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 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #71
    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

    Oh...

    .. by the way:

    Take a look around the of TODAY, the population has increased to the point that the competition for limited resources is the driving factor in most of the strife on our planet. Yet there are those stuck with a 19th Century mentality that think having more and more people is a good thing. (But of course, the only "kind" of people they want are more that are "just like us." In other words, bigots.)

  2. #72
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    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.
    You still haven't addressed the fact that people in their 60s and older can't produce children either, not even with intervention from a third party. If your argument holds true for homosexual unions, then it follows that seniors should not be allowed to marry either.

    Or, could it be that marriage is about more than just reproduction?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #73
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Historically the function of marriage in society is mostly about the production and upbringing of children. (emphasis mine)
    Why do you think, historically, people needed so many children?

    Way back when, in order to keep the family farm running at peak capacity, you needed many extra hands around to raise/tend the livestock and plant/grow/harvest the crops. That's why people had so many children. Historically.

    But that was then, and this is now. How many people do you personally know who run large family farms these days? Damned few.

    I can give you the stats: today, of the roughly two million remaining farms in the US, only about one-fourth are family operations.

    I'm afraid your "historical" argument is invalid, because, as is obvious to everyone, times and lifestyles have dramatically changed in the last 100 years. People don't need lots of kids in order to put a meal on the table any more. You simply cannot equate the needs of the past with the realities of life in 2010 this way.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    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?
    People should be able to get married for whatever reason they want. It's a legal contract between two consenting adults. If straight people can have shotgun weddings or elope to Las Vegas, then gays should be able to as well. I agree that marriage, traditionally, has been about children and financial arrangements, but the modern world has marriage for love. People get married to rise to the next step in their relationship, regardless if they plan to have kids or not.

    If the government can't grant equal opportunity to all partnerships (between two people), then it has no business regulating marriage.

  5. #75
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    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.
    In order for first cousins to marry in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, and Wisconsin they must either be over a certain age or not able to bear children by law. This means that there is a specific group of heterosexuals who can only get married if they cannot procreate. These marriages are required under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to be recognized by the other states, and they are recognized by the federal government.

    This fact tells me that the government does not consider procreation its main concern for marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    fyi Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    It appears to me that a lot of people are looking at this aspect of the issue back-asswards.

    The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

    When the government (or anyone) objectively looks at the idea of "marriage" which one naturally comes to mind as the union that best suits the 'general welfare' needs for the nation?

    I suibmit that it's the "one man one woman" union that GENERALLY benefits the nation most.

    The government, interested ONLY in the general welfare aspect,... is not charged with validating or recognizing anything more than what is fitting for our "general welfare."

    In general,... from the governments perspective,... "marriage" is about the nucleus of a family, families (generally speaking) are for making and rearing children. The family model which naturally provides them (children) with a male and female role model,... which by extension forms our societies,... etc?

    One man one woman.

    It's not a "requirment" that a marriage is for the creating of children.

    It's a recognition.

  7. #77
    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 Chuz Life View Post
    It appears to me that a lot of people are looking at this aspect of the issue back-asswards.

    The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

    When the government (or anyone) objectively looks at the idea of "marriage" which one naturally comes to mind as the union that best suits the 'general welfare' needs for the nation?

    I suibmit that it's the "one man one woman" union that GENERALLY benefits the nation most.

    The government, interested ONLY in the general welfare aspect,... is not charged with validating or recognizing anything more than what is fitting for our "general welfare."

    In general,... from the governments perspective,... "marriage" is about the nucleus of a family, families (generally speaking) are for making and rearing children. The family model which naturally provides them (children) with a male and female role model,... which by extension forms our societies,... etc?

    One man one woman.

    It's not a "requirment" that a marriage is for the creating of children.

    It's a recognition.
    History disagrees. Just sayin'

  8. #78
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.
    You mean the federal government.

    Marriage is not within the purview of the federal government.

    Actually, marriage should be left up to the individuals involved, and the churches that perform the ceremonies, not any government.

    Should septuagenarians be allowed to marry even though there is no possibility of procreation?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Toothpicvic View Post
    History disagrees. Just sayin'
    History is full of enough data to support just about anyones claim of anything.

    History is in many cases somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.

    But when you start with a blank sheet of paper,.... then read article 1, section 8.... and you consider what form of marriage best fills the criteria for the "general welfare" needs of the nation,... you will inevitably have to rule the one man one woman relationship as number one and every other 'union' or relationship comes up short.

    "I'm jest sayin"
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-20-10 at 12:54 AM.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    You mean the federal government.

    Marriage is not within the purview of the federal government.

    Actually, marriage should be left up to the individuals involved, and the churches that perform the ceremonies, not any government.

    Should septuagenarians be allowed to marry even though there is no possibility of procreation?
    Again,... it's not that creating children is a requirement.

    The government recognition, definition etc... is a incentive of sorts.

    It's the way government works.

    You tax or punish the things you need to slow or discourage and you provide incentives of rewards for the things which you want to encourage.

    Much like a parent does with a child (only we are not the children of our government),.... a good parent rewards or provides incentives for the behavior they want to see,.. and they give punishment and use other means to discourage behaviors they don't. And they often treat the middle ground with indifference.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-20-10 at 01:04 AM.

Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •