• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marriages without children should be dissolved

Marriages without children should be dissolved


  • Total voters
    54
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.

I have. See my previous post, and post 43. If you still don't get it, I give up trying to explain it.
 
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.

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.


10characters...
 
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:

You are not keeping up with the modern world Goshin. Almost every one uses doctors. The world has changed, time to catch up with it.
 
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?

Not to say I agree with people against gay marriage but marriage, in and of itself, isn't about having kids.
It's about pooling resources, both emotional and physical.
 
Sigh. I can't answer half a dozen different people in any reasonable time frame. See post number 43.

If same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples are identical with regard to the primary societal reason for marriage, then why should they be treated differently under the law, or by society for that matter? You have not answered that question, not in post 43 or anywhere.

If we're talking about reproduction and raising of children, the primary societal reason for encouraging marriage, Group A (fertile opposite-sex couples) is different from groups B (same-sex couples) AND C (infertile opposite-sex couples), while groups B and C are IDENTICAL. How, therefore, does it make any sense to treat groups A and C (who are fundamentally different with regard to reproduction and raising of children) the same, while treating groups B and C (who are fundamentally identical with regard to reproduction and raising of children) differently?
 
Last edited:
Not to say I agree with people against gay marriage but marriage, in and of itself, isn't about having kids.
It's about pooling resources, both emotional and physical.

That and good ole love. For me, the kids were the last thing on my mind when I got married. I just found a girl I liked and wanted to be with for the rest of my life. She didn't get pregnant until several years later when we decided we should have one.
 
That and good ole love. For me, the kids were the last thing on my mind when I got married. I just found a girl I liked and wanted to be with for the rest of my life. She didn't get pregnant until several years later when we decided we should have one.

Same with me, although the kid didn't come later
It came earlier by accident, which was a good accident. ;)
 
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.

Marriages of people in their 70s or even 60s can't fulfill that role even with the use of sperm, ova, etc. Even adoption is inadvisable, as the couple is unlikely to live long enough to raise the child.

Homosexual couples, on the other hand, can raise chidren, and can even produce them with the help of the things you just mentioned. So, why should a pair of octogenerians be allowed to marry, but a couple of homosexuals not?

Unless, of course, there is more to marriage than procreation.


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.

Not one in a million septagenerian couple will produce offsrping. It is unlikey that a sexagenarian couple will, or even one in their fifties. Should they be allowed to marry?


A million gay couples will not produce even ONE child without that outside intervention, because their fundamental nature is non-reproductive.

Nor will a million octogenerian couples.

If only people with a chance of reproduction are allowed to marry, then it follows that only people of reproductive age would be allowed to marry. Further, if the only purpose of marriage is having/raising children, then the marriages of those who have finished raising children would be over, having no further purpose.
 
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.

When someone starts from a conclusion then they sometimes attach themselves to inane arguments to save face.
 
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.
 
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.
\
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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/break...aggie-gallagher-expects-judge-overturn-5.html
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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! :roll:




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.
 
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.)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom