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 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #1
    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

    Marriages without children should be dissolved

    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?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #2
    Educator Dogger807's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    979

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Let's face it.. their argument against gay marriage is just bull and not one of them is gonna admit to this double standard.
    Ignorance is the refuge of faith
    It's become very apparent that there is nothing respectable about faith
    "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    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.
    Last edited by Goshin; 06-18-10 at 07:23 AM.

    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. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    The argument is not that all marriages that do not produce children are invalid.
    No, that is the argument... his.

    The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children.
    Arguably people who marry are capable of not having children out of choice, rendering the argument false and raising the question mentioned in this thread that non-child-bearing-marriages would be invalid according to this 'historical' truth.


    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.
    Which begs the argument that if one partner is incapable of reproducing whether they should be allowed to wed.

    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.

    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.
    I fail to see anything comparable in the philosophy of causality in physics.

    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.
    How do we know that marriage is not merely a license to mate - and maintain cohesion and curb destructive adulterous habits in the community?

    Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage. In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
    Last edited by MKULTRABOY; 06-18-10 at 08:02 AM.

  5. #5
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,156

    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?
    should we then conclude from your question that you oppose allowing gay couples to adopt children?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  6. #6
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,547

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage.
    A Heterosexual couple is built to procreate, anything else is not. Not having babies does not change this fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
    You could also say that flies in the face of any kind of logic.

    Gay marriage is wrong. It has even gotten to the point were I don't think I will support civil unions anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    First let me say I love when people immedietely start railing that people don't have legitimate arguments against Gay Marriage and then when people articulate them they're just written off. Not agreeing with the argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    No, that is the argument... his.
    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.

    Arguably people who marry are capable of not having children out of choice, rendering the argument false and raising the question mentioned in this thread that non-child-bearing-marriages would be invalid according to this 'historical' truth.
    Sorry, you don't get to ignore words. He said:

    "The argument is that historically, marriage has been largely about the production and raising of children."

    Note he used "largely" not "singularly". This means a majority of times, not necessarily EVERY time, therefore the fact it doesn't happen everytime doesn't invalidate his statement nor argument.

    Which begs the argument that if one partner is incapable of reproducing whether they should be allowed to wed.
    No, out of realism of the law and respects to peoples rights. Per the Supreme Court individuals have a right to privacy, one of such being their medical records. Whether one is infertile or not is a medical record and as such should not be required to participate in a government sponsored function such as this. To require such would be too invasive. As such, if you're going with the notion that marriage is designed to provide a benefit to society by forming a healthy family structure for a potential child then the most intelligent way to go about assuring that a potential child can be formed without invading into an individuals privacy and medical records is to mandate it as one man, one child, as it is the only biological combination that has the potential in a healthy situation of creating a child together.

    Not to mention the potential issues with regards to disability law in denying someone something based on a medical issue.

    How do we know that marriage is not merely a license to mate - and maintain cohesion and curb destructive adulterous habits in the community?
    First, the very nature of adulterous habits requires marriage to exist to allow them to happen. You can't curb adulterous habits by allowing marriage as its through marriage that adulterous habits can happen. This is like saying we need to allow people to play poker to curb destructive gambling habits in the community.

    Second, if I can guess what you actually meant, an argument could definitely be made of marriage being a social construct aimed at promoting monogomy to create a safer climate for society in regards to sexual health and form a cohesive society. However from what I've seen there's been far more quoatable history backing up the "government interest due to improved family environment" than "government interest due to improved societal sexual health" so I'd say its a far weaker argument to make for it.

    Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage.
    In a way yes, but as was said is a needed leeway in exchange for the more reasonable way for the government to desginate it.

    Let me give you a rather abstract analogy.

    You own an apartment complex. You feel its beneficial to your complex to provide extended cable to every apartment because there's a likelihood that it will improve your ability to retain residents. Even if you have a resident that has no intention of ever watching television you keep it installed to be consistant and because there's at least a CHANCE that he may decide there's some event on TV he wants to and may decide to start watching. Cutting off his cable because he hasn't yet is making a large assumption about the future and creates an inconsistancy in your approach to the service not to mention brings up a host of other issues (do you alert him, do you reduce his rent, etc?). However, it would make no sense for you to go and pay for extended cable for someone not living in your apartment complex because its not really possible that you paying for someone elses cable elsewhere is going to increase their retention at your apartment complex.

    Lets go with the idea that Government has an interest in marriage because it provides the ability to produce a child into a home environment that has the highest chance based singularly on structure to be beneficial to the childs growth and thus addition to society.

    IF that is the case, then the government is likely to strive for the method of ensuring this that is broad enough to get the most people as possible while efficient enough at keeping the numbers that do not meet the goal to a low point while maintaining a respect for rights such as privacy.

    As such, IF we're to are to take the two arguments above at face value "Man and Woman" is the best way to do that. It covers a vast majority of the population while increasing efficiency by removing couples that who due to gender could not produce a child. It leaves in people who are infertile, but this is due to medical privacy. It leaves in people who "don't want to have a child" but they are still at a higher potential ability for a child through a change in belief or through an accidnet than those of the same gender. Its efficient in that its a simple check and test requiring little further investigation or confirmation from the government.

    Now, you can disagree with the very notion that the point of GOVERNMENT recognizing marriage is that they have an interest in it due to procreation and the family structure it creates. However, even if you disagre with the argument you should not obtusely ignore or twist it to fit your stereotyped reasons to hate it in your head rather than actually deal honestly with what is being suggested and why.

    In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
    And here is the crux of the issue and where your own biases show through. No one said anything about "sins". Goshin said anything about "religion". Goshin said anything about "god" or "heathen" or "unholy" or anything of the such. YOU interject it into the realm because so many who are for Gay Marriage have deemed it an absolute undeniable truth that its impossible to be against it for anything other than religious reasons and thus ignore and distort any argument that doesn't use religion and in many cases, such as yours here, even starts arguing it on a religious basis when no one even made the argument.

    The discussion regarding this argument is not whether its "sinful" or not, but rather does the government have an overriding interest or not and the level of precision it should have in striving for said interest.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    editing to reply to zyphlin
    Last edited by MKULTRABOY; 06-18-10 at 09:36 AM.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Oh, based ONLY on what the threads asking and assuming its mentality was true, yeah...they should be dissolved.

    Since I've seen few if any people actually make the argument singularly and solely that its the physical act of "making the babies" and not the potential for it and the family unit it provides its a rather hollow and completely irrelevant poll that is nothing but an agenda driven propoganda poll. But based on that agenda drive propoganda and that extremely narrow realm of reality its attempting to suggest we believe is absolutely true, yeah the answers "yes".

    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.

  10. #10
    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 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?
    Hiding the real reasons for their bigotry behind smokescreens, is something "conservatives," especially the "religious" variety do as second nature.

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... 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
  •