good home for children. I don't think children are a purpose of marriage, they are a result whether they occur naturally, with help, or by adoption. By the way, those kids that are adopted out of bad situations are often the result of the hetero marriage or at least certainly a hetero couple.

    Finally, I think it is great you won't state your opinions again. It's time people realized that saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it right.
    ~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
    ~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
    ~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
    George Carlin

  8. #68
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, that is his argument. What's incorrect is him trying to imply that is also exactly what the argumnent of many people against gay marriage is.
    Have you seen the recent court discussion on Prop 8?

    The anti-gay marriage lawyer explicitly argued that marriage is just about making babies. Good thing the judge mocked him.

    The fact that the lawyer for the groups representing those who wish to ban Gay marriage actually used that crackpot argument suggests I'm not wrong.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...verturn-5.html
    Last edited by obvious Child; 06-19-10 at 04:07 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #69
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    718

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Layla_Z View Post
    Generally, generalizing is a bad idea because those pesky exceptions just keep popping up. Try doing a google search on the purpose of marriage. You'll find many religious sites that talk about this and none that I saw even mentioned children.

    Regardless of this, let's tell the truth because the truth is good. This objection to SSM, lack of children, is a not so thinly veiled reason to justify the bigotry of some on the religious right. Marriage has many purposes now and throughout history; love, sex, power, money and yes to provide a good home for children. I don't think children are a purpose of marriage, they are a result whether they occur naturally, with help, or by adoption. By the way, those kids that are adopted out of bad situations are often the result of the hetero marriage or at least certainly a hetero couple.

    Finally, I think it is great you won't state your opinions again. It's time people realized that saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it right.
    You win the grand prize. Your line :

    "This objection to SSM, lack of children, is a not so thinly veiled reason to justify the bigotry of some on the religious right." cuts to the chase. Not just this poor excuse to discriminate against gays, but every other one I've ever heard fits the exact same description. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, and all of the denial in the world doesn't change that.

  10. #70
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Like I said... you can argue whether it is relevant, that is a legitimate debate. But there is one thing you can't argue: HOMO SEX DON'T MAKE BABIES!




    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Does this mean we should allow polyamorous marriages since multiple partners can produce more children and provide more resources to them?

    I would consider arguments in favor of allowing polygamous (and possibly polyamorous) marriages to be far more legitimate than SSM.
    Polygamy has a great deal of historical precedent, and it fulfills one of the fundamental functions of family, namely the production and upbringing of children, which SSM cannot.
    In short I consider polygamy to have far more claim to legal recognition than SSM, yet polygamy remains illegal and is often persecuted by authorities even where all parties involved are adults involved voluntarily. For polygamy to remain illegal while we're talking about instituting SSM is actually ridiculous.
    This is not me saying that I favor legalization of polygamy. I'd want the matter to be carefully studied and discussed extensively before such an action was seriously considered. But, I do consider it more legit than SSM due to the historical precedent and the fact that it is pro-reproductive, as opposed to SSM which is non-reproductive and therefore incapable of one of marriages' primary purposes.

    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 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •