Marriages without children should be dissolved

obvious Child said:

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?

Click to expand...

Marriage is nobody else's business except for the two involved in the contract.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

When pet rocks are able to enter themselves into voluntary contract, then yes.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:

When pet rocks are able to enter themselves into voluntary contract, then yes.

Click to expand...

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.

FilmFestGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

We have been over this ground Goshin. Many gay couples are the parents of one or more kids already. Further, the means exists for gay couples to have children.

Goshin said:

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".

Click to expand...

According to who is that the primary societal reason for encouraging marriage?

And even if it were the primary reason, can I just ask why people make such a big deal about the "intervention of a third party" for procreation? Whether the children are being produced by male-female sex, through a surrogate, with a sperm donor, etc., the bottom line is they are being produced and raised by same-sex couples (and opposite-sex couples for that matter; the intervention of a third party doesn't make their marriage or their children any less valid than those produced by sex, because the exact way in which they were conceived is irrelevant). And the legal rights and responsibilities given by civil marriage encourage children to be produced by same-sex and opposite-sex married couples alike. So if that's the primary reason, encouraging the production and rearing of children, then same-sex marriage is fulfilling that primary reason. So why exactly are you using that as an argument against it? Allowing same-sex couples to marry certainly doesn't discourage them from producing and raising children!

Relying on remote ideas like the general nature of opposite-sex couples to procreate most of the time is irrelevant. Why does the general nature even matter? The concrete reality is that same-sex marriages have resulted in children with the intervention of a third party and opposite-sex marriages have resulted in children with the intervention of a third party. There is no reason to distinguish between them under the law. They have both encouraged the same result, which you cite as the primary societal reason for marriage, so what's the problem? That sounds like a good thing for society to me.

Redress said:

We have been over this ground Goshin. Many gay couples are the parents of one or more kids already. Further, the means exists for gay couples to have children.

Click to expand...

Not without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage.

Goshin said:

Not without the intervention of a third party who is not part of the marriage.

Click to expand...

So? Going to the doctor is not a big deal. In fact, most strait married couples use the assistance of some one outside the marriage to have their children.

sweEt Mauritius said:

According to who is that the primary societal reason for encouraging marriage?

.

Click to expand...

Several thousand years of history in thousands of different cultures, including cultures like the ancient Greeks, who embraced homosexual behavior broadly but still reserved marriage for male-female unions to produce children.

Redress said:

So? Going to the doctor is not a big deal. In fact, most strait married couples use the assistance of some one outside the marriage to have their children.

Click to expand...

Most??

I find that very improbable. I'm not talking about using a doctor to deliver the child, either, I'm talking about conception.

Goshin said:

Most??

I find that very improbable. I'm not talking about using a doctor to deliver the child, either, I'm talking about conception.

Click to expand...

Wait! So there is some arbitrary distinction between when it is OK for a couple to use a doctor in the process of having children? Why?

Redress said:

Wait! So there is some arbitrary distinction between when it is OK for a couple to use a doctor in the process of having children? Why?

Click to expand...

Easy high lob. :mrgreen:

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.

Goshin said:

Easy high lob. :mrgreen:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Goshin said:

Several thousand years of history in thousands of different cultures, including cultures like the ancient Greeks, who embraced homosexual behavior broadly but still reserved marriage for male-female unions to produce children.

Click to expand...

Hmm are we discussing the effects of same-sex marriage on thousands of ancient civilizations or its effects on 21st century American society? What is your response to my main point, that even if producing and raising children is the primary societal reason for encouraging marriage, how is that construed to mean same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed? Same-sex marriage encourages children in the same way that opposite-sex marriage encourages children in infertile couples. What is the distinction, and why does the "intervention of a third party" matter at all if the result is the same?

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?

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dittohead not! said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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...

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sweEt Mauritius said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Goshin said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. :mrgreen:

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.