Procreate, or else!

[MooCar93]

Say what you like, but I'm pretty sure that marriage is designed to make us miserable. Men, at least.

Which is strange, considering I've heard more divorces these days are initiated by women...

 

[SimplyMe]

I think it's a little much to be assuming that God plans for all married couples to have children, and for no childless people to be married.

What does God have to do with what marriages the government recognizes? This law won't prevent churches from performing marriages for people who can't have or don't want children, they just won't be legally recognized (just like gay marriages in the US).

 

[MooCar93]

Then they shouldn’t be getting married…

You're absolutely right. If a person doesn't want, or isn't able to, have kids, they should be out sinning it up as much as possible.

[/sarcasm]

 

[UberLutheran]

Yep, propaganda tactics are a staple for gay advocacy.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

If people aren't going to procreate, then there's no good reason for them to get married.

"Love" has nothing to do with marriage: marriage benefits the state by creating a new generation of taxpayers and by creating a source for military personnel so we can fight wars.

 

[UberLutheran]

You're absolutely right. If a person doesn't want, or isn't able to, have kids, they should be out sinning it up as much as possible.

[/sarcasm]

Or staying abstinent. There is no reason for people to be having sex if they're not trying to have children.

​

 

[UberLutheran]

This isn’t that bad of an idea but I would like it to be extended because the idea of breading is to continue the species. You must have one child by the third year, by the fifth year you must have two. If you have three or more then you get annual tax breaks. Marriage licenses should be revoked to anyone who is related to or has won a Darwin Award.

PS: I hope it passes.

I'd like to modify it to require that a couple must have at least one child every five years to the age of 45.

For most people, this will mean at least six children.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I think it's a little much to be assuming that God plans for all married couples to have children, and for no childless people to be married.

It's irony, irony, irony!

 

[Texas Lynn]

Which is strange, considering I've heard more divorces these days are initiated by women...

Very clever!

 

[KomissarSteve]

What does God have to do with what marriages the government recognizes? This law won't prevent churches from performing marriages for people who can't have or don't want children, they just won't be legally recognized (just like gay marriages in the US).

Yeah, well, that raises a whole set of Constitutional issues... But from a religious standpoint, you're right.

 

[shye]

what if a couple wants to get married because they have deep feelings for eachother and don't want kids? If this ballot proceeds and it actually passes(which I dont think it would) all I can see is mass population, so many more people will starve to death because of lack of food and much more filth in the air, ground and water

 

[daydream11]

I think this bill is crap. Plain and simple. That's not fair to anyone who doesn't have the proper finances to support more than two people, or (like everyone else has been saying) doesn't want to have any kids, and people who can't have kids.

Who made this up? I'm too lazy to click the link.

 

[Rebekka]

I'd like to modify it to require that a couple must have at least one child every five years to the age of 45.

For most people, this will mean at least six children.

Whose age of 45, the husband's or the wife's? (I think you mean the wife because of menopause - but some women stay fertile until their fifties.) You need to be more specific - let's not forget that there may be age differences between spouses. My husband is 10 years older than I; he turns 45 in 5 years, which means that we would only need one child to remain married. Otherwise - if it's my age that counts - we would need at least three children.

I read about this in another thread and it made me laugh; we would have to get divorced (even though that would never be recognized by our denomination). But then again, I'm not American, so despite our childlessness I can stay very happily married anyway.

I live in the Netherlands; gay marriage has been accepted here without having to make it a procreation issue.

I believe that in the catholic church infertility can indeed be a reason for annulment, but only in cases when one of the spouses knew about their own infertility before the wedding and lied about it to their fiancé(e). I'm not sure, though - I heard this from a friend who has studied canonic law. Also, you're not allowed to get married in the RCC if you don't want to have kids (although I don't know if this only applies to fertile couples - perhaps infertile couples are allowed to not want kids, I have no idea. I don't think the Church has thought of that possibility. ) - which of course isn't the same as saying you can't get married if you can't have kids.

 

[meebs]

Actually in the UK through tax credits we the taxpayers are funding people to have kids. Or conversley, childless couples are being discriminated against via tax.

But to be honest I think the global population is too large as it is, and could do with being notched down by a billion or so.

Or we start to colonise outside the Earth... or both!

W00t!

 

[Rebekka]

what if a couple wants to get married because they have deep feelings for eachother and don't want kids? If this ballot proceeds and it actually passes(which I dont think it would) all I can see is mass population, so many more people will starve to death because of lack of food and much more filth in the air, ground and water

Maybe there would be more population, or maybe the other end of the stick: more divorces, and more unmarried people living together. I don't think that people who truly don't want kids will let themselves be forced into procreation - they will just not get married. I think.

Oh well, this thing is not serious anyway.

 

[TheNewAge]

I think this bill is crap. Plain and simple. That's not fair to anyone who doesn't have the proper finances to support more than two people, or (like everyone else has been saying) doesn't want to have any kids, and people who can't have kids.

That's the point; it isn't fair. Did you read the whole post?

It's not fair that fundamentalists have chosen to use the same argument to not allow gay couples to get married.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You say that as if it is something strange. Fact is, all advocacy groups are spreading propaganda (see dictionary definition).

What is unique here is how they have chosen to agree with the propaganda of the "pro-family" advocacy and are now enjoying the squirming.

No squirming here.
It is pretty plain to see that it is ploy using a causation fallacy.
Since the gay advocacy lost in the court appeal where they had ample opportunity to show any problem with the constitutional definition or reason that same-gender should be recognized, they waste time and money for an impotent mock/misrepresent campaign in desperate hope that they sway a few of the naive or uninformed.
Overall, I give it two yawns and a snap.

 

[tocis]

Man, I hope it makes it onto the ballot.

Would be a nice symbol pointing to the absurdity of this "reason"... but then, I'm afraid the (most?) rabid adversaries of equal rights for non-heterosexuals are the ones siring child after child anyway and thus won't think it absurd at all.

Maybe I'm just a bit too cynical right now.

 

[The Nihilist]

Actually, I think studies have proved that married men live longer than never-married men, and that never-married women live longer than married women. Seems marriage favors us.

Married men don't live longer, it just seems longer. I'm pretty sure that adultery is the only way that it's even bearable.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No squirming here.
It is pretty plain to see that it is ploy using a causation fallacy.
Since the gay advocacy lost in the court appeal where they had ample opportunity to show any problem with the constitutional definition or reason that same-gender should be recognized, they waste time and money for an impotent mock/misrepresent campaign in desperate hope that they sway a few of the naive or uninformed.
Overall, I give it two yawns and a snap.

It seems that those using procreation to justify discrimination against homosexuals are the ones squirming. If one wishes to use this argument then one had better be prepared to have it applied not based on the prejudices of the religious right but rather equally across the board. As it is all we hear from the pro discrimination camp is “how dare you try to apply this same nonsense to me.”

 

[MooCar93]

Married men don't live longer, it just seems longer. I'm pretty sure that adultery is the only way that it's even bearable.

Just out of curiosity, RecoveringPhilosopher, have you ever been married?