SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (376934)8/6/2010 12:17:09 PM
From: Little Joe10 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 794298
 
I think the author overlooks an important element in the marriage equation, namely children.

Ask yourself this question. If sex did not produce children, would marriage exist and if so, why? What legitimate interest does the state have in a union between two people, if they cannot conceive?

It seems to me to be irrefutable that marriage is about family and children. Sex is incidental. Romantic love is likewise incidental.

It seems to me that the purpose of marriage is to protect families. One might argue that since we allow people to marry who are incapable of conceiving. e.g. old people, some disabled people and people who have no intention of having children to marry that this is not so. I would disagree.

Marriage has existed in every society known to man through out recorded history. It has always been a union between a man and a woman. For this reason alone we should be hesitant to change the rules. There are few institutions that have persisted for so long and there is something to be said for the collective wisdom of the ages.

In our society marriage has attained a special place. For example, even people who have no intention of conceiving will marry because the status of marriage is special. This is desirable to encourage stable families. If people who cannot conceive are allowed the status of marriage. Marriage simply becomes reduced to being about sex rather than family. This will, I believe, contribute to further deterioration of the family, with the consequent adverse effects on society.

I would suggest that a far better change would be to limit marriage to people who are capable of conceiving and who intend to conceive or adopt. This would protect the family and allow gay couples who wish to adopt the option of marriage. Of course this is a change that cannot be imposed by the courts, only by legislatures, and one of the problems of judicial determination of gay marriage is that it precludes or impedes changes through the legislative process.

lj
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News