is procreation required for marriage?
once you’re past the stage of having the ability to procreate, must you get divorced?
Well here is where we differ. I see a capacity for procreation in an infertile, different-sex relationship that is not in a same-sex relationship (as many “infertile” couples have found out to their joyful surprise!). You see the two as being equally closed to procreation. I believe that is where our difference lies.
and you ask about the use of this distinction that I am pressing for. The use is this. In what I call a “marriage”, children are a possibility. Now what or who will care for these children? That is the question. Should the parents who hatched them do that? or should someone else? This is the reason why the govt has to get involved. If it were simply a relationship of closeness and intimacy, then the govt has no stake in this. But b/c children are a real possibility, society now has a real interest in ensuring that those children are brought to adulthood in such a way that they can function in a free society.
The children in a same-sex “family” are NEVER raised by the parents who hatched them. To me, that is an unconscionable denial of the most basic human rights to that child.
fecund
Like I said, IIRC there’s a jurisdiction where some couples are required to show they can’t procreate if they want to enter into a marriage.
There isn’t one and there never was one. As we have explained exhaustively, that term is not “marriage” since you did not have to be able to reproduce to get married.
Why is it that you care what gays want to call their relationship? Do you think that it causes you harm?
Ok…thanks. You answered my question.
“Breeders” is now the term we will use to describe that relationship which is capable of producing children.
“Marriage” from here on out will be used to describe any close, intimate relatioship between consenting adults.
There isn’t one, and there never was. Marriage has always been more than this.
Feel free to call it what you like. The rest of us (and the rest of human history, apparently) will use “marriage” to encompass other couplings as well, as we always have.
“Wut?”
What is the difference between a opposite sex couple who uses artificial insemination and a same sex couple that uses artificial insemination?
It is not incumbent upon society to accommodate your peculiar obsessions.
If you think it’s important to have a special word for marriages that involve breeding, invent one and maybe it will catch on.
They’re very often raised by one of the parents who “hatched” them (hatched? seriously?). Since the alternative to being raised by a gay couple is to stay in a foster home with no parents, it sounds to me like banning gay marriage would be an “unconscionable denial of the most basic human rights to that child”.
So support gay marriage – support the “most basic human rights” of children.
Which is one of the ugliest words in the English language. I hope we can all agree on that.
no one said you have to be able to produce to get married. who said that? I am simply asserting that we need some kind of term for the relationship that has the capacity (if everything is healthy and working properly) for procreation.
Here is why I care. Typically, a “marriage” referred to the relationship that we are now calling “breeders”. That is why the law or the govt was interested in breeders. Since breeders have the capacity for bringing children into this world, the govt has an interest in ensuring that these children are given a suitable upbringing. That is the ONLY reason the law got involved in this relationship.
My problem is not so much with gay marriage (which is a non-entity IMO) but with gay parenting. Gay parenting is cruel and a denial of a child’s basic human rights.
You can call people breeders if you like, but I’m not sure you’re gonna love the implications.
What’s the “capacity for procreation” in a couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy?
The people responsible for caring for a child are its parents. This is true regardless of whether or not the parents are married. So I’m not sure how that’s relevant. I agree that government benefits to married couples also benefit their children. But lots of gay people have children - why do you want to deny the advantages of government-recognized marriage to those kids?
Wow. Well, first of all, your first statement is not factually correct. Lots of kids out there whose biological parents aren’t married, but are still being raised by both of them. Secondly, do you view adoption (by heterosexual parents) as a denial of the child’s human rights? What about surrogacy - again by heterosexual parents? What about step-parenting? If a man and a woman have a kid, then get divorced, and the man then marries a different woman, is that a violation of their child’s human rights? Why is it different, then, if that man divorces his wife, and marries another man?
Why would we do that? Again, IIRC there’s a jurisdiction where cousins are allowed to get married if and only if they won’t be breeding.
This is incorrect and has already been discussed to death in the very thread.
Thank you for your honesty. Finally. So the bottom line is that you don’t think that gay people should be legally allowed to raise children. Is this correct?
No, I don’t believe you have been assigned the task of defining marriage, since it already has a perfectly functioning definition.
So, what’s your solution to the problem of gay people having kids? A lesbian gets knocked up and gives birth to a child. What do you think should be done about that?
Why? There has never been such a term… marriage always included other couples as well. So why do we need one now?
Cite? Do you believe this about all adoptive parents, or just gay parents? What if one of the parents is a biological parent?