Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Definitions of Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I confess to finding this line of thinking incomprehensible. It's desired to say that marriage focuses on children, but for other reasons we're not going to actually ask if you're going to have children. That's a mechanism that seems doomed to fail.
    How so? From a strict paperwork standpoint, it stands to reason that most marriages will produce offspring, since they are male/female. Delving further into that would require a level of intrusion into the medical or psychological status of the couple. How would the government know that a couple was infertile without exposing medical records? How would the government know that a couple will remain childless by choice without repeated interviews?

    It takes absolutely no invasion of privacy to determine that two people of the same sex are physically incapable of producing an offspring together. It is a biological fact regardless of any additional factors. That is a mechanism that has worked for our country for the past 200 plus years. It is not until very recently that anyone would even consider calling that rationale into question. Now, the arguments that have been advanced by same sex marriage proponents have called into question the rationale of keeping marriage between only 2 members.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      How so? From a strict paperwork standpoint, it stands to reason that most marriages will produce offspring, since they are male/female. Delving further into that would require a level of intrusion into the medical or psychological status of the couple. How would the government know that a couple was infertile without exposing medical records? How would the government know that a couple will remain childless by choice without repeated interviews?

      It takes absolutely no invasion of privacy to determine that two people of the same sex are physically incapable of producing an offspring together. It is a biological fact regardless of any additional factors. That is a mechanism that has worked for our country for the past 200 plus years. It is not until very recently that anyone would even consider calling that rationale into question. Now, the arguments that have been advanced by same sex marriage proponents have called into question the rationale of keeping marriage between only 2 members.
      Because the biological fact of procreation renders the legalization irrelevant. More importantly, the central focus as presented would have been an obvious side effect that didn't need specific legal promotion. Let's not forget, either, that the mechanism that's "worked for the past 200 plus years" was drastically different in form. These days, women are allowed to vote and own property. The specific reason I say that it's destined to fail is that an attitude of "they'll generally procreate" doesn't work in societies where procreation becomes less prominent. It should hardly be surprising that the factors we consider important today are different than they once were.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #33
        Because the biological fact of procreation renders the legalization irrelevant.
        Que? Most people can fairly easily grasp that the biological fact of procreation of individuals who require near constant supervision and attention for long periods of time, plus integration into the current society, brings up all sorts of legal issues regarding ownership and responsibility, specifically the fact that parents are responsible for what their kids do. Household rule is not only a factor in lawmaking but the very beginning of its understanding among the vast majority of people.

        More importantly, the central focus as presented would have been an obvious side effect that didn't need specific legal promotion. Let's not forget, either, that the mechanism that's "worked for the past 200 plus years" was drastically different in form. These days, women are allowed to vote and own property.
        To their detriment, and ours, for the most part. (Voting, mainly, usually property ownership comes at a time late enough in most women's life to mitigate against irresponsible use of it, and they are generally pretty house-proud.)

        The specific reason I say that it's destined to fail is that an attitude of "they'll generally procreate" doesn't work in societies where procreation becomes less prominent. It should hardly be surprising that the factors we consider important today are different than they once were.
        A society where 'they'll generally procreate' is not a valid assumption is probably an sick and abnormal society from a historical perspective, and your time is better spent finding out why it's not a valid assumption than blessing the mess you're in because you've gotten used to some aspects of it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          Because the biological fact of procreation renders the legalization irrelevant. More importantly, the central focus as presented would have been an obvious side effect that didn't need specific legal promotion. Let's not forget, either, that the mechanism that's "worked for the past 200 plus years" was drastically different in form. These days, women are allowed to vote and own property. The specific reason I say that it's destined to fail is that an attitude of "they'll generally procreate" doesn't work in societies where procreation becomes less prominent. It should hardly be surprising that the factors we consider important today are different than they once were.
          Forgive my ignorance, but how does that address my first paragraph? Or the privacy issues I brought up? I'm simply explaining why the government sanctions marriage in the first place, and why exceptions are no reason to invalidate (or expand) an entire category, or to validate another.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            I'm simply explaining why the government sanctions marriage in the first place
            As has been repeatedly noted, you are explaining only ONE reason why the government sanctions marriage. There are other reasons.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              As has been repeatedly noted, you are explaining only ONE reason why the government sanctions marriage. There are other reasons.
              Which are inconsequential to the point I am making that voluntarilly and medically childless opposite sex couples are not a reason to discard the government's procreation/marriage interest.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Forgive my ignorance, but how does that address my first paragraph? Or the privacy issues I brought up? I'm simply explaining why the government sanctions marriage in the first place, and why exceptions are no reason to invalidate (or expand) an entire category, or to validate another.
                There's no need to sanction (yay words with opposite meanings) any event if the desired outcome is more or less inevitable. It may stand to reason that most marriages will produce offspring, but if that's the goal there's no need to specially promote it. You could say the same thing of all male/female relationships. In short, I claim BS on the idea that the government sanctions marriage to promote offspring. They might promote child-development, but that could be handled in a completely different manner that avoids the risk of exploitation.

                The privacy statement sounds like a cop-out. I'm all for not intruding on privacy, but claiming to promote a biological fact while refusing to actually check up on it is talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's lip service to an ideal it wishes to uphold without actually being held accountable if the ideal is not met.

                You also asked "how so" in regards to the mechanism being doomed to fail. The system as described rewards people for taking advantage of benefits they would otherwise not receive, and it is helpless to prevent exploitation by any and all. Small wonder that those outside the general category wish to take advantage of the same benefits.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Sorry for being out of it for the better part of this week.

                  My reaction to Carrik's objection is, how do we verify that a couple is going to have kids? Do we not recognize it as a marriage or grant them tax benefits until they have had a child together? What about couples that are delaying children for serious personal or financial reasons? Do we deny them precisely the financial benefits that will help them prepare an environment to raise their children? Do we test for fertility before allowing them to legally register as spouses? If the wife uses the Pill, can they not get married? If she starts using the pill or one or the other becomes infertile, is the marriage ended? Let us imagine a couple with a 20-year old child: do we allow them to cancel their marriage? What if we then find that the woman is pregnant through intercourse from when they were still officially married-- do we un-cancel it? If we embrace this logic, then couldn't one spouse withhold sex and so get the marriage legally cancelled when it becomes convenient? If we make marriage based only on fertility, we actually don't solve the problem of arbitrariness that defines the modern divorce culture.

                  The unilateral cancellation of a marriage, with or without fertility as a factor, contradicts the definition of marriage I presented. It is not that it turns man and woman into father and mother, but that it binds them together permanently as husband and wife so that they will be present as father and mother to any children their sexual union may produce. Marriage is defined by permanence and sexual complementarity: they become husband and wife for life. That, and not the presence of children, makes it a marriage. That is the most stable and least intrusive way of defining this sort of relationship... which, again, is not a reason for us not to allow for other forms of legal relationships with their own peculiar qualities and benefits, but these relationships must not be mistaken for marriage.

                  I have, as I said, been "out of it" for the last few days. Hopefully my post provides some worthwhile substance. I haven't edited it substantially, and I'm posting it after midnight; hopefully the quality of my thought is not significantly reduced as a result.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    There's no need to sanction (yay words with opposite meanings) any event if the desired outcome is more or less inevitable. It may stand to reason that most marriages will produce offspring, but if that's the goal there's no need to specially promote it.
                    The primary goal may be to have two people who are uniquely qualified to take responsibility for each other due to intimate knowledge and personal connections; the rigors of both raising children and gainful employment tend to be things shared by neighborhoods and communities, and all else being equal, a neighborhood full of married people is far, far more likely to be safe and well-kept than apartment blocks full of singles. Again, the externalities of the normal family tend to be so numerous that talking of single desired outcomes or goals usually betrays a narrowness of outlook.

                    You could say the same thing of all male/female relationships. In short, I claim BS on the idea that the government sanctions marriage to promote offspring. They might promote child-development, but that could be handled in a completely different manner that avoids the risk of exploitation.
                    I find it highly unlikely that any random professional would take as much general and committed interest in kids that aren't genetically related to her. They will at best be check marks in her ledger or credits to her account, and even the saintliest among them will find their goodwill tested severely by the fact that managing several unrelated children is far harder than managing a few.

                    The privacy statement sounds like a cop-out. I'm all for not intruding on privacy, but claiming to promote a biological fact while refusing to actually check up on it is talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's lip service to an ideal it wishes to uphold without actually being held accountable if the ideal is not met.
                    Most of what government could do to promote marriage nowadays would lie in the destruction of institutions that women use as proxies for the traditional role of men as provider and protector. Promotion of anything isn't really government's strong suit, the main goal is to defund and destroy the various alphabetized agencies that are actively conspiring against the unity of the nation at the lowest level. (I.E., EBT, SNAP, CPS, 'battered women' shelters, the family courts whose brutal and underhanded tactics against fathers make the NSA look like amateurs, and basically every publicly-funded institution and enforcement mechanism that supports the divorce-industrial complex.)

                    You also asked "how so" in regards to the mechanism being doomed to fail. The system as described rewards people for taking advantage of benefits they would otherwise not receive, and it is helpless to prevent exploitation by any and all. Small wonder that those outside the general category wish to take advantage of the same benefits.
                    Oh, I'm well aware of the demographic profile of women who use children for government benefits and babydaddies for daily social drama/entertainment. But since most of them are the ones partaking most enthusiastically of the various government programs mentioned above, their isolation, desolation, and removal from power is a natural consequence of removing the agencies alluded to above. Kill the funding, and the funded will scatter.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      Sorry for being out of it for the better part of this week.
                      I simply assumed you were busy. I hope all is well.

                      Marriage is defined by permanence and sexual complementarity
                      For my part, I have to reject your chosen definition of "sexual complementarity." Your views on this issue assume a binary status of gender identity and sexual orientation that the evidence demonstrates is the norm, but not the universal.

                      Unfortunately, I also have to object to your use of the word permanence. While permanence is a goal, history has shown us that it is neither automatic nor assured. The existence of abusive and wayward spouses has clearly demonstrated that an option for exit must be available.

                      I have, as I said, been "out of it" for the last few days. Hopefully my post provides some worthwhile substance. I haven't edited it substantially, and I'm posting it after midnight; hopefully the quality of my thought is not significantly reduced as a result.
                      Now you have me worried. Is all well with you?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        For my part, I have to reject your chosen definition of "sexual complementarity." Your views on this issue assume a binary status of gender identity and sexual orientation that the evidence demonstrates is the norm, but not the universal.
                        I assume nothing about sexual complementarity other than the presence of the necessary biological parts to make a functional reproductive unit: sexual complementarity in itself implies nothing about sexual orientation or gender identity (see genderbread person for demonstration of how sex does not necessarily have any bearing on identity or attraction). A marriage is not made successful by the participants conforming to gender stereotypes; rather, success comes from both spouses bringing their own unique gifts, talents, and inclinations to the marriage in order to make a nurturing home for their children. It may be difficult for a person who is not particularly attracted to their spouse (for whatever reason) to become sexually aroused so as to, well, have sex, but as long as it's possible, there's no need whatsoever to conform to gender identity or sexual orientation stereotypes.

                        Unfortunately, I also have to object to your use of the word permanence. While permanence is a goal, history has shown us that it is neither automatic nor assured. The existence of abusive and wayward spouses has clearly demonstrated that an option for exit must be available.
                        Of course there need to be exit options, but the bias needs to be toward permanence.

                        Now you have me worried. Is all well with you?
                        Looking back on this the following morning, I think my intention was to make an excuse for myself in case my argument didn't turn out to be totally coherent. Make of that what you will
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          I assume nothing about sexual complementarity other than the presence of the necessary biological parts to make a functional reproductive unit
                          The problem, then, is the emphasis on functional reproductive status, and this is where your argument becomes incoherent.

                          The way you have marriage set up, the only function for marriage is reproduction. Permanence (or, at least, intended permanence) is a condition of the marital bond, but not a teleological function. Yet those who marry, but do not reproduce, are still allowed the privileges while not accomplishing the function. This is incoherent. If reproductive capacity is the only teleological form of marriage, then yes, it is not only right to bar marriage from those who are infertile, past child-bearing age, or who decide to marry but not have children, the teleological function is unfulfilled or unfulfillable. Yet these families are allowed to have the benefits without fulfilling the function.

                          [quorw]A marriage is not made successful by the participants conforming to gender stereotypes; rather, success comes from both spouses bringing their own unique gifts, talents, and inclinations to the marriage in order to make a nurturing home for their children.[/quote]

                          Again, if the couple has no children (by choice or by medical issues), you just invalidated their marriage.

                          Of course there need to be exit options, but the bias needs to be toward permanence.
                          I would say that the bias, even in our culture of serial monogamy, _is_ towards permanence. (And further, I would say that this is a good thing.)

                          Looking back on this the following morning, I think my intention was to make an excuse for myself in case my argument didn't turn out to be totally coherent. Make of that what you will
                          Meh, don't sell yourself short. The problem is not with your presentation--you've done quite well with that. The problem is that the argument itself is untenable due to problems with internal incoherence.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            My reaction to Carrik's objection is, how do we verify that a couple is going to have kids? Do we not recognize it as a marriage or grant them tax benefits until they have had a child together? What about couples that are delaying children for serious personal or financial reasons? Do we deny them precisely the financial benefits that will help them prepare an environment to raise their children? Do we test for fertility before allowing them to legally register as spouses? If the wife uses the Pill, can they not get married? If she starts using the pill or one or the other becomes infertile, is the marriage ended? Let us imagine a couple with a 20-year old child: do we allow them to cancel their marriage? What if we then find that the woman is pregnant through intercourse from when they were still officially married-- do we un-cancel it? If we embrace this logic, then couldn't one spouse withhold sex and so get the marriage legally cancelled when it becomes convenient? If we make marriage based only on fertility, we actually don't solve the problem of arbitrariness that defines the modern divorce culture.
                            What you've done here is proven my point for me. As you rightly illustrate, the implications of enforcing "marriage for children" are manifold and ultimately impossible in practice. However, my stance is not that we should be enforcing "marriage for children" but that "marriage for children" is not actually a true description of its raison d'Ítre.


                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            The unilateral cancellation of a marriage, with or without fertility as a factor, contradicts the definition of marriage I presented. It is not that it turns man and woman into father and mother, but that it binds them together permanently as husband and wife so that they will be present as father and mother to any children their sexual union may produce. Marriage is defined by permanence and sexual complementarity: they become husband and wife for life. That, and not the presence of children, makes it a marriage. That is the most stable and least intrusive way of defining this sort of relationship... which, again, is not a reason for us not to allow for other forms of legal relationships with their own peculiar qualities and benefits, but these relationships must not be mistaken for marriage.
                            This is awesome, as you're yet again making my points for me. Let's break it down:


                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            The unilateral cancellation of a marriage, with or without fertility as a factor, contradicts the definition of marriage I presented.
                            I concur.


                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            It is not that it turns man and woman into father and mother, but that it binds them together permanently as husband and wife so that they will be present as father and mother to any children their sexual union may produce.
                            Almost. The bolded is incorrect. This is no different than the fertility factor. It's neither guaranteed nor enforceable.


                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            Marriage is defined by permanence and sexual complementarity: they become husband and wife for life. That, and not the presence of children, makes it a marriage. That is the most stable and least intrusive way of defining this sort of relationship... which, again, is not a reason for us not to allow for other forms of legal relationships with their own peculiar qualities and benefits, but these relationships must not be mistaken for marriage.
                            Here you've corrected yourself, and the bolded is essentially my claim.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              What you've done here is proven my point for me. As you rightly illustrate, the implications of enforcing "marriage for children" are manifold and ultimately impossible in practice. However, my stance is not that we should be enforcing "marriage for children" but that "marriage for children" is not actually a true description of its raison d'Ítre.

                              This is awesome, as you're yet again making my points for me. Let's break it down:

                              I concur.

                              Almost. The bolded is incorrect. This is no different than the fertility factor. It's neither guaranteed nor enforceable.

                              Here you've corrected yourself, and the bolded is essentially my claim.
                              Do you agree on the complementarity and permanence criteria?
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                                The problem, then, is the emphasis on functional reproductive status, and this is where your argument becomes incoherent.

                                The way you have marriage set up, the only function for marriage is reproduction. Permanence (or, at least, intended permanence) is a condition of the marital bond, but not a teleological function. Yet those who marry, but do not reproduce, are still allowed the privileges while not accomplishing the function. This is incoherent. If reproductive capacity is the only teleological form of marriage, then yes, it is not only right to bar marriage from those who are infertile, past child-bearing age, or who decide to marry but not have children, the teleological function is unfulfilled or unfulfillable. Yet these families are allowed to have the benefits without fulfilling the function.
                                As I hoped I explained in my post last night, there is no good way to implement that in law. We have marriage because we want children, but complementarity and permanence are what make a marriage happen. Children are what make it teleologically successful, but are not a necessary precondition. Scoring runs and winning games is the goal of a baseball team, but it's a baseball team whether or not they ever score a run or win a game.

                                Again, if the couple has no children (by choice or by medical issues), you just invalidated their marriage.
                                And we have no way of setting up policies that invalidate some of these marriages without putting others at risk.

                                Meh, don't sell yourself short. The problem is not with your presentation--you've done quite well with that. The problem is that the argument itself is untenable due to problems with internal incoherence.
                                Excluding infertile couples is definitively not a question of coherence, but rather of applicability. The questions for any given definition of marriage, as I suggested in the previous thread, are whether it is internally coherent, then what it does when we put it in law. This may seem like a silly distinction, but it's one that we need to make.
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:17 PM
                                7 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Diogenes, 05-26-2023, 09:33 AM
                                44 responses
                                202 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 05-25-2023, 09:05 PM
                                68 responses
                                309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by rogue06, 05-25-2023, 10:27 AM
                                30 responses
                                187 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by tabibito, 05-25-2023, 05:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                237 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X