Should couples have to demonstrate intimacy in order to become legally married?

CLAX1911 said:

We haven't lived in such a society for quite a few years. So it may just have to be incumbent upon the individual to place value on a marriage without mommy government telling you that you are special.

Click to expand...

We have, and still do live in such a society, a "society" being merely one small microcosm of the global anthropological landscape anyway

Given that apparently adults without children by their 40s are 10-15% of the population at most, and therefore something of an anomaly. The default among the majority of people is obviously to have children at some point in their life, with or without formal sanction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#See_also

The concept of government influencing behavior is an overstep of what the government is for. If people can't value their marriages without government goodies than government recognized marriage is of no value.

Click to expand...

That's basically an argument for abolishing marriage as a legal institution entirely and merely relegate it to the private sphere.

Rinzai said:

This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.

Click to expand...

Yes let's put mandatory cameras in every bedroom in America. We need to know what couples are up to.

Rinzai said:

We have, and still do live in such a society, a "society" being merely one small microcosm of the global anthropological landscape anyway

Click to expand...

In a country with a 50% divorce rate no we don't live in such a society.

Given that apparently adults without children by their 40s are 10-15% of the population at most, and therefore something of an anomaly. The default among the majority of people is obviously to have children at some point in their life, with or without formal sanction.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be married to have children you don't have to stay married to habe children either.

So this is irrelevant

That's basically an argument for abolishing marriage as a legal institution entirely and merely relegate it to the private sphere.

Click to expand...

My argument is that it was abolished as a cultural institution the moment no fault divorce became a thing.

It's legal institution is pointless. If it isn't valued by the culture.

Pandora's box has already been opened.

CLAX1911 said:

In a country with a 50% divorce rate no we don't live in such a society.

Click to expand...

Well yes we do, merely because some error occurs in the initial plan doesn't change the existence of the plan itself - anymore than high unemployment rates renders the statement "people work" irrelevant.

You don't have to be married to have children you don't have to stay married to habe children either.

Click to expand...

It's a moot point, since whether or not marriage is formally recognized, people still engage in the cultural practice via informal means, sometimes recognized as "common law marriage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Common-law marriage, also known as sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a legal framework in a limited number of jurisdictions where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage.

So this is irrelevant

My argument is that it was abolished as a cultural institution the moment no fault divorce became a thing.

It's legal institution is pointless. If it isn't valued by the culture.

Pandora's box has already been opened.

Click to expand...

I think I would have to digress on that one, unless you can prove that abolishing "no fault divorce" is the sole factor in that.

And regardless, my point was that formal legislation seems to be intended merely to establish a bare minimum level of incentive to be in a sustainable union - ideally a couple wouldn't get to the point that they're only staying married due to direct legal coercion to begin with, as opposed to doing it voluntarily - or else I'd venture they would be utterly miserable.

First, no one, especially not the government, has any right to be in my bedroom when it comes to my marriage. It is none of their business if and/or when my husband and I have or had sex or plan to have sex. And the same goes for all other couples here. It is a private affair.

Second, it is discriminatory against those who could not in fact be sexually intimate or even emotionally intimate but still seek companionship. Why should anyone else get to judge what love might mean to any couple? It shouldn't matter.

I am strongly against the military's position on this for just those reasons I mentioned. It is none of their business.

phattonez said:

Because that is the very purpose of the institution.

Click to expand...

Are you then in favour of polygyny? If the purpose of marriage is children, it seems only logical allowing one fertile man many fertile wives is the most efficient way to go about it?

Rinzai said:

More like anthropologically than historically - the "purpose" of sex on the level of an individual married couple may not be limited solely to procreation, and is probably a combination of many different motives none which are mutually exclusive.

However, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in children and replenishment of population, as they do for the majority of married couples - which is why societies take a vested interest in it and attempt to encodify it with legal protections.

Similar to how, government might provide people with incentives to buy green cars under the impression that they benefit society or economies in some way - obviously the government can't force a person to buy a green car against their will, but it provides incentives for those who do to encourage it voluntarily.

Click to expand...

You are wrong on so many levels. First, most couples get married without regard to whether they can have children together (nowdays, not always true in the past however). In fact, while about 10-15% may not be raising children by the time they are in their 40s, many more of those who are raising children are not raising the biological children of the two who are married. Many more people are choosing to not have children with each other, including taking permanent measures to avoid children. Others such as myself and my husband are going out of our way to not have more kids.

Second, you do not need to be married to have children. Many people are not married when they have children. Like mentioned above, many married couples are not raising their own children together, but rather normally the child/children of one from a previous relationship.

Marriage benefits society regardless of whether kids are involved or the level of "intimacy" the couple has. It allows society to have a designated person to legally make decisions for their spouse who has greater authority than anyone else. It places someone in a position to take at least some financial responsibility for that person, especially for final arrangements and/or final medical costs. Marriage makes people happier and healthier, regardless of whether they have children or not.

spud_meister said:

Are you then in favour of polygyny? If the purpose of marriage is children, it seems only logical allowing one fertile man many fertile wives is the most efficient way to go about it?

Click to expand...

Regarding the purpose in relation to bearing children, it isn't necessarily about "quantity" as opposed to quality.

I mean, who would be considered a better employee - a person who's worked "the most number of jobs", or a person who's worked 1-2 jobs but remained dedicated for years.

Rinzai said:

Regarding the purpose in relation to bearing children, it isn't necessarily about "quantity" as opposed to quality.

I mean, who would be considered a better employee - a person who's worked "the most number of jobs", or a person who's worked 1-2 jobs but remained dedicated for years.

Click to expand...

Depends on a lot of factors. That person who simply worked one or two jobs could have simply been lazy, found a niche and stayed in it, while the person moving to numerous jobs could be gaining a lot of very valuable knowledge and experience doing many different things, working with many different systems, learning from all those things.

roguenuke said:

You are wrong on so many levels. First, most couples get married without regard to whether they can have children together (nowdays, not always true in the past however).

Click to expand...

Most people assume by default they have the physical ability to "have children together" unless they learn otherwise, so that statement would be rather supercilious.

At least as many as there are people who assume by default that they "can't jump off a skyscraper and fly"... unless they learn they were actually born on Krypton.

In fact, while about 10-15% may not be raising children by the time they are in their 40s, many more of those who are raising children are not raising the biological children of the two who are married. Many more people are choosing to not have children with each other, including taking permanent measures to avoid children.

Others such as myself and my husband are going out of our way to not have more kids.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing.

I'm sure that individuals throughout history have attempted to put limits on the quantity of children they have, and didn't attempt to "be fruitful and multiply" to the same degree as... hamsters. Contraceptive measures are as old as Onan. What else is new?

Second, you do not need to be married to have children. Many people are not married when they have children.

Click to expand...

Outside of rare anomalies, such as in vitro fertilization, or virgin births - one needs to be in an intimate union with another in order to beget children - whether formally recognized as marriage, informal cohabitation sometimes recognized as a "common law" marriage, or a union which only lasted 1 night.

Obviously specific laws, formalities, are culturally specific variants on the general anthropological rite of marriage or unions.

Like mentioned above, many married couples are not raising their own children together, but rather normally the child/children of one from a previous relationship.

Click to expand...

That's merely consequential, given that if something hadn't occurred which resulted in the dissolution of the previous relationship, they would be in that position to begin with.

Marriage benefits society regardless of whether kids are involved or the level of "intimacy" the couple has.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that Tina and Ike's union benefitted society... or Rihanna and Chris Brown's - united as fist and face.

It allows society to have a designated person to legally make decisions for their spouse who has greater authority than anyone else. It places someone in a position to take at least some financial responsibility for that person, especially for final arrangements and/or final medical costs. Marriage makes people happier and healthier, regardless of whether they have children or not.

Click to expand...

Those would be legally-specific minutia relating to the greater anthropological issue - given that unions which tend to naturally result in children, and ideally greater intimacy than say, two male buddies - those legal minutia are ideally contingent on the hope that the couple in question would have some mutual degree of intimacy and accountability to each other to begin with.

Since obviously a wife-beating spouse who is creating medical costs by putting his wife in the hospital, rather than aiding her with them.

But anyway, given that you admitted above that you have children, it seems somewhat futile to be concerned about anomalies and exceptions anyway, such as couples who are married but never beget children - given that they don't apply to you, or to most.

Rinzai said:

Well yes we do, merely because some error occurs in the initial plan doesn't change the existence of the plan itself - anymore than high unemployment rates renders the statement "people work" irrelevant.


It's a moot point, since whether or not marriage is formally recognized, people still engage in the cultural practice via informal means, sometimes recognized as "common law marriage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Common-law marriage, also known as sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a legal framework in a limited number of jurisdictions where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage.

So this is irrelevant


I think I would have to digress on that one, unless you can prove that abolishing "no fault divorce" is the sole factor in that.

And regardless, my point was that formal legislation seems to be intended merely to establish a bare minimum level of incentive to be in a sustainable union - ideally a couple wouldn't get to the point that they're only staying married due to direct legal coercion to begin with, as opposed to doing it voluntarily - or else I'd venture they would be utterly miserable.

Click to expand...

While your premise seems unworkable, a simple solution would be to classify denying sex as a form of spousal abuse and a factor in property division and child custody in a divorce.

roguenuke said:

Depends on a lot of factors. That person who simply worked one or two jobs could have simply been lazy, found a niche and stayed in it, while the person moving to numerous jobs could be gaining a lot of very valuable knowledge and experience doing many different things, working with many different systems, learning from all those things.

Click to expand...

They could, but provided that the knowledge and experience itself was equal among both, and the only varying factor being the number of jobs worked, stayed at, fired from, then having worked "more jobs" but with nothing more genuinely "gained" from it would seem to be a negative, since it would imply disloyalty, incompetence, inability to stay dedicated, or things of that nature - barring exceptions such as the company going out of business or things not on the part of the worker.

SDET said:

While your premise seems unworkable, a simple solution would be to classify denying sex as a form of spousal abuse and a factor in property division and child custody in a divorce.

Click to expand...

If a man's denying his wife sex, then I suspect he might be a little light under the loafers. But I think charging him with abuse would be a bit too extreme.

Rinzai said:

Most people assume by default they have the physical ability to "have children together" unless they learn otherwise, so that statement would be rather supercilious.

Yeah, I'm sure that Tina and Ike's union benefitted society... or Rihanna and Chris Brown's - united as fist and face.

Those would be legally-specific minutia relating to the greater anthropological issue - given that unions which tend to naturally result in children, and ideally greater intimacy than say, two male buddies - those legal minutia are ideally contingent on the hope that the couple in question would have some mutual degree of intimacy and accountability to each other to begin with.

Since obviously a wife-beating spouse who is creating medical costs by putting his wife in the hospital, rather than aiding her with them.

But anyway, given that you admitted above that you have children, it seems somewhat futile to be concerned about anomalies and exceptions anyway, such as couples who are married but never beget children - given that they don't apply to you.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is ask people if they would stay together, stay with their husband/wife if he/she could not have children with you. Most would say "yes". And many people choose to marry their spouse knowing that they can't have children with that person, and may even be raising children from a different marriage/relationship with that person, without having any of their own.

Well I don't consider the Duggars to be benefiting society. And I'm from a relatively big family as well (6 children in the 80s/90s is outside of the norm too, just not as much as 18). As you posted earlier, quality over quantity. Those with children can be abusive as well (this is not directed at the Duggars, to be clear). So poor attempt there.

I don't live in a bubble. I am a big exception in my family, and I am still young. Anything could happen. Either me or my husband could die, and the surviving one remarry while our kids are still young or even after they are grown, without any desire to have more children (and likely going through surgery to avoid it). Most of the people in my family are either divorced or never married or on a second marriage, most have children who were not fully raised by both biological parents to adulthood. Life happens. I know of at least three couples (family/close friends) where the husband could/would not have children when they got married, despite there being children from previous relationships. Wives knew their husbands couldn't or wouldn't have children with them before marriage.

If my mother gets remarried, she wouldn't have children but she can still get married. A lot of older people are getting married/remarried, knowing they cannot have children. Hell we even have some marriage laws that specifically prevent certain couples from getting married unless they cannot have children with each other and/or wife is above a certain age.

Rinzai said:

They could, but provided that the knowledge and experience itself was equal among both, and the only varying factor being the number of jobs worked, stayed at, fired from, then having worked "more jobs" but with nothing more genuinely "gained" from it would seem to be a negative, since it would imply disloyalty, incompetence, inability to stay dedicated, or things of that nature - barring exceptions such as the company going out of business or things not on the part of the worker.

Click to expand...

Again, it would depend on many factors. There is no way that you could get similar experiences between a person who is moving between jobs, working for different companies and someone who worked for the same company or only two.

Notice the qualifiers that now you have to set such as being fired from. "Seem to be" a negative. Doesn't mean it is. You are inferring things based on your personal bias of the situation. And changing the criteria to fit what you perceive rather than accepting that it depends on the situation.

Rinzai said:

Well yes we do, merely because some error occurs in the initial plan doesn't change the existence of the plan itself - anymore than high unemployment rates renders the statement "people work" irrelevant.

Click to expand...

no we don't. Marriage is not legally binding hardly anymore.

It's a moot point, since whether or not marriage is formally recognized, people still engage in the cultural practice via informal means, sometimes recognized as "common law marriage".

Click to expand...

that supports my argument that we don't need to Mommy government incentivize our Behavior it happens naturally.

I think I would have to digress on that one, unless you can prove that abolishing "no fault divorce" is the sole factor in that.

Click to expand...

that's ridiculous all we have to do is go look back in time before there was no fault divorce in the divorce rate was much lower nothing has to be abolished to prove anything we have history which speaks for itself.

And regardless, my point was that formal legislation seems to be intended merely to establish a bare minimum level of incentive to be in a sustainable union - ideally a couple wouldn't get to the point that they're only staying married due to direct legal coercion to begin with, as opposed to doing it voluntarily - or else I'd venture they would be utterly miserable.

Click to expand...

Outside of citizenship through marriage there aren't any incentives. The government goodies as it were that you get from being married is rights to your partner. Someone you are not related to is legally a member of your family and that's it.

Things like custody of children ownership of goods and assets and so forth. That is all marriage is legally. And I don't think it should be limited to couples. Let alone intimate couples or childbearing couples if you want to call it something else I couldn't possibly care less since some people think marriage is a magical word or something.

But I don't see any point in a government institutionalized version of marriage outside of determining children's paternity and holding accountable the people who make the child to the child that's what marriage should have been in the beginning.

CLAX1911 said:

no we don't. Marriage is not legally binding hardly anymore.


that supports my argument that we don't need to Mommy government incentivize our Behavior it happens naturally.


that's ridiculous all we have to do is go look back in time before there was no fault divorce in the divorce rate was much lower nothing has to be abolished to prove anything we have history which speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

Even if it was lower "on the books", that doesn't mean one can quantify how often in practice a couple effectively "divorced" one another, whether a man pursuing a mistress discretely, or merely remaining in a "sexless" marriage.

Outside of citizenship through marriage there aren't any incentives. The government goodies as it were that you get from being married is rights to your partner. Someone you are not related to is legally a member of your family and that's it.

Things like custody of children ownership of goods and assets and so forth. That is all marriage is legally. And I don't think it should be limited to couples. Let alone intimate couples or childbearing couples if you want to call it something else I couldn't possibly care less since some people think marriage is a magical word or something.

But I don't see any point in a government institutionalized version of marriage outside of determining children's paternity and holding accountable the people who make the child to the child that's what marriage should have been in the beginning.

Click to expand...

So basically, you want marriage to be deregulated and made into a private institution?

Rinzai said:

Even if it was lower "on the books", that doesn't mean one can quantify how often in practice a couple effectively "divorced" one another, whether a man pursuing a mistress discretely, or merely remaining in a "sexless" marriage.

So basically, you want marriage to be deregulated and made into a private institution?

Click to expand...

Marriage is just as private/public as a birth certificate. It is a record of a legal relationship which is then connected to family connected laws that exist in similar forms for many other familial relationships that are legally recognized by the government.

roguenuke said:

All you have to do is ask people if they would stay together, stay with their husband/wife if he/she could not have children with you. Most would say "yes". And many people choose to marry their spouse knowing that they can't have children with that person, and may even be raising children from a different marriage/relationship with that person, without having any of their own.

Click to expand...

Those are variations or anomalies of an underlying theme, and realistically, I don't see why it would be worth a state's time to try to meticulously make sure every single married couple in the country is able to have children or plans on having children - it's assumed that most people are able to do so by default unless one finds out otherwise - just as it's assumed by default that most people with two eyes are not blind.

Regardless, the fact that marriage as a whole tends to naturally result in childbirth is a strong reason why society or state has a vested interest in it.

Well I don't consider the Duggars to be benefiting society. And I'm from a relatively big family as well (6 children in the 80s/90s is outside of the norm too, just not as much as 18). As you posted earlier, quality over quantity. Those with children can be abusive as well (this is not directed at the Duggars, to be clear). So poor attempt there.

I don't live in a bubble. I am a big exception in my family, and I am still young. Anything could happen. Either me or my husband could die, and the surviving one remarry while our kids are still young or even after they are grown, without any desire to have more children (and likely going through surgery to avoid it). Most of the people in my family are either divorced or never married or on a second marriage, most have children who were not fully raised by both biological parents to adulthood. Life happens. I know of at least three couples (family/close friends) where the husband could/would not have children when they got married, despite there being children from previous relationships. Wives knew their husbands couldn't or wouldn't have children with them before marriage.

If my mother gets remarried, she wouldn't have children but she can still get married. A lot of older people are getting married/remarried, knowing they cannot have children. Hell we even have some marriage laws that specifically prevent certain couples from getting married unless they cannot have children with each other and/or wife is above a certain age.

Click to expand...

Anything "could" happen - what's the point? Obviously there is no "one size fits" all set of laws which will be able to account for every possible variation or exception under the sun.

And without knowing the specific intention behind the specific law or exception, it's a fool's guess what it was aiming for...

Such as the arguments that elderly couples can get married despite being above the age of childbirth, obviously companionship plays a part in marriage or unions, but said companionship tends to naturally result in children by default, if left to its own devices.

I'm curious what the point would be in revoking marriages between elderly couples would be and why it would be worth the state's time, or why the state would want to spend time specifically preventing marriages between couples who are not able naturally procreate through no decision of their own.

-

Or simpler - the fact that marriages between man and woman tend to naturally result in children in many or most cases seems to be a reason why states have a vested interest in incentive it - or at least why they incentive marriage, but don't incentives two male college roommates who choose to live together.

If marriages could not result in children, I don't think the state would have as vested an interest in it.

Rinzai said:

Even if it was lower "on the books", that doesn't mean one can quantify how often in practice a couple effectively "divorced" one another, whether a man pursuing a mistress discretely, or merely remaining in a "sexless" marriage.

Click to expand...

there is no effectively divorced there is divorced and not divorced there's no gray area. The contract is active or it's voided that's it it is black and white. And how toxic or traditional the marriages where is of no relevance to the discussion.

So basically, you want marriage to be deregulated and made into a private institution?

Click to expand...

Did you not read anything I typed? You have responded to me now twice with this nonsense.

A couple should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding contract whether you call that marriage or whatever other word you want to use is zero concern to me.

If a bunch of Bible Thumpers want to get their panties in a knot over their proprietary claim over the word marriage I don't mind paying them a little lip service and doing away with the word the word please read the following the word the word the word the word the word marriage to describe this civil agreement.

Just because you call a civil agreement something else doesn't mean we're getting rid of the concept of the Civil agreement all together please read this time don't ask me the same damn question again.

That's incredibly frustrating.

Yeh, no. We are not the fictional planet Harmony to have Civil marriages and Covenant marriages. Marriages vary in complexity from couple to couple nowadays. My daughter is planning a wedding for next Summer. They are writing their own vows, and no one will be walking her up the isle. She's not being given away, because she's no one's property.

Rosie1 said:

Yeh, no. We are not the fictional planet Harmony to have Civil marriages and Covenant marriages. Marriages vary in complexity from couple to couple nowadays. My daughter is planning a wedding for next Summer. They are writing their own vows, and no one will be walking her up the isle. She's not being given away, because she's no one's property.

Click to expand...

Quaint, they've always varied, not just today but yesterday and worldwide. Culturally-centric traditions and formalities such as "walking one up the isle", "white dresses" are just minutia, and historically it was likely only the more wellborn who could afford the more fancy arrangements to begin with, so that particular Western form of marriage was always a minority anyway.

In the Nagovisi tribe, for example, married isn't formally institutionalized at all:

Marriage is not institutionalized. If a couple is seen together, sleeps together, and the man assists the woman in her garden, for all intents and purposes they are considered married.

6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule | Mental Floss

CLAX1911 said:

there is no effectively divorced there is divorced and not divorced there's no gray area. The contract is active or it's voided that's it it is black and white.

Click to expand...

That's on the books only - in practice, if a couple separates but doesn't bother to go through the legal ramifications needed to formally divorce - they aren't partaking in the act of marriage, anymore than a person who hasn't attended a Mass in 20 years is practicing Catholicism.

Or vice versa, a couple who never formally marries or has a wedding, but who cohabitates for a certain period of time can become recognized as "common law married" in certain states.

And how toxic or traditional the marriages where is of no relevance to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Um... yes, it's relevant to this thread topic.

Did you not read anything I typed? You have responded to me now twice with this nonsense.

A couple should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding contract whether you call that marriage or whatever other word you want to use is zero concern to me.

If a bunch of Bible Thumpers want to get their panties in a knot over their proprietary claim over the word marriage I don't mind paying them a little lip service and doing away with the word the word please read the following the word the word the word the word the word marriage to describe this civil agreement.

Just because you call a civil agreement something else doesn't mean we're getting rid of the concept of the Civil agreement all together please read this time don't ask me the same damn question again.

That's incredibly frustrating.

Click to expand...

Well I'm pretty sure marriage predates the Council of Nicaea and existence of what is known as the Bible, but that's beside the point - the point was, assuming the word "marriage" isn't legally done away with entirely, to do just that, have "civil unions" available to everyone that they are to right now with the same benefits, and have "marriage" be a higher title which they could acquire if they met certain standards.

Rinzai said:

That's on the books only - in practice, if a couple separates but doesn't bother to go through the legal ramifications needed to formally divorce - they aren't partaking in the act of marriage, anymore than a person who hasn't attended a Mass in 20 years is practicing Catholicism.

Click to expand...

okay you're a hundred percent wrong a marriage is a contract and until it's dissolved it is still a marriage I don't care how anyone act acts are of no concern.

Or vice versa, a couple who never formally marries or has a wedding, but who cohabitates for a certain period of time can become recognized as "common law married" in certain states.

Click to expand...

this is true but what you said before is incorrect there is no common law divorce the contract must be nullified.

Um... yes, it's relevant to this thread topic.

Click to expand...

it is not relevant to the discussion between you and I if you wish to abandon this discussion in order to carry on with your original argument be my guest.

Well I'm pretty sure marriage predates the Council of Nicaea and existence of what is known as the Bible, but that's beside the point - the point was, assuming the word "marriage" isn't legally done away with entirely, to do just that, have "civil unions" available to everyone that they are to right now with the same benefits, and have "marriage" be a higher title which they could acquire if they met certain standards.

Click to expand...

Calling the civil union of marriage anything else does nothing but jerk off a few people who believe the word marriage is Magic. I think it would be a waste of time.

Making a higher status for people who jump through some creepy little hoops has really no point.

I remember asking you what the point was but you didn't explain.

Rinzai said:

Those are variations or anomalies of an underlying theme, and realistically, I don't see why it would be worth a state's time to try to meticulously make sure every single married couple in the country is able to have children or plans on having children - it's assumed that most people are able to do so by default unless one finds out otherwise - just as it's assumed by default that most people with two eyes are not blind.

Regardless, the fact that marriage as a whole tends to naturally result in childbirth is a strong reason why society or state has a vested interest in it.


Anything "could" happen - what's the point? Obviously there is no "one size fits" all set of laws which will be able to account for every possible variation or exception under the sun.

And without knowing the specific intention behind the specific law or exception, it's a fool's guess what it was aiming for...

Such as the arguments that elderly couples can get married despite being above the age of childbirth, obviously companionship plays a part in marriage or unions, but said companionship tends to naturally result in children by default, if left to its own devices.

I'm curious what the point would be in revoking marriages between elderly couples would be and why it would be worth the state's time, or why the state would want to spend time specifically preventing marriages between couples who are not able naturally procreate through no decision of their own.

-

Or simpler - the fact that marriages between man and woman tend to naturally result in children in many or most cases seems to be a reason why states have a vested interest in incentive it - or at least why they incentive marriage, but don't incentives two male college roommates who choose to live together.

If marriages could not result in children, I don't think the state would have as vested an interest in it.

Click to expand...

You are the one making that assumption. The state has no interest in actually making children. Again, it is an establishment of a legal relationship via the government, like having a birth certificate or going through adoption.