Marriages are only worth of recognition if they product children

[angela146]

Marriages are only worthy of recognition if they produce children

WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT OR HOLY ABOUT A GAY WEDDING NIGHT?
October 30th 2006 Original article

My family just attended a wonderful wedding where 300 guests sang and cried and toasted and danced the bride and groom to their first night together in their new home. Wedding guests become emotional precisely because the wedding night is significant and holy. But our experience raised an important question: what's holy or consequential about a gay wedding night? A bride and groom can create a new life that will bring descendents through eternity, but how does even a loving gay couple change the world? Any sane society will give special encouragement, sanction and privilege to the relationships that bring the greatest long-term benefit - opposite sex relationships that bring children into homes with both male and female parents. The New Jersey Supreme Court may forbid legal distinctions between gay and straight partnerships, but the American people understand the common sense notion that not all relationships are created equal - or equally worthy of governmental recognition and support.

Michael Medved

(Emphasis added)

So, does that apply to all marriages where there will be no children? For example, what about my marriage? My husband and I can't have children together. Does that mean that our marriage is worthless and unworthy of recognition and support?

Of course, we could adopt or use a sperm donor, but so could any same-sex couple (OK, a male same-sex couple would probably have to use an egg donor but you know what I mean).

So, maybe my marriage is merely insignificant or maybe it's unholy...

 

[rgraham666]

Oh brother.

Mr. Medved's inferiority complex is showing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Face it, Angela, you are just not going to satisfy the small minded among us


You could satisfy me though...
*ducks slap*

 

[Liar]

So, does that apply to all marriages where there will be no children? For example, what about my marriage? My husband and I can't have children together. Does that mean that our marriage is worthless and unworthy of recognition and support?

If same-sex-marriage opposers had any rational (however wrong) principle to argue, then yes, that would be the case.

However, they don't. They just fear the gay cooties.

 

[angela146]

Face it, Angela, you are just not going to satisfy the small minded among us You could satisfy me though...
*ducks slap*

 

[Katyusha]

So, does that apply to all marriages where there will be no children? For example, what about my marriage? My husband and I can't have children together. Does that mean that our marriage is worthless and unworthy of recognition and support?

Of course, we could adopt or use a sperm donor, but so could any same-sex couple (OK, a male same-sex couple would probably have to use an egg donor but you know what I mean).

So, maybe my marriage is merely insignificant or maybe it's unholy...

Well, think about it this way, you CAN'T have children. That choice was taken away from you, so your marriage is still significant (in the eyes of those I know personally who share the opinions of that article).

However, my husband and I have chosen not to have children. We can, but we don't want to. So I guess my marriage is unholy and insignificant, and unworthy of recognition.

<eyeroll>

The problem with the line of thinking in that article is that it DOES assume that even heterosexual marriages that don't produce a child are meaningless. IMO there's so much more that goes into a marriage than whether or not a child is produced.

 

[angela146]

They just fear the gay cooties.

Cooties! That's it! Now I understand!

Good thing I keep my fingers crossed so I don't have to worry about cooties.

 

[Oblimo]

Believe it or not, telling your future spouse that you want to have children when you know you can't (or won't) is grounds for divorce in most states, because having children is one of the core purposes of marital union.

Having children sure as heck isn't the only core purpose of marriage, however, and is neither sufficient nor necessary to define a marriage. Liar is right; there is no rational principle for banning gay marriage, only prejudicial or subjective ones.

 

[angela146]

Well, think about it this way, you CAN'T have children. That choice was taken away from you, so your marriage is still significant (in the eyes of those I know personally who share the opinions of that article).

Either that or I should leave my husband and marry someone who can get me pregnant so that my life will be meaningful. <gag>

However, my husband and I have chosen not to have children. We can, but we don't want to. So I guess my marriage is unholy and insignificant, and unworthy of recognition.

<eyeroll>

The problem with the line of thinking in that article is that it DOES assume that even heterosexual marriages that don't produce a child are meaningless. IMO there's so much more that goes into a marriage than whether or not a child is produced.

Hmmm.... Like the fact that my husband spends his time educating the children that other people produce?

 

[Oblimo]

Hmmm.... Like the fact that my husband spends his time educating the children that other people produce?

Oh God, I cannot resist, please don't kill me...

Well, you know what they say: those who can't...

​

 

[R. Richard]

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

Let me point out a simple example, one woman marries 10 men [one mass wedding.] Do each of the 10 men get to claim married status on their income tax returns? Can they claim the other husbands as dependants? One of the husbands dies. Who gets the insurance money? The woman has health insurance at work. Are all 10 husbands covered? Only one of the men qualifies for Social Security, what is the status of the wife and the other nine husbands? The wife wants to divorce just one husband, what are the rights of the other nine husbands? The woman has a baby, Under current law, all 10 husbands would be the father of the baby. If the woman divorces one husband, would all 10 fathers be responsible for court ordered child support?

 

[Ness73]

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

Let me point out a simple example, one woman marries 10 men [one mass wedding.] Do each of the 10 men get to claim married status on their income tax returns? Can they claim the other husbands as dependants? One of the husbands dies. Who gets the insurance money? The woman has health insurance at work. Are all 10 husbands covered? Only one of the men qualifies for Social Security, what is the status of the wife and the other nine husbands? The wife wants to divorce just one husband, what are the rights of the other nine husbands? The woman has a baby, Under current law, all 10 husbands would be the father of the baby. If the woman divorces one husband, would all 10 fathers be responsible for court ordered child support?

I'm sorry R.Richard, but that "example" is just crap. FFS, marriage is between 2 people, I don't see what the difference is whether its between a man and a woman, 2 women or 2 men. Gay people should have the same right to marry as hetero couples, and the same access to superannuation and life insurance and tax breaks etc. Anyone who says otherwise is homophobic, pure and simple.

 

[Liar]

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

Let me point out a simple example, one woman marries 10 men [one mass wedding.] Do each of the 10 men get to claim married status on their income tax returns? Can they claim the other husbands as dependants? One of the husbands dies. Who gets the insurance money? The woman has health insurance at work. Are all 10 husbands covered? Only one of the men qualifies for Social Security, what is the status of the wife and the other nine husbands? The wife wants to divorce just one husband, what are the rights of the other nine husbands? The woman has a baby, Under current law, all 10 husbands would be the father of the baby. If the woman divorces one husband, would all 10 fathers be responsible for court ordered child support?

Marriage: An exclusive legal union of two adults.

Do I get a prize?

 

[Stella_Omega]

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

Let me point out a simple example, one woman marries 10 men [one mass wedding.] Do each of the 10 men get to claim married status on their income tax returns? Can they claim the other husbands as dependants? One of the husbands dies. Who gets the insurance money? The woman has health insurance at work. Are all 10 husbands covered? Only one of the men qualifies for Social Security, what is the status of the wife and the other nine husbands? The wife wants to divorce just one husband, what are the rights of the other nine husbands? The woman has a baby, Under current law, all 10 husbands would be the father of the baby. If the woman divorces one husband, would all 10 fathers be responsible for court ordered child support?

Suppose we change the wording to say that marriage is between consenting adult human beings.
You've brought up the Dog/Sheep/Horse straw man before, I think. We don't marry individuals that cannot consent, namely minors and animals.

As to your simple example;

yes, all eleven individual s should be able to claim married status. The income for all eleven would be averaged among them.

If one of the husbands dies, the insurance money goes to his surviving spouses.

If this woman marries ten men and none of them have decent jobs- she couldn't be smart enough to keep a job with benefits herself. All the same, this is a legitimate concern and would be best addressed by nationalised health insurance. I know plenty of people who are allowed, or can afford, ONE extra insured on their policy. They get to choose which of their children, or their spouse, will get the bennies. Hobson's choice, and it stinks. This issue has nothing to do with polyamorous marriages.

The woman would name a father of the child. The next child, should she decide to have another, might have a different father. Women have been doing this for ever. What would be the difference now?

(I am in favor of any kind of marriage that has a chance of being happy and productive)

 

[JamesSD]

I thought the whole "potential to produce children" arguement was given up on, thanks to cases of infertility, and people marrying/re-marrying past childbearing age?

 

[Guest]

If the rules/laws are going to be changed then they would be specific. The issue is GAY marriage, not multiple. When the issue of multiple marriages comes up, then it would be addressed. I for one am totally against multiple marriages(nigerian grandfather had 4 wifes and several children, including my father)-bad idea!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to say that if a woman had a child and had multiple partners, the man who is on the birth certificate is the father, that's the law here in Texas anyway. There can only be one father and one mother. If it becomes a major issue and there is a separation, there is the all reliable DNA test-thank you Jesus.

The gay community just wants the same rights and privileges that the straight community has access to, even marriage and adoption. Why is that so hard to believe? We are ALL human with the same desires and aspriations, just different ways at going about.

If gay people want to deal with the good and the bad things about marriage then by all means go for it and have at it.

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

Let me point out a simple example, one woman marries 10 men [one mass wedding.] Do each of the 10 men get to claim married status on their income tax returns? Can they claim the other husbands as dependants? One of the husbands dies. Who gets the insurance money? The woman has health insurance at work. Are all 10 husbands covered? Only one of the men qualifies for Social Security, what is the status of the wife and the other nine husbands? The wife wants to divorce just one husband, what are the rights of the other nine husbands? The woman has a baby, Under current law, all 10 husbands would be the father of the baby. If the woman divorces one husband, would all 10 fathers be responsible for court ordered child support?

 

[R. Richard]

Marriage: An exclusive legal union of two adults.

Do I get a prize?

You mean that that two 18-year-olds couldn't marry? That won't fly!

 

[Oblimo]

There is another problem with gay marriage and it has nothing to do with children.

Currently, a lawful marriage is only recognized between one man and one woman. If you are going to change the rules, what about marriage between one man and several women? [There are still groups in the West who follow the old Mormon multiple wives rule although such people have been excommunicated from the Mormon church.] I don't know of any examples, but what about marriage between one women and several men? [There are tribes in Africa who follow the custom.] What about a man or woman who wants to marry a dog, horse, etc.?

What I am pointing out marriage is not a simple matter and any rules changes need to be very carefully thought out.

It sounds a lot more like you are equating homosexuality with bestiality and bigamy.

There is no slippery slope because the argument against banning gay marriage (double negative is necessary there, since gay marriage is sanctioned by several religions and Protestant sects already in this country) does not apply for decriminalizing bigamy and bestiality.

 

[R. Richard]

If the rules/laws are going to be changed then they would be specific. The issue is GAY marriage, not multiple. When the issue of multiple marriages comes up, then it would be addressed. I for one am totally against multiple marriages(nigerian grandfather had 4 wifes and several children, including my father)-bad idea!!!!!!!!!!

I see. You want gay marriage, but discriminate against others who want multiple marriage. However, you don't want others to discriminate against gay marriage. Perhaps you might see a bit of conflict in your position.

I would like to say that if a woman had a child and had multiple partners, the man who is on the birth certificate is the father, that's the law here in Texas anyway. There can only be one father and one mother. If it becomes a major issue and there is a separation, there is the all reliable DNA test-thank you Jesus.

Not quite. I don't know the exact law in Texas, but if you are saying what I think you are saying, then an unwed mother could simply name Donald Trump as the father and file for CHILD SUPPORT! There is a law in most states that the husband of a married woman is automatically the father of her child[ren.] If there is more than one husband, the current law falls flat on its face. An actual biological non-husband father must be proven. [For some, unknown, reason fathers of children by other men's wives are a bit shy about publically confessing the matter. It may have to do with child support.]

 

[R. Richard]

Suppose we change the wording to say that marriage is between consenting adult human beings.
You've brought up the Dog/Sheep/Horse straw man before, I think. We don't marry individuals that cannot consent, namely minors and animals.

You have it so that two 18-year-olds can't marry. Wrong! If you want to argue that 18-year-olds are "quasi-adults," then please discuss what happens when a 16-year-old stud knocks up a 16-year-old girl.

 

[JamesSD]

You have it so that two 18-year-olds can't marry. Wrong! If you want to argue that 18-year-olds are "quasi-adults," then please discuss what happens when a 16-year-old stud knocks up a 16-year-old girl.

You can easily write exceptions with parental consent into the law.

 

[R. Richard]

As I see the problem, many of the posters here want to add gay marriage to the existing marriage laws and nothing else! You are going to run into a surprising number of people who want to add "something else." You had damn well better be ready to argue against "something else."

Now, assume that you get some sort of change in the marriage law of a state. Problem solved? Not really. In San Francisco, they "made it legal" for gay couples to marry. Big problem, marriage is a state matter, not a city matter. The State of California requires a state license to be filed for a marriage to be legal. The State of Califorb=nia form is said to be very gender specific [I have never seen the form.] The City of San Francisco took the State of California license form and made some changes. If you wonder how it turned out, ask your income tax guy what will happen if you make some "minor" changes in IRS Form 1040. [Answer: Yo' ass goin' to jail!] The San Francisco gay marriages were punted by a court, not because of gay marriage, but because of the handiwork on the State of California license form. The court never got to the issue of gay marriage.

 

[rydia57]

You guys aren't freaking out about underpopulation are you? Cos my brother is... First there's too many people now there's not enough. Oy. Let the 18 year old get 10 women in their 30-40's pregnant. Everybody gets a kid!

 

[Oblimo]

You can easily write exceptions with parental consent into the law.

Even better, you don't need a law. Marriage was never explicitly defined as a union between an male and a female until the defense of marriage acts started up in the 80s.

 

[Oblimo]

As I see the problem, many of the posters here want to add gay marriage to the existing marriage laws and nothing else! You are going to run into a surprising number of people who want to add "something else." You had damn well better be ready to argue against "something else."

There is a difference between a law that makes something illegal (banning gay marriage) and decriminalizing already existent crimes (bestiality and bigamy). The differences between gay and bestiality marriages should be painfully obvious.