[idea] Dissolving childless marriages!

[Axioma]

For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.

Now we come to my idea.

We should dissolve all childless marriages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.

This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.

 

[corvus_corax]

For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.

Now we come to my idea.

We should dissolve all childless marriages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.

This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.

Ah yes, using the "marriage is for procreation and the support of the family" argument

As if marriage is a defined, legal "behavior"

Good call.

Although many many many many will miss your point (or pointedly misrepresent it).

It's sad, really, when those who claim to be free from the "Law" (and you guys know what Im talking about, PLEASE don't try to split hairs) pointedly attempt to inflict it on everyone.

 

[cantata]

*grin*

On a serious note: what legal benefits of marriage exist to support children? In the UK you have to actually have children before you get child benefits, and you don't need to be married to get those...

 

[Andreusz]

And they should pay back-taxes for the five years during which they claimed marriage benefits without actually producing the goods.

 

[Rebekka]

Look, I'm all for gays getting married. And they can over here.

I think it's a bad idea to break up perfectly happy marriages only because they have no intention to have children. I would be a horrible mother but I am an excellent wife.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Look, I'm all for gays getting married. And they can over here.

I think it's a bad idea to break up perfectly happy marriages only because they have no intention to have children. I would be a horrible mother but I am an excellent wife.

I am so bad with kids it's ridiculous and they actually freak me out, holding an infant is terrifying and I have yet to ever do it. And I am horribly absent minded, I lose my keys multiple times a day so I would be one of those people that forgot their kid in the car when they went somewhere. Kids are my Kryptonite.

 

[Bobfr]

For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.

Now we come to my idea.

We should dissolve all childless marriages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.

Really ? Where do you see that ?

 

[Rebekka]

I am so bad with kids it's ridiculous and they actually freak me out, holding an infant is terrifying and I have yet to ever do it. And I am horribly absent minded, I lose my keys multiple times a day so I would be one of those people that forgot their kid in the car when they went somewhere. Kids are my Kryptonite.

Yes, same here. Well, I do hold babies sometimes because I am an aunt and some of my friends have children. And I quite like babies, for 5 minutes or so. But I am like you very absent minded and would forget my child, too. I've had nightmares of having a baby and leaving it behind because I forgot I had one. In one dream I couldn't even remember his or her name (or gender), and kept referring to him/her as "that infant". My dad had to constantly remind me of his/her existence, and picked it up from strange places (floor, fridge, supermarket, cinema). Yeah, that was a weird dream.

Oh, and it's older children (older than 3) that scare me.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes, same here. Well, I do hold babies sometimes because I am an aunt and some of my friends have children. And I quite like babies, for 5 minutes or so. But I am like you very absent minded and would forget my child, too. I've had nightmares of having a baby and leaving it behind because I forgot I had one. In one dream I couldn't even remember his or her name (or gender), and kept referring to him/her as "that infant". My dad had to constantly remind me of his/her existence, and picked it up from strange places (floor, fridge, supermarket, cinema). Yeah, that was a weird dream.

Oh, and it's older children (older than 3) that scare me.

It is good to hear that I am not the only one.

 

[Bobfr]

Fridge ?

 

[lucyclaire]

For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.

Now we come to my idea.

We should dissolve all childless marriages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.

This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.

Some couples try for longer than five years to conceive and can't, they dearly want children, forcing them to seperate will put further pressure on that couple and make their possible feelings of failure something that is punished by law.
I also know married couples that don't want kids or get married in their 40's.

 

[Rebekka]

Fridge ?

Yeah, I know. It would really be a bad idea if I had children.



(I think I left it in the fridge only out of forgetfulness, not malice - must have put it there when I opened the fridge to get something out of it. I only have two hands.)

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Fridge ?

Refrigerator, I think you are asking what a fridge is, if not I apologize.

 

[Axioma]

Some couples try for longer than five years to conceive and can't, they dearly want children, forcing them to seperate will put further pressure on that couple and make their possible feelings of failure something that is punished by law.
I also know married couples that don't want kids or get married in their 40's.

They can still have sex after their marriage has been dissolved, and indeed SHOULD still have sex, because if they manage to get a pregnancy going, they can get married again, this time permanently!

If a couple doesn't want kids, they shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of an institution designed to facilitate having kids.

 

[Beanieboy]

Some of the ridiculous arguments that I have seen against gay marriage are equally against childless heterosexual marriages ("People with no intention to have kids shouldn't get married." "Marriage has never been about companionship, but about procreation.")

I know of couples that want to have kids, but can't, and were I them, I wouldn't want someone interfering with my life and marriage. I worked with two women who had no intent on having kids ever, and anyone who would take away their marriage would only do so in a mean spirit.

So, I have to refrain from the suggestion. I don't want to become the monster that I claim to fight. Rather, I will allow the deplorable actions of others illustrate injustice, and allow others in the future to look back on them, and judge them as they will, the way that we cringe at slavery, unequal rights for women, prejudice against jews, whites only fountains, etc.

 

[Bobfr]

If a couple doesn't want kids, they shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of an institution designed to facilitate having kids.

Do you have some serious arguments to assert that ?

 

[Rebekka]

Having children is good for society as it guarantees future taxpayers and survival of the species.

Not having children is good for society as it limits overpopulation.

I don't see why the group of parents should receive benefits for their contribution to society but the group of non-parents shouldn't.

 

[LittleNipper]

For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.

Now we come to my idea.

We should dissolve all childless marriages.

It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.

This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.

I feel that most heterosexual couples intend to someday have at least one child, if not two or three. The reality is that not everyone with the greatest of intentions can guarantee that they will have children. Again, it is not the government's job to define marriage or regulate it. They (the government officials) have no authority to say that homosexuals will, should, or might be allowed to marry. THEY DIDN'T DESIGN MARRIAGE. THEY DIDN'T ORDAIN MARRIAGE. THEY HAVE NOT EXISTED FOR 6000 YEARS TO ASSUME THE ROLE OF ORIGINATOR.

 

[Bobfr]

THEY DIDN'T DESIGN MARRIAGE. THEY DIDN'T ORDAIN MARRIAGE. THEY HAVE NOT EXISTED FOR 6000 YEARS TO ASSUME THE ROLE OF ORIGINATOR.

Well nobody can claim that. However the States could create a contract between two people and call it marriage. Calling it "civil union" would be better to avoid confusion with religious' ones.

 

[Rebekka]

Well nobody can claimed that. However the States can create a contract between two people and call it marriage. Calling it "civil union" would be better to avoid confusion with religious' ones.

I don't understand the semantics game. Were marriages (not civil unions) through history always religious rather than legal contracts? Can only believers claim the term marriage?