Should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry ?

[roguenuke]

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

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?

No, it doesn't. All it tells us is how they felt about families in the past. Families have changed over time, as has our world. A lot. Get over it.

As for the ceremonies, we have plenty of ceremonies to celebrate many parts of our lives. Establishing a major intimate relationship that both people normally expect to last a long time is a major event in our lives. It isn't about making babies, because many of those who cannot make babies have such ceremonies. And you don't need the ceremony to establish the marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

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

Again, not exclusively between men and women. Not like dead people can have children/make babies, now can they?

You still fail to recognize that the relationships were much more like business mergers. There have been many reasons for marriage.

 

[phattonez]

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

And apparently you like to push ideas without any evidence. You point out a few sparse examples and think that is evidence of homosexual unions being in the past common and equal to heterosexual marriage. That's weak at best.

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.

Nope, the study looked only at intimate relationships. Try again.

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.

The data are quite clear: cohabitation is far less stable than marriage, and stability is paramount for a good childhood.

 

[phattonez]

No, it doesn't. All it tells us is how they felt about families in the past. Families have changed over time, as has our world. A lot. Get over it.

As for the ceremonies, we have plenty of ceremonies to celebrate many parts of our lives. Establishing a major intimate relationship that both people normally expect to last a long time is a major event in our lives. It isn't about making babies, because many of those who cannot make babies have such ceremonies. And you don't need the ceremony to establish the marriage.

You don't need it, but you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Why do we have the ceremony? What are we celebrating? And why don't we have those ceremonies for close friendships?

 

[phattonez]

Again, not exclusively between men and women. Not like dead people can have children/make babies, now can they?

You still fail to recognize that the relationships were much more like business mergers. There have been many reasons for marriage.

If there were many reasons, then we should see many forms? Yet we see it almost exclusively as between men and women. How can you say that is just a coincidence?

 

[roguenuke]

You don't need it, but you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Why do we have the ceremony? What are we celebrating? And why don't we have those ceremonies for close friendships?

We're celebrating the union of the two, or most people are. That has nothing to do with the genders of the couple. You can't base how we do things now on how they might have been done or why they were done in the past. We don't live in the past.

 

[roguenuke]

If there were many reasons, then we should see many forms? Yet we see it almost exclusively as between men and women. How can you say that is just a coincidence?

We do see many forms, including people who couldn't have children (old people, Abraham and Sarah), ghost marriages, proxy marriages, polygamy (actually really popular), and many other forms of marriage, including same sex unions in some places.

It isn't just a "coincidence". It is the way things are. Most people are heterosexual and, in the past, people found it "wrong" to never want children. That doesn't mean that this was universal nor that we should keep such a belief today just because it used to exist in the past.

 

[phattonez]

We're celebrating the union of the two, or most people are. That has nothing to do with the genders of the couple. You can't base how we do things now on how they might have been done or why they were done in the past. We don't live in the past.

So again, why don't we do this for friendships? Why do we only do this for marriages? And let's look at the other side of the issue. Why was marriage outside of wedlock such a scandal?

 

[phattonez]

We do see many forms, including people who couldn't have children (old people, Abraham and Sarah),

Do we have evidence that they were old when they were wed?

ghost marriages, proxy marriages,

I don't know how common/important these are. You tell me.

polygamy (actually really popular),

Still fertile, and still between men and women.

and many other forms of marriage, including same sex unions in some places.

And how common is this?

It isn't just a "coincidence". It is the way things are. Most people are heterosexual and, in the past, people found it "wrong" to never want children. That doesn't mean that this was universal nor that we should keep such a belief today just because it used to exist in the past.

Yet Christianity actually values celibacy above marriage. Interesting, no?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

And apparently you like to push ideas without any evidence. You point out a few sparse examples and think that is evidence of homosexual unions being in the past common and equal to heterosexual marriage. That's weak at best.

Nope, the study looked only at intimate relationships. Try again.

The data are quite clear: cohabitation is far less stable than marriage, and stability is paramount for a good childhood.

You haven't presented any evidence contrary to that claim either. Glass houses, phatt.

At any rate, I can't be bothered to do research for an ideologue who won't be convinced no matter what the evidence is, but I have done it in the past, so feel free to search my username on DP for links.

I didn't say it wasn't addressing intimate relationships. Can you read? Intimate relationships exist at various levels of commitment. Literacy: it's your friend.

Anyway, like I said, I can't be bothered with willful ignorance. Later.

 

[Gathomas88]

Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.

There's a reason for it, it all fits into their marriage/procreation thing, along with their aversion to birth control and so on. It makes sense in their universe, and at least they are consistent about it. I personally think it's BS but what do I know?

To a certain extent, yes. It'd certainly be grounds for annulment, and defeat most of the purpose behind getting married in the first place. However, I don't think the Church would blatantly forbid such a union either.

That kind of a thing was a lot more important back in the day, when procreation was basically a pre-requisite for any potential marital union to be successful. I believe that they would even go so far as to "inspect" the groom before signing off on the marriage just to make sure he could perform in some regions. That obviously would have been more of a cultural, rather than strictly religious, convention, however.

 

[roguenuke]

So again, why don't we do this for friendships? Why do we only do this for marriages? And let's look at the other side of the issue. Why was marriage outside of wedlock such a scandal?

You can do so for friendships if you want (although they would be considered a "marriage"). Then your best friend could be your spouse.

We don't normally have a legal relationship for "friendship" because of how transient friendships can be and most people value their family, including spouse, more than the majority of their friends. Now, that isn't to say that people can't value their friendships like family, but there simply isn't the same legal connection there. If you think there should be some kinship recognition for your friends, petition for it, convince other people there should be something like that. See where it goes and if others agree with you.

 

[roguenuke]

Do we have evidence that they were old when they were wed?

I don't know how common/important these are. You tell me.

Still fertile, and still between men and women.

And how common is this?

Yet Christianity actually values celibacy above marriage. Interesting, no?

I wasn't saying Abraham and Sarah were old, but rather that they went outside their marriage for a child when they believed she couldn't have one. And old people are allowed to marry even when we know that after menopause a woman cannot have children (hence why there is a minimum age around when menopause is done for the majority of women for first cousins getting married in at least 5 states).

I don't give two licks about what Christianity "values". This isn't true for all Christians (even if their religion teaches it), nor is everyone Christian. Legal marriage is not based on any religion.

 

[Paleocon]

To a certain extent, yes. It'd certainly be grounds for annulment, and defeat most of the purpose behind getting married in the first place. However, I don't think the Church would blatantly forbid such a union either.

That kind of a thing was a lot more important back in the day, when procreation was basically a pre-requisite for any potential marital union to be successful. I believe that they would even go so far as to "inspect" the groom before signing off on the marriage just to make sure he could perform in some regions. That obviously would have been more of a cultural, rather than strictly religious, convention, however.

The Code of Canon Law (# 1084 §1) states: "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage."

(#1084 §2) " If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, a marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists."

(#1084 §3) "Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of canon 1098." (1098 basically states so long as fraud is not part of the marriage, meaning the sterility is known by both parties prior to marriage, or by neither party at the time of marriage.)

There was a case in Brazil a few years back where an impotent man was not allowed to be married.

 

[polgara]

To a certain extent, yes. It'd certainly be grounds for annulment. However, I don't think the Church would blatantly forbid such a union either.

That kind of a thing was a lot more important back in the day, when procreation was basically a pre-requisite for any potential marital union to be successful. I believe that they would even go so far as to "inspect" the groom before signing off on the marriage just to make sure he could perform in some regions. That obviously would have been more a cultural, than strictly religious, convention, however.

Greetings, Gathomas88. :2wave:

Sophie Auguste, later to become Catherine the Great, was 16-years old when she married Grand Duke Peter III, heir to the Russian throne. He was "inspected" as you termed it, and required surgery to correct a problem which would have prevented him from producing an heir. She did bear several children, one of them a son, who became emperor after her death. The royal lineage was critical, and the birthing room was filled with dignitaries who watched the whole process to make sure another child was not substituted. The baby was taken from her at birth for others to raise as the future emperor, and she had no choice in the matter.

Gath, for the record, I'm sure glad things have changed, and I'm sure most women would agree with me, since I can't imagine having my mayor, senator, or anyone else who might be interested, other than my doctor, watching me in childbirth. Talk about stress levels! :shock: :lamo:

 

[Gathomas88]

Greetings, Gathomas88. :2wave:

Sophie Auguste, later to become Catherine the Great, was 16-years old when she married Grand Duke Peter III, heir to the Russian throne. He was "inspected" as you termed it, and required surgery to correct a problem which would have prevented him from producing an heir. She did bear several children, one of them a son, who became emperor after her death. The royal lineage was critical, and the birthing room was filled with dignitaries who watched the whole process to make sure another child was not substituted. The baby was taken from her at birth for others to raise as the future emperor, and she had no choice in the matter.

Gath, for the record, I'm sure glad things have changed, and I'm sure most women would agree with me, since I can't imagine having my mayor, senator, or anyone else who might be interested, other than my doctor, watching me in childbirth. Talk about stress levels! :shock: :lamo:

I can imagine! Having someone treat your nether regions as a matter of state security certainly doesn't sound like fun! :lol:

 

[Risky Thicket]

With that post, you should admit you have never attended law school in your life. Not that there was ever any doubt. :roll:

Why is it I can't buy beer or wine in certain stores on Sunday? :roll: :roll:

Because you are only 14 years old?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Celibacy is an unnatural act.

 

[phattonez]

You can do so for friendships if you want (although they would be considered a "marriage"). Then your best friend could be your spouse.

We don't normally have a legal relationship for "friendship" because of how transient friendships can be and most people value their family, including spouse, more than the majority of their friends. Now, that isn't to say that people can't value their friendships like family, but there simply isn't the same legal connection there. If you think there should be some kinship recognition for your friends, petition for it, convince other people there should be something like that. See where it goes and if others agree with you.

The point is that there is no reason for legal recognition of the friendship. Nothing is added when it is established with a ceremony. Marriage, however, is completely different, and has always been treated as such. Why?

 

[phattonez]

Celibacy is an unnatural act.

Children being raised by promiscuous parents is unnatural.

 

[phattonez]

I wasn't saying Abraham and Sarah were old, but rather that they went outside their marriage for a child when they believed she couldn't have one. And old people are allowed to marry even when we know that after menopause a woman cannot have children (hence why there is a minimum age around when menopause is done for the majority of women for first cousins getting married in at least 5 states).

I don't give two licks about what Christianity "values". This isn't true for all Christians (even if their religion teaches it), nor is everyone Christian. Legal marriage is not based on any religion.

Legal marriage, however, has a purpose, and you're not really stating what the purpose of it is.

 

[RogueWarrior]

No.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.



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

Talk about taking all the fun out of sexual intercourse. You make sound like sexual intercourse needs a binding contract. If you need a binding contract prior to intercourse, holy ****balls...that would epically sad
The only things you need for sexual intercourse is desire and consenting adults. Desire can be construed as physical or monetary.

 

[phattonez]

Talk about taking all the fun out of sexual intercourse. You make sound like sexual intercourse needs a binding contract. If you need a binding contract prior to intercourse, holy ****balls...that would epically sad
The only things you need for sexual intercourse is desire and consenting adults. Desire can be construed as physical or monetary.

And the acceptance of the fact that if a child is begotten through the act that you will be raising that child. It is pitiful that the sexual license advocates will never bring up children, who are the natural consequence of sex.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Children being raised by promiscuous parents is unnatural.

What precisely comprises a promiscuous parent?

 

[phattonez]

What precisely comprises a promiscuous parent?

One in which you engage in sex outside of a monogamous, stable union.