The state of Washington had a referendum on the ballot last year or so, which would implement your idea. If a couple got married and they had not produced any children in two years, the marriage would automatically be annulled.
It was meant as a way to show how ridiculous the idea of “marriage is only for the children” is, since no one in their right mind would be in favor of it. But it seems like you would have actually supported it.
Would adoption be included in “intention of having children”?
Every 4 years, my family and friends get together for a political dinner before the election. Each course is a different topic and we have an attempt at civilized discourse as we have people of all parties there. Last time, for the 2004 election, gay marriage was a big issue. My parents and two of their guests were republicans and all four were against gay marriage based on procreation. When I pointed out that my parents were divorced and my mother and step-father hadn’t procreated since their marriage 12 years prior, that their marriage should be null and void as well. The backpedaling was beautiful and sad at the same time. They eventually conceded the point but only when they realized that it would directly affect them.
My partner is divorced and he has full custody of his three children. He and I live together with the three kids and I’m considered to be a father to the children as well. (And now that school has started and they only come to me with my homework questions, I remember why summer was so relaxing). We’ve talked about marriage and have talked about what would happen should something happen to him and the kids would have to live with their mother (shudder). If we were married, it would give us more ground to providing the children a more stable home and it would be easier to adopt the kids into my name as well.
Unfortunately, those who have this Man+Woman Only mindset don’t see the problems that their ideology creates. The main point I’ve heard from that crowd states that allowing this marriage equals condoning it and since GLBTers are against their belief system, this is one step to stop it. Unfortunately, one cannot legislate sexuality, one can try but it’s not going to stop it. Ever. Homosexuality has been against the law in most states until recently and has that stopped it or has it just brought the issue to the forefront?
I’ve been in a childless marriage for over 3 years, so I guess we should just part ways now, huh?
:singing: What’s love got to do! Got to do with it?!
Yes. Please report to your local courthouse for dissolution and mandatory reassignment to a new partner.
My parents wanted kids, but only one. Should they have stopped having sex in 1975, after I was born? At what point should they disolve their marriage? Immediatly? When I turned 18? Or 21? When I finished college? What’s the cutoff point where their relationship becomes invalid due to the lack of further offspring?
And that’s where the definition of marriage grinds to a halt in society. Marriage has been a combination of 2 things, the limited relationship between 2 people, and the normal sexual relationship of man and woman.
And? Because marriage has been (bolding mine) those things, marriage must always and forever be those things? Why? How does the presence of same-sex partners in a “limited relationship” negatively affect, in any way, your marriage, marriage in general, society?
Also, I will address the last part of your statement. I have a dear friend who married her husband almost 3 decades ago. Two weeks before the wedding, her husband was paralyzed from the neck down, and remains so to this day. They married, and obviously due to his injuries, he and she cannot have “the normal sexual relationship of man and woman.”
Therefore, they are not married? They shouldn’t have been allowed to marry? Their marriage is an affront to yours? To the institution of marriage itself? The fundamental downfall of society?
Did God make men want to have multiple sex partners, like polygamists? Did God make pedophiles? Did God make people who want to have sex with animals? And before you whine that I’m equating homosexuality with “bad”, I’m not, so save it. It’s simply “other”. I’m in favor of gay rights (excluding the use of the word “marriage”), but your argument is overly facile.
You know, I think there may be something about that in The Bible… I could be wrong.
As for the other examples, I do not think they can be equated with a relationship between consenting adults.
That’s a different argument. My comment went to his particular argument, which I quoted. God also makes arsonists and serial killers.
Arsonists and serial killers fall under the ‘harms others’ umbrella. Two men or two women being married does not.
:rolleyes: Please try to pay attention to the PARTICULAR ARGUMENT I was responding to. And if anyone else can’t or refuses to read, I can’t help you.
Bolding mine. Why are you opposed to calling a civil marriage between two persons of the same gender a marriage?
Civil Union? Anything they want, but not “marriage”. The word is taken, it’s meaning understood.
My meaning of “marriage” is an official public commitment that’s recognized by whatever governmental entity under which the people declaring their commitment reside.
If yours varies, why do you get to decide that yours is correct and mine is not?
Understood by whom? I know nothing about the definition that excludes any two partners regardless of race, religion, gender, species, humanity, or whether they’re an abstract concept.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T.
And if definition 3 doesn’t satisfy you, note especially how definition 1 a (2) explicitly puts a bullet into the idea that the word “marriage” is the personal property of the religious right.
Why is etymology a trump card?
I’ll admit that i’m one of those who’re all for an evolving language in general, let alone in this particular case. But if your sole argument is (as it seems to be here) one of grammar, I tend to feel that the benefits of calling it marriage tend to outweigh it.
It affects the definition of the word. It is a different relationship. Again, words mean things.
Sorry for your friends situation. That really sucks on a scale that I can’t measure. It doesn’t change the nature of the word marriage. It is still binds the love of a man and a woman.
Why? Why is the definition of a word so fixed that it cannot evolve to include the love of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
This is the board on which I’ve read many (manymanymany) arguments about language, and one statement that always arises is that the meaning of words evolves. Changes. Is flexible.
What’s so holy about the word “marriage,” much less the institution of marriage, that disallows change over time? And how does that change in any way harm anyone?