Restrict marriage to breeders?

[dlminehart]

News article today in our local paper quoted a marriage license clerk as not wanting to provide licenses to same sex couples because the purpose of marriage was for a man and woman to beget children in a stable social setting, as this was advantageous to society. (Note: no political or religious content here, just sociological!) I keep hearing this argument, so I assume there are some here who subscribe to it.

My question for them: should marriage therefore be off-limits to couples for whom both parties cannot prove fertility or couples who won't commit to at least attempting to have children? E.g., should my mother-in-law have been forbidden from remarrying at age 75 to have the loving and committed companionship she desired?

Or is this particular "marriage should be restricted to breeders but with heterosexual-only exceptions" argument simply a rationalization for a prejudice commonly labeled homophobia?

[dkerfoot]

When is a tail really a leg?

Abraham Lincoln once asked the question: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs will he have?" He then answered: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Words matter. Words that have had a very specific meaning for hundreds of years should not be changed just to make people feel included. Once we start to do that, words lose meaning and we lose the ability to communicate. Surely we are already poor enough at that already?

The word "marriage" has a specific meaning and it has meant the same thing for a very long time.

It may be legitimate to create more encompassing legal relationships, but that doesn't make it a marriage - even if the tail feels excluded.

This will be the only message I post on the subject. While I have answered this based purely on semantics, I can't imagine the discussion not turning into one of politics and religion. If anyone really wants a reply, it will have to be through PM.

[radhak]

Whenever I see it, I only see humor in this particular discussion topic, so please bear with me if I appear to be flippant on what might be a serious topic for others.

Imagine earth 1000 years in the future. Mankind has grown to 50 billion people. Any new pregnancy is forbidden, and all that stuff. So a same-gender marriage is the most easily approved one, as it's advantageous to society .

Btw, did you know that clownfish can change their sex at will for social reasons? Easy for them to discuss this....

And of course, a friend of mine was taken to the cleaners when he filed for divorce on his unsuspecting wife. He tells me he never knew how resourceful she was . And he's really (really) upset that not everybody has to suffer thru marriage. He keeps saying ad nauseum that he wants this issue to be settled, so he could be happy that misery is universal ... .

[dlminehart]

Doug, a semantic counter-argument could be that legs and tails are purely physical constructs and, for mammals at least, admitting of little ambiguity. The very heart of the issue with marriage is, in fact, that the definitions are NOT so clearcut. Ask any Muslim, non-reformed Mormon, etc. (Lincoln was notoriously good at these kinds of verbal sleight of hand.)

More to the point, I explicitly was NOT addressing the overall issue of same sex marriage, which quickly leads to the forum-forbidden "my holy book says" and "my state constitution says" as well as your forum-permissible variation, "my dictionary says" or "a local count of hands for the past x years says". Instead, I was specifically addressing the increasingly common argument I mentioned, leading off the article in today's paper. Care to stay on-topic and comment simply on the validity of that argument?

[LinuxRandal]

I never realized that it takes a piece of paper to breed. Should someone sue the "birth control" manufacturers for fraud?

A marriage license is a contract. For all intensive purposes, some are valid, while others are not, but I joked with my attorney years back about making one that HAS to be renewed (expiration date), as it would eliminate a LOT of divorce.

But this thread will go poof, as it is bordering on THREE topics that are not allowed here!

[germdoc]

But this thread will go poof, as it is bordering on THREE topics that are not allowed here!

Is Marriage one of those topics?

I think everybody should get married. I believe in SHARING THE PAIN...

[Russianwolf]

The word "marriage" has a specific meaning and it has meant the same thing for a very long time.

I don't want the thread to get political or religious either, but I will point out a flaw in your post.

The English language is a living language that changes with time.

Once upon a time calling someone Gay just meant that were Happy, or Merry. Now the term has changed meaning to someone of a homosexual nature.

Once upon a time Jacuzzi was the name of a specific brand of whirlpools, now it's standard lexicon for any whirlpool tub. And trust me, Jacuzzi doesn't like it, but what can they do?

[LinuxRandal]

Is Marriage one of those topics?

I think everybody should get married. I believe in SHARING THE PAIN...

In this case, it (as shown above), deals with religion, politics and sex.

[dbhost]

Around the coffee pot This forum is for any topic that you would normally talk about at the office "around the coffee pot". Jokes, tall tales, and true stories are welcome as long as they are clean and in good taste. I only ask that you steer away from topics on religion or politics. Go ahead and pull up a chair and pour yourself a cup of coffee and enjoy the conversation.

This discussion CLEARLY is political, and religious in nature.

[crokett]

This discussion CLEARLY is political, and religious in nature.

The moderators are aware of this discussion and are considering right now whether it should be closed.

The original post in this thread is neither political nor religous. Obviously it could head that way. It could have been locked outright, however we try to let the forum self-correct before having to take action, at least for topics that aren't blatantly political/religious.

[cabinetman]

Getting back to the original post about the marriage license clerk. See, so far no politics or religion (or sex for that matter - the 10 yr old girl can rest easy).

Not having read the article, it sounds like the clerk himself decided to act in that manner. As in many cases, the dispute can be taken to court.
.

[gjat]

It all boils down to how people want to define marriage or union.

For most of human history, "marriage" meant both a sociological and legal union of two persons in order to establish a family and gain legal status of the members of the family.

It all boils down to how people want to define marriage. If marriage is primarily a legal union with social aspects that are subservient to the legal prinicples, then the Government's decree on marriage supercedes.

If others define marriage primarly from a social/moral/philosophical union with legal ramifications that are subservient to the philosophical principles, then the Government is limited in the extent they can re-difine marriage.

The primary question is what principles are pre-eminent?

Without getting too political, I encourage you to read the Declaration of Independence. The principle of that is primary principles of human rights and dignity exist above the rule of government, and government only serves to protect those rights.

In my opinion, the Government can define civil unions, but cannot re-define a marriage. Civil unions are a legal definition and are well within the realm of government. Marriages are a natural right of humans and can only be recognized, but not defined, by legalities.

[Ed62]

Even though I have strong feelings about this subject, I'll refrain from posting on it.

Ed

[Russianwolf]

Even though I have strong feelings about this subject, I'll refrain from posting on it.

Ed

but you did post on it.

[Bill in Buena Park]

I wonder if you can have a legal discussion and keep it apolitical?

Not sure of your intent with the OP, David, but it would appear that marriage is, from an anthropological and ethnographic standpoint, primarily a legal contract of partnership designed to establish pre-negotiated property rights, governed by associated cultural values. Historically, sociological forces have limited who (and how many, i.e., allowance for polygamy as either polygyny or polyandry) can enter such a contract. Such contracts have not expressly been limited to arrangements required to produce offspring, but this would vary by culture and other social influence.

Value systems among humanity may attribute an institutional status to the marriage contract with systemic restrictions based on a given culture's framework of values. We know it is not uncommon for persons to assert their values with an attempt to influence others of the validity of those values. And therefore, any attempt to put qualifications on the application of the marriage contract will carry the influences of those asserting their value positions.

Does that answer the question?