Question to consider. . .

[Luther073082]

Ok I've asked this question before other places and it was kind of fun so I'm hoping it works here.

First I want you to follow these assumptions.

1. You are completely single, not dating anyone, not engaged.

2. You have no children.

3. You are completly able to reproduce. (male or female)

4. In-vetro or other ways to reproduce are not available. The only way to get babies is the old fashioned way. And all children must be legitmate.

5. No cheating by marrying multiple people.

Now imagine that you have been named emperor of the world. (My dream job ). You have no children so the person that would take over should you die is not clear. Because of this, if you die childless it will cause a massive civil war and millions will die.

The question is, would you arrange a marriage with someone you havn't had much time to meet in order to produce a legitmate heir?

Now remember it is entirly possible to try to find yourself a partner that you love, HOWEVER if you have a heart diesease and die early, are assisinated, drown in the bathtub or whatever millions will die in a bloody war. Also remember that your spouse is a big part of your image as a ruler.

And to make it more fun question two is. If you have an SO (If you don't imagine) that you are NOT married to, but your current SO can not reproduce and you can. Would you marry another in order to produce legitimate heirs.

In both cases also include how you would select the potential arranged spouse.

I will answer my own question in a second post.

 

[Luther073082]

My answer to both question 1 and 2 is yes. The needs of the many outweight the few. Both are a major sacrifice especially the second.

However I can't allow millions to die because of my or another's emotions. Sorry Keri

I would select people by having an application system and having certain standards by which get forwarded on to some friends of mine. My friends would go through it and pick people apart a bit more with a fine tooth comb and present them to me and I would interview the respondents and select one based on one unfortunute thing. . . logic.

 

[Balugon]

For the first one, i would trust that God would be able to bring me a good spouse before i die (if he willed it).

For the second, if it came down to it, i would just choose a man to rule whom i thought entirely worthy and have him mentor under me so that whenever i died he would be ready, and his wife would be able to reproduce, and i would make sure he agrees to make sure my fam is taken care of. I wouldnt let a non-christian take my place to begin with, so hopefully back-stabbing wouldnt be an issue.

 

[Sindyan]

Well, if love ain't a choice. I'll marry the most beautiful girl in the world, and make babies with her. If she didn't work...i would follow the steps of King Henry VIII. Keep remarrying till someone produced due to "sorry fully accidents".

 

[Airicon]

What is an SO?

 

[Highland Watchman]

In response to the first query, I may say yes... God would provide the right person through whatever means are available. If it is through a series of parties with my advisers inviting suitable suitors, then a chance to become more acquainted with the "short list" in order to better select. Think "The Bachelor", but based on my criteria, instead of that commonly seen.

As for the second scenario, I would still marry my current SO, whether or not she could have children. God has been known to open closed wombs before - I've seen it. One of the women in my first pastorate, whom doctors had told she cannot have children, now has at least one child running around. And my sister-in-law has a very healthy 2 year old daughter and another on the way. Again, doctors said it was impossible. However, barring God's intervening hand in that situation, I would do similar to Balugon, and find a suitable successor and raise him as a son and protege.

 

[Highland Watchman]

What is an SO?

SO = Significant Other, someone you are "together" with, whether you are married to them or not.

 

[Airicon]

SO = Significant Other, someone you are "together" with, whether you are married to them or not.

ah, gracias

 

[Highland Watchman]

danata signor.

 

[Nec5]

The answer for me is "No" to all of the above. If I am emperor of the world, I will carefully select one of my most trusted friends/advisors as successor. This would be done years ahead of my demise, and it would be common knowledge to the public.

Bending rules about marriage would just ultimately lead to a corrupt regime anyway full of inbreeding and incessant bickering. In any event, secure and continuous rule via a single family never works out the way we expect. Keep your principles and you have a shot. It's only a small shot at continued peace, but it's the way to go.

So, the answer is "No."

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

My answer to the first question is no. I would never marry someone for the sole purpose of having kids.

The second question: I would still marry my SO regardless.

 

[Luther073082]

The only thing is that in these situations you can't necessarily choose your heirs. . . People view them as illegitimate. The queen can not select her heir, it is charles unless he dies. . . then william, then harry, then I belive andrew, then beatrice, then eugene . . . Not sure if I can remember after that without looking it up.

Also if you go too far away from you in terms of family then other members of your family get jealous gather up armies and start wars.

Just think about it in terms of the middle ages etc. Heirs where a big deal because they didn't get to choose heirs and if they had more then one brother often both would gather armies and fight eachother.

But the point of this wasn't for creative solutions but to see the level of sacrifice one would take on for the greater good.

 

[Keri]

My answer to the first question is no. I would never marry someone for the sole purpose of having kids.

The second question: I would still marry my SO regardless.

I agree with CoG.


If I love someone, I'm going to marry them, regardless of ability or inability to reproduce and regardless of what the outcome is for other people.

I would never marry someone for the sole purpose of having children. (Like Kellee said)

 

[Luther073082]

Lets not concentrate on the marriage.

The point of the question was personal happiness vs. the needs of many.

Jesus took a cross for the needs of the many over personal happiness.

 

[Keri]

Hypothetical question or not, I still would not give up marrying the one I love in sacfrifice for others.


And really I already to sacrifice my life on a daily basis when I am at work, to save others. I know what it's like to have my life on the line and then protect others. I have seen my staff attacked right in front of me and I've helped save their lives.


I guess I feel I've done my duty already and would not give up happiness in my personal life to continue to save others.

But afterall, this is a scenario that is never going to happen so it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Keri]

That's also the reason He was sent here. He knew His duty and He knew the purpose of His life.

I on the other hand, am not here to be other's savior. I'm not going to give up a God-give gift of love in order to save other's lives.

Maybe that's selfish, but read what I wrote above... I guess I'm just burnt out on the whole topic.

 

[Sindyan]

Haha, your getting into a very big debate on

Utilitarianism versus Individual Rights (I forget the school of thought it comes from)


Later, i may post more on this, if the thread keeps going

 

[Keri]

Nope, I'm done.

 

[Fed]

I'd go with the ever popular beauty pageant as in Esther. Not sure where the sacrifice is...sounds like a good deal to me.

As for the 2nd one, that's a little harder, but my SO would probably realize it had to be done. I'd just marry both of them.

 

[Luther073082]

Haha, your getting into a very big debate on

Utilitarianism versus Individual Rights (I forget the school of thought it comes from)


Later, i may post more on this, if the thread keeps going

That is where I am comming from on this. . . at what point do I give up everything I ever want for the needs of others.

I'm not saying this situation might occur but its quite possible that smaller situations like this do occur.

Do I get that extra 2 hours of sleep I really need or do I show up and teach Sunday school because if I don't no one will.

Do I buy myself a new car or do I give that money to that poor widow with three kids?

All I did was raise the stakes a lot. (Lifetime unhappiness vs mass genocide) and I put it in a form that most westerners are not used to seeing.

I can both live my life for myself and for others (as God calls) . . . but occasionally those two conflict and at that time I have to choose if I want to serve me or serve others.

Thats part of the reason on 2 different occasions I missed FREE lessons with 2 of the GREATEST ballroom dancers in the entire world to teach sunday school. Did I want to be teaching sunday school? No I wanted to be learning from the best dancers on the planet. . . But if I don't teach those kids about God who will?