[idea] Dissolving childless marriages!

Status
Not open for further replies.

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
46
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I usually agree with you Teddy, but I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. Marriage is not just a religious institution, and it hasn't been for decades. In common parlance, a couple who have a cicvil union are said to be married -- and as a gay person, I would want equal rights.
You could, of course, call your union whatever you like. My position is that all such contracts offered by the state be termed civil unions. A civilly unionized gay couple who then call themselves married would no doubt face opposition from so-called "traditional marriage" supporters, but only in an unofficial capacity; petitions to the state to protect "marriage" no longer would carry any weight.
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I agree with everything you have put RebekkaH. A lot prefer civil unions (even Christians) its still marriage though. Maybe its a culture thing on how its viewed.
Maybe it is cultural, yes. Still from reading moonkitty's* reaction (objecting to having to refer to her husband as "my civil union partner") I gathered that marriage is valued by American non-christians, too. And I find it a bit selfish to claim the term then. "You can't have that, only we can. :p "

Non-christians don't have Christ, but I don't see why that should mean that they can't have marriage, either.

/rant over.






*in another thread
 
Upvote 0

LoisGriffin

I am not a sheep! I follow only one!
Jul 1, 2008
1,855
257
United Kingdom
✟10,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe it is cultural, yes. Still from reading moonkitty's reaction (objecting to having to refer to her husband as "my civil union partner")

See the view is so stupid. I know many Christians who decided against getting married in the church but no one ever says they are any less married. A few had blessings in a church but the blessing service was not a marriage ceremony.

It almost seems that the Christians who have the views that civil unions are not marriage just want to feel they are somehow better than everyone else. I really dislike that attitude from anyone.
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
See the view is so stupid. I know many Christians who decided against getting married in the church but no one ever says they are any less married. A few had blessings in a church but the blessing service was not a marriage ceremony.

It almost seems that the Christians who have the views that civil unions are not marriage just want to feel they are somehow better than everyone else. I really dislike that attitude from anyone.
Me too.
 
Upvote 0

Ryal Kane

Senior Veteran
Apr 21, 2004
3,792
461
44
Hamilton
✟13,720.00
Faith
Atheist
It just occurred to me that the 'leave marriage for religion' ship has already sailed in respect to gay marriage. There are religions that allow gay marriage already.
Now, unless a groups is arguing that their specific religion has dibs on 'marriage' (which would be highly unconstitutional) they can't argue that all religious marriage is heterosexual. Furthermore, under the constitution, religions would be fully allowed to marry a gay couple, just not in the legal contract sense.

So in essence the anti gay marriage crowd are fighting against gay couples getting legal secular recognition while claiming to defend religion from option of gay marriage which already exists and will continue to!


 
  • Like
Reactions: TeddyKGB
Upvote 0

wanderingone

I'm not lost I'm just wandering
Jul 6, 2005
11,090
932
57
New York
✟30,779.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The only difference then seems to be that over here, priests (etc.) have no legal authority whatsoever.

Here the minister has no real legal authority either. A couple who does not acquire a marriage license first is not legally married no matter what the clergy do, and unless they file the follow up certificate they also are not married.

We generally consider people who marry via "city hall" to be as married as people who get married in a house of worship. There are civil weddings and religious weddings but they are all marriages regardless of where it happens. Most christians I know (outside of the online world) hold no attachment to the word "marriage". We consider it a religious event for those who are religious, it doesn't change my view of my marriage when someon who doesn't share my faith uses the word.
 
Upvote 0

Angel4Truth

Legend
Aug 27, 2003
27,676
4,634
Visit site
✟65,490.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

We have to assume whats bolded above for the rest that follows to make sense.

Too bad though that marriage is for much more than procreation however. It is a picture of the relationship between Christ as the bridegroom and the church as bride. The church doesnt marry itself - if it does its in bed with the world and isnt a valid church before God because its cares are the things of this world and not the things of God. A valid christian marriage produces children of Christ as well as physical children and if there is a reason one cannot have physical children this picture and ideal doesnt change setting a spiritual example.
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Furthermore, under the constitution, religions would be fully allowed to marry a gay couple, just not in the legal contract sense.
Over here it is a crime to marry someone in a church before or instead of a legal marriage. Priests can go to prison for that. So it's not just that this church-only ceremony wouldn't be valid legally, without legal benefits, but it would make the priest (not the couple) a criminal. That's why it doesn't happen over here.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
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.

Do it this way. Each year they don't have a child, they don't get the benefits of marriage. Every five years they have a fertility test. As long as they are fertile, they can stay married, they just don't get any benefits.

P.S. Do lesbian couples need to have two children for every one a heterosexual couple has?

P.P.S. Really, this should be asked before the P.S., but does the child have to the an offspring of both parties, or can outside sources (artificial insemination) be used, especially if the man is infertile?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
We have to assume whats bolded above for the rest that follows to make sense.

Too bad though that marriage is for much more than procreation however. It is a picture of the relationship between Christ as the bridegroom and the church as bride. The church doesnt marry itself - if it does its in bed with the world and isnt a valid church before God because its cares are the things of this world and not the things of God. A valid christian marriage produces children of Christ as well as physical children and if there is a reason one cannot have physical children this picture and ideal doesnt change setting a spiritual example.


Ah, but your thus forcing you Christian values on everyone else. I bet you wouldn't like some of the Muslime/Jewish values being forced on your family?
 
Upvote 0

ranmaonehalf

Senior Member
Nov 5, 2006
1,488
56
✟9,473.00
Faith
Atheist
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 think also fertility tests should be required. So if after your children leave you must try for more kids or get divorced or have it annulled.
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I think we could be lenient there. So if you have a certain amount of kids, you don't need to have any more to maintain your marriage. So after your forth kid, your marriage is safe. I guarantee it.
Why do you want to give people financial benefits for contributing to overpopulation? (We'll be 9 billion in 2050.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open

Junior Member
Oct 15, 2007
202
14
✟7,905.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I reckon Axioma is having a laugh....
Not everyone gets married to have children.

Where I am from there is no benefit to being married as discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal. In fact despite this it is sometimes better business to stay unmarried to claim related benefits. (Strange eh!) ie A single person with a child will have greater tax breaks than a married couple, despite this so called equality legislation......which hope some day is challanged... (Only in Ireland)...

If the OP is serious, I think that assuming that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children is a rather narrow view. If you want to apply such laws to your own marriage so be it. I however as a taxpayer paying for everyone elses child benefits and education demand at the very least the protection of marriage/civil union.

In fact, I reckon I should have the portion of my tax going towards the education of everyone elses children reduced to reflect the fact that I am less of a burden on the state. Why should I pay for everyone else's little chizzlers.....???? I don't even like them.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bobfr

Regular Member
Jan 21, 2008
359
14
✟15,570.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In fact, I reckon I should have the portion of my tax going towards the education of everyone elses children reduced to reflect the fact that I am less of a burden on the state. Why should I pay for everyone else's little chizzlers.....???? I don't even like them.....
Because EU countries have a poor natality (except Ireland, and maybe France in EU). So govs expect that tax breaks will help people makes children. Otherwise we would need more immigration to increase the ratio workers/retired.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.