Should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry ?

[Paleocon]

No, it isn't "natural", not in the way you are attempting to use it in saying "law of nature" earlier. Legal marriage isn't natural at all, since it only deals with recognition of the marriage in exchange for rights, benefits, and protections.

People naturally do it, ergo, it's natural.

 

[roguenuke]

People naturally do it, ergo, it's natural.

People "naturally" pair up, but not everyone and they don't "naturally" sign paperwork. And the gender of the person they pair with can be the same as their own gender. And it is in fact more natural for us to engage in serial monogamy than mate for life. This is why we have to learn to develop relationships to a deeper level now than in the past.

 

[Paleocon]

People "naturally" pair up, but not everyone and they don't "naturally" sign paperwork. And the gender of the person they pair with can be the same as their own gender. And it is in fact more natural for us to engage in serial monogamy than mate for life. This is why we have to learn to develop relationships to a deeper level now than in the past.

While some animals don't, humans naturally pair for life.

 

[roguenuke]

While some animals don't, humans naturally pair for life.

No, humans don't, nor didn't always. Humans, since the beginning of our known existence, have been much more likely to be involved in serial monogamy than mating for life. Even polygamy is more common than mating for life.

Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy | Human Behavior & Promiscuity & Marriage | Mating Behaviors & Life's Extremes

"Some people prefer to have long-term sexual relationships with a single partner. In rare cases, that can mean one partner for life."

Both Monogamy and Polygamy May Be Natural for Humans

For humans, all sorts of mating strategies are natural, but the least common ones are to mate with a single person for life or have an endless parade of sexual partners, never having any longterm relationships. Most people are inbetween.

"But most scientists tended to think of human sexual diversity as a bell curve: while there were a few extremes on either end, the vast majority fit in the middle."

 

[Paleocon]

No, humans don't, nor didn't always. Humans, since the beginning of our known existence, have been much more likely to be involved in serial monogamy than mating for life. Even polygamy is more common than mating for life.

Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy | Human Behavior & Promiscuity & Marriage | Mating Behaviors & Life's Extremes

"Some people prefer to have long-term sexual relationships with a single partner. In rare cases, that can mean one partner for life."

Both Monogamy and Polygamy May Be Natural for Humans

For humans, all sorts of mating strategies are natural, but the least common ones are to mate with a single person for life or have an endless parade of sexual partners, never having any longterm relationships. Most people are inbetween.

"But most scientists tended to think of human sexual diversity as a bell curve: while there were a few extremes on either end, the vast majority fit in the middle."

That's only in our degenerate society.

 

[roguenuke]

That's only in our degenerate society.

No. This is throughout history, in pretty much every society. The only time "lifetime monogamy" is the "norm" is when it is absolutely mandated by severe punishment for breaking those mandates, which makes it completely unnatural.

 

[Top Cat]

If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.

Honestly I don't know what's worse. The church and its archaic doctrine or those who blindly buy the intolerance as acceptable.

 

[it's just me]

Is that really true? If a person is disabled and cannot consumate the marriage, the Catholic church does not see that as a valid marriage? I wonder where they based that.

It's my understanding that it's the vow, or the commitment to cleave to each other, that makes a man and a woman considered married in the eyes of God.

That's what I have heard from their own scholars. Of course, how anyone could know that is another thing altogether.

 

[RAMOSS]

While some animals don't, humans naturally pair for life.

That's why the concept of divorce does not exist.

 

[phattonez]

Pretty sure this talking about legal marriage, and not everyone abides by that church's rules, nor should they have to. Plus, many Catholics consider their faith only applies to them, and others shouldn't be forced to live by it (unless they believe it is causing someone else harm).

What is the purpose of marriage? Why does the institution exist?

 

[phattonez]

Yes they can. No one gives you a reproductive exam before they issue the certificate. You can get married at 75 if you want, and obviously you're not going to get pregnant at 75.

Marriage, as the term exists in America, is a society-wide, government institution that has nothing to do with whether you can or want to have kids, or what religion you are. You can be a sterilized Satanist and still get married.

You can say whatever you want about what you think of it, but you are factually wrong that the infertile cannot get married. They get married every day.

Same question I asked roguenuke. What is the purpose of marriage? For what reason does the institution exist?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Same question I asked roguenuke. What is the purpose of marriage? For what reason does the institution exist?

Whatever purpose the couple in question thinks it serves. It's not really anyone else's concern, now is it.

 

[phattonez]

Whatever purpose the couple in question thinks it serves. It's not really anyone else's concern, now is it.

So all cultures have come up with the institution of marriage independently for no apparent reason, just for the whims of individual couples who wanted to affix a title to their relationship?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So all cultures have come up with the institution of marriage independently for no apparent reason, just for the whims of individual couples who wanted to affix a title to their relationship?

Every society and religion on earth has a concept of unionizing lovers, and each of them has a different idea of what the purpose of that is. There are many who have always included gay folk in the institution, actually. Not all cultures share your exclusionary attitude. Clearly they don't think the only purpose of marriage is breeding, if they let gay people do it.

What makes your one definition right, and all the others wrong? Things that don't count "My old book says so." Well, good for you. America doesn't care about your book; it's a secular nation. Evidently the American government has come to the conclusion that it can't really legislate why people marry, given that they'll more than happily marry a sterile atheist.

And besides that, you don't need a wedding to reproduce. Anyone can do that. Just Tab A in Slot B and shake until ready. It's not difficult. There's no reason to invent a social ceremony just for that.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Marriage is (amongst other things) an agreement to engage in sexual intercourse. If one is incapable, then one cannot validly marry.

Just cuz ya shoot blanks or can't get hard doesn't mean you can't get it on.

P.S. "Giggity Giggity Giggity Goo!"

 

[phattonez]

Every society and religion on earth has a concept of unionizing lovers, and each of them has a different idea of what the purpose of that is. There are many who have always included gay folk in the institution, actually. Not all cultures share your exclusionary attitude. Clearly they don't think the only purpose of marriage is breeding, if they let gay people do it.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "many" is. While certainly there are examples, no one would say that there were "many" examples, or even more than a few sparse examples.

What makes your one definition right, and all the others wrong? Things that don't count "My old book says so." Well, good for you. America doesn't care about your book; it's a secular nation. Evidently the American government has come to the conclusion that it can't really legislate why people marry, given that they'll more than happily marry a sterile atheist.

And besides that, you don't need a wedding to reproduce. Anyone can do that. Just Tab A in Slot B and shake until ready. It's not difficult. There's no reason to invent a social ceremony just for that.

Except for the children, but you know, they're typically left out of a conversation on sexual morality ironically enough.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I guess that depends on what your definition of "many" is. While certainly there are examples, no one would say that there were "many" examples, or even more than a few sparse examples.

Except for the children, but you know, they're typically left out of a conversation on sexual morality ironically enough.

Or maybe you're just not that educated about it? There were dozens, before the Abrahamic religions took over most of the population, either by force-converting them or just killing them all outright.

Do the children know or care if you have a piece of paper? Uh, no, they don't. They care if their parents love them. They don't even care if those parents are romantically involved or not, or even biological or not. A pair or more of friends will do. So will adoptees. Or other family. Children are less judgemental than some adults. They haven't yet learned all the people they're supposed to hate from the grown-ups in their lives.

 

[roguenuke]

What is the purpose of marriage? Why does the institution exist?

The purpose of legal marriage is to establish a legal relationship between two people of "spouse". That is it. This relationship comes with many rights, privileges, benefits, and even some responsibilities.

The more social purpose of marriage is whatever the people entering into see it as, and to a smaller extent, what others see it as, which is highly subjective.

 

[phattonez]

Or maybe you're just not that educated about it? There were dozens, before the Abrahamic religions took over most of the population, either by force-converting them or just killing them all outright.

Wow dozens, out of how many that didn't recognize it?

Do the children know or care if you have a piece of paper? Uh, no, they don't. They care if their parents love them. They don't even care if those parents are romantically involved or not, or even biological or not. A pair or more of friends will do. So will adoptees. Or other family. Children are less judgemental than some adults. They haven't yet learned all the people they're supposed to hate from the grown-ups in their lives.

Except that we know what happens when children are raised in unstable homes, and it's a generally terrible environment for them. So what do we have that's significantly correlated with cohabitation?

In comparing union trajectories between co-habitors and marrieds, our results support past research that views marriage as a relationship that is qualitatively distinctive from cohabitation with a higher degree of commitment and stability than cohabitation. We found this greater commitment and stability across every dimension of separation and reconciliation we examined. Marrieds experience every transition that denotes interrupting living with their partners, such as separation and living apart, less often than cohabitors. Among those couples who do separate or live apart, married couples more often experience transitions that bring them back to resume coresidence, either by reconciliation or by living together after having lived apart. Our findings also suggest that marriage stabilizes cohabitors’ unions. Cohabitors who went on to marry have lower dissolution rates (whether by discord or by other reasons) and higher rates of reconciliation and resuming coresidence than cohabitors who do not marry.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00432.x/epdf

 

[phattonez]

The purpose of legal marriage is to establish a legal relationship between two people of "spouse". That is it. This relationship comes with many rights, privileges, benefits, and even some responsibilities.

I don't need the law to legalize my friendships. Why do I need the law to legalize my marriage?

The more social purpose of marriage is whatever the people entering into see it as, and to a smaller extent, what others see it as, which is highly subjective.

And so the fact that marriage was nearly universally between man and woman is just a coincidence? There was no reason for that?

 

[roguenuke]

So all cultures have come up with the institution of marriage independently for no apparent reason, just for the whims of individual couples who wanted to affix a title to their relationship?

Many came up with it for reasons dealing with business transactions, politics, and money. This is why China has "ghost" marriages, where dead children (either one or both) can be married in order to join the families in a legal relationship. There is a reason we have the phrase "a business merger the old fashion way".

 

[roguenuke]

I don't need the law to legalize my friendships. Why do I need the law to legalize my marriage?

And so the fact that marriage was nearly universally between man and woman is just a coincidence? There was no reason for that?

Because the law recognizes your legal relationships. These are more than just a personal relationship. They give us a legal relationship hierarchy for the law to base things such as decision making, inheritance, and other legal necessities off of. Even your best friend doesn't get a say in many of your legal concerns unless you specifically sign paperwork designating him/her as having that power/right.

It doesn't matter why marriages were "nearly universally" between a man and a woman in the past because we don't live in the past. What matters is why we have marriage now. And I gave you the reasons for that. They don't include procreation as a reason because we don't need a marriage vow to "ensure" the children belong to a certain man. We have DNA testing.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Wow dozens, out of how many that didn't recognize it?

Except that we know what happens when children are raised in unstable homes, and it's a generally terrible environment for them. So what do we have that's significantly correlated with cohabitation?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00432.x/epdf

Probably also dozens. Not too knowledgable about the subject, are ya.

But again, who cares? What makes your definition better than theirs?

Invalid, and any sociologist will tell you so. You can't compare unmarried couples wholesale to married's. Some cohabitators are just college kids in it to save money. Others have made a private commitment, and they behave very similarly to married's. Grouping the two together invalidates the results, as it mixes in many different kinds of couples.

Cohabitating couples raising children is becoming the norm in some European countries where children fare much better than they do in the US. The reason is quite simple: people in those countries just don't see the license as being important. What's important is that they make the commitment privately.

 

[phattonez]

Many came up with it for reasons dealing with business transactions, politics, and money. This is why China has "ghost" marriages, where dead children (either one or both) can be married in order to join the families in a legal relationship. There is a reason we have the phrase "a business merger the old fashion way".

And it just happens to correlate with a union exclusively between men and women? Just another coincidence?

 

[phattonez]

Because the law recognizes your legal relationships. These are more than just a personal relationship. They give us a legal relationship hierarchy for the law to base things such as decision making, inheritance, and other legal necessities off of. Even your best friend doesn't get a say in many of your legal concerns unless you specifically sign paperwork designating him/her as having that power/right.

The law does not recognize my friendships, nor do I see a reason why it needs to.

It doesn't matter why marriages were "nearly universally" between a man and a woman in the past because we don't live in the past. What matters is why we have marriage now. And I gave you the reasons for that. They don't include procreation as a reason because we don't need a marriage vow to "ensure" the children belong to a certain man. We have DNA testing.

Surely it does, because it tells us what the purpose of the institution is. Why do we have this union? Why do we have large ceremonies when couples are wed? What is the point of it all? And why don't we do the same for even very close friendships?