I'm not sure if this is OSC's position, but it sure seems to be Rep. Musgrave's.
The idea that postmenopausal, infertile, or voluntarily childless people can get married is, I think, almost as much of a 20th century innovation as same-sex marriage. And would seem to be just as much of a mockery of the institution.
If you can't find a meaninful distinction between the cases, it is bigotry to be against conferring "marriage or the incidents thereof" to same sex couples, but permit it to infertile couples.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You know in Utah there is a special provision that first cousins can marry if they are over 55 and presumably infertile. I thought this was really a weird idea. I don't even wanna know if they will make an exception if you are younger but otherwise infertile. I mean, it's really sad that people view family reunions as a dating scene.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
At least the wife won't have to worry about changing her name on her drivers license.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was an recent article in Discover that gave reasons why it's not so bad to marry a first cousin. Not that there's nothing wrong with that.
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
After all, the only reason infertile people marry each other is for the sex. They won't provide good role models to all those children who see them and wonder where the children are.
Those infertile couples don't love each other. You can only love someone you're fertile with. If you're infertile, too bad. You should abstain from marriage so as not to diminish the value of a man-woman marriage with genetically related children.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Sun, you're overstating the anti-gay-marriage position. I don't think anyone here claims that gays don't love each other. Rather, they claim that sexual love is more appropriate in a heterosexual relationship, and that our social infrastructure should bolster that model. We'll get a lot more done if we don't waste our time on straw men.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
actually, geoff.
you may believe that gay men can love each other as much, but there was distinctly a thread or part of a thread in the last few months in which people stated that the love a man has for another man is _less_ than the love a man can have for a woman.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
quote: people stated that the love a man has for another man is _less_ than the love a man can have for a woman
ya...and this was accepted as fact??
Just how does one go about measuring love....
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Sun, if that's what you're arguing against, then cool. But I think that while you argue with the crazies, some moderates are going to slip right by you Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Cool, cool, Geoff. Just that not all extremists think they're extremist.
Anyhow, don't you think that the entire idea that infertile people shouldn't marry is extreme? If we're already talking about extreme viewpoints, it seems fair game to throw in others as well.
But I do notice that no one thinks that a childless couple shouldn't marry for the reason that they can't produce children. That's good.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
It all comes down to this: it's all a religious argument.
Saying infertile or menopausal or old folks shouldn't marry because they can't have kids is a religious argument. Not a governmental one.
People should be able to marry because they love one another and will be happy and dedicated to each other. Not so they can "go forth and multiply" on an already overpopulated planet.
What if a couple decide ahead of time they don't want kids, but still want to marry. Does that mean they should be banned from it? What if two people marry and they find out one of them is infertile. Does this mean their marriage is nulified?
I just think it's an absurd arguement and it doesn't belong in a government debate.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
How about two fertile lesbians and a turkey baster?
Seems like that should result in a doubly-strong marriage by this criterion.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
This is true. Marriages that do not produce offspring are a sham.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yup. Who do they think they're fooling, anyway?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Slash, I can't tell if you're joking.
A week ago, someone _did_ post that they thought a couple without children was a couple that didn't truly love each other. I don't want to get the name wrong, but it was out there.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Do you remember which thread?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Hey Slash! Haven't seen you in a while. How are the wife and kids?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
It was Sachiko:
quote:*Warning: Probably really offensive to some people*
The idea of a married couple accidentally getting pregnant and using the MAP, not to mention other kinds of chemical abortificants, really bothers me.
I mean, they're married.
btw, PSI, (is calling you that considered a misspelling? dangit) that is, PSI Transport, I was pregnant before I got married too. That experience underscores how I feel about this and the premarital sex issue--I know what it's like, and how stupid it was of me to engage in that kind of behavior. (Sorry, Kasie, that's how I feel. )
The concept of someone in a loving, committed relationship needing the MAP, well...that makes that relationship look less loving and committed, to my eyes. If pregnancy is such a tragedy for a relationship, maybe it's not such a nice relationship?
After all, I imagine many guys would be very happy if this drug were made OTC, because it oculd get them out of a lot of messes.
*ducks*
I interpreted that as meaning that a relationship is "less loving and committed" if the couple does not want children.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
And I'm positive I've had a conversation about the idea that my future relationship is unworthy because I don't want children. But I can't find it, so it might have happened more than 6 months ago.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh! Wow. Good thingI found the time to get online tonight.
I wasn't referring to childless couples when I said that. I was referring to the reaction that many healthy, committed couples have towards pregnancy, in that it's a tragic disaster to be avoided or "fixed" through abortion.
I hear a lot of comments along the lines of "they shouldn't have children, and here's why..." and the standards seem almost impossibly high. It seems like the number one thing people agree on is that parents should be in a loving, committed relationship.
So when loving, committed people are terrified and dismayed by the prospect of a child, that's sad, to me.
Though I suppose that sadness comes from believing that children already exist as spiritual individuals that await mortality, and aren't merely biological events.
Suneun, and I mean this in the politest possible way, please don't put words in my mouth by taking my comments on unrelated subjects out of context.
I didn't know that the status of childless marriages was in question; I assume this is a facetious thread. I personally don't think it's wrong. (the marriages, I mean.) (Or facetious threads, come to think of it. )
[ February 26, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I'm sorry, then. That's how I interpreted it, but I can see that it wasn't straight-forward. If you think that a marriage without children is not less loving than a marriage with children, then great.
Anyhow, I have definitely had to defend my choice to not have children in the far past, past the six month history of hatrack.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Sun, you're overstating the anti-gay-marriage position. I don't think anyone here claims that gays don't love each other. Rather, they claim that sexual love is more appropriate in a heterosexual relationship, and that our social infrastructure should bolster that model. We'll get a lot more done if we don't waste our time on straw men.
Out of interest, Geoff, how is heterosexual love more "appropriate" than homosexual love? And why should social infrastructure discourage homosexual love -- do you honestly believe the country's in danger of underpopulation?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Thank you, Suneun.
It's ironic that you've had that problem. I seem to have the opposite problem. I have three kids in diapers, and I'm constantly having to defend that. I have people quiz me on what kind of birth control I use, and whether I'm using it correctly; my family places bets on when I'll be pregnant again. One sister at church who has more money that I do told me to get sterilized and get a job.
I love my children; I'm young and healthy and energetic; I keep my house very clean; my children are, I'm told, very well-behaved. Nevertheless, the attitude I get from a lot of people is incredulity that I would dare have more children. Without consulting them first, even.
I sympathize with you. There's no pleasing people. Maybe the nest time people bug you about not wanting to have kids, you should refer them to me and tell them I'm having them for you. Two birds, one stone. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I have been in a loving, stable, and totally committed marriage for 14 years now. I would definitely consider a pregnancy a disaster. I'm sorry that makes you sad.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I'll make a special exception in being sad for you, Slash.
Naw, if you don't want them, don't have them. Let me have 'em instead; I'll have enough for everyone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)