Some marriage neutering advocates openly or quietly support changing marriage laws (and other laws) to accommodate polygamy and consensual incest. Then there are marriage neutering advocates who scoff when marriage defenders, clumsily or skillfully, ask why public policy regarding marriage should be changed so radically to remove the all-through-history-universal bride+groom core, but not changed to accomodate polygamous and incestuous marriages, which have been historically recognized as valid marriages. Marriage neutering advocates who claim their arguments should not be applied to give polygamists or incestuous couples their "right to marry" often claim polygamy and incest are harmful to children.
This is a curious objection, because that argument rests on the claim that marriage is tied to heterosexual intercourse, childbearing, and childrearing. Yet, what about same-sex incest and polygamy (which also eliminates the "harmful to women" objection)? And haven't the marriage neutering advocates been arguing that marriage should not be associated with heterosexual intercourse, nor the ability or desire to bear children?
No two men together can ever naturally produce a child. So if two men with no ability to produce children nor any desire to raise children can form a marriage, marriage, as an institution, can't be about children - children are merely incidental to marriage, just like whether the couple rents or owns their residence.
Nor can we say that marriage must mean that we can expect any given sex act to be part of marriage.
Doesn't this mean we can't grant marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples while legitimately denying those licenses to polygamous or incestuous unions on the grounds of harm to children or the illegality of incestuous sex, because there is no connection between marriage and sex or children?
So, marriage neutering advocates: either tell us what non-arbitrary, consistent argument is there that demands same-sex pairings must be issued state marriage licenses that does not also apply to polygamous or incestuous relationships, or stop scoffing when this is invoked in the defense of existing marriage laws.
Can I please have my own Google Bomb Website now? Please? Have someone who preaches against bullying go ahead and hypocritically bully me that way like they did that other guy.
While we're at it, since marriage is not about children in their perspective, can any marriage neutering advocate explain why a man who has impregnated a woman should have any obligation to propose marriage or actually get married/speed up the wedding date? Also, please explain why any married couple with minor children together should take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to divorce. I'm not talking about law here, but rather peer pressure, morality, etc. (The sad thing is, too many people already don't believe pregnancy should have any effect on whether/when there is a marriage, or whether/when to divorce.)
This is a curious objection, because that argument rests on the claim that marriage is tied to heterosexual intercourse, childbearing, and childrearing. Yet, what about same-sex incest and polygamy (which also eliminates the "harmful to women" objection)? And haven't the marriage neutering advocates been arguing that marriage should not be associated with heterosexual intercourse, nor the ability or desire to bear children?
No two men together can ever naturally produce a child. So if two men with no ability to produce children nor any desire to raise children can form a marriage, marriage, as an institution, can't be about children - children are merely incidental to marriage, just like whether the couple rents or owns their residence.
Nor can we say that marriage must mean that we can expect any given sex act to be part of marriage.
Doesn't this mean we can't grant marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples while legitimately denying those licenses to polygamous or incestuous unions on the grounds of harm to children or the illegality of incestuous sex, because there is no connection between marriage and sex or children?
So, marriage neutering advocates: either tell us what non-arbitrary, consistent argument is there that demands same-sex pairings must be issued state marriage licenses that does not also apply to polygamous or incestuous relationships, or stop scoffing when this is invoked in the defense of existing marriage laws.
Can I please have my own Google Bomb Website now? Please? Have someone who preaches against bullying go ahead and hypocritically bully me that way like they did that other guy.
While we're at it, since marriage is not about children in their perspective, can any marriage neutering advocate explain why a man who has impregnated a woman should have any obligation to propose marriage or actually get married/speed up the wedding date? Also, please explain why any married couple with minor children together should take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to divorce. I'm not talking about law here, but rather peer pressure, morality, etc. (The sad thing is, too many people already don't believe pregnancy should have any effect on whether/when there is a marriage, or whether/when to divorce.)
Walrus writes: "So if two men with no ability to produce children nor any desire to raise children can form a marriage, marriage, as an institution, can't be about children - children are merely incidental to marriage, just like whether the couple rents or owns their residence."
ReplyDeleteA man and woman with no ability to produce children nor any desire to raise children can form a marriage already, now, today. Allowing two men (who could father children through a surrogate), or two women (who could bear children through donors) to marry doesn't make marriage as an institution any less *about children* than it already is.
Let me put it another way. Same-sex marriage has no more impact on the institution being *about children* than the sterile opposite-sex couples who already enjoy that status.
Man+woman is the only KIND that can naturally produce children. Infertility or lack of desire for children doesn't change that. My point stands.
Delete