Should all non reproducing couples be banned from marrying?

Question

I have some interesting takes on the whole gay marriage or not issue. One of the arguments that comes up is that marriage protection laws center around raising children. If this is so, should non reproducing couples be limited to partnership laws or consenting adult laws and denied the protection of marriage in order to preserve it's intended purpose. Please just intelligently answer the question. Thanks.

Just for the record I'm not "saying" I'm ASKING. I read this article and decided to ask the question. Believe it or not, not everyone asking a question on here is pushing an agenda. I'm actually curious what the good arguments are for or against this idea.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Al_Gore

whoops the link locked me out cuz I'm not registered and went back to my last page of al gore. Sorry. It was called Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage and was in the Boston Globe.

Found another article on the same subject without the story.http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageKids.htm

Answer 1

Actually, infertility used to be grounds for divorce, back in the days when it was much, much harder to get one!

I would say no. Yes, I believe that marriage's primary purpose is to recognize, sanction and support unions likely to produce children, based on the concept that, all other things being equal, a child is best raised by its natural parents.

So is it hypocritical to allow infertile couples to marry and prohibit same-sex marriage? Well, certainly the permanence of marriage and the connection between marriage and childbirth has been greatly reduced, for better or worse. But medical tests for every couple before marriage would be very, very intrusive. I wonder what "right to privacy" advocates - the very right used to strike down sodomy laws - would have to say about that. Maybe we just don't slice the cheese that finely; NO minor is allowed to sign contracts (absent a very special judicial "emancipation" procedure), even though some 17 year olds are more able to handle the task than some 18 (or 21!) year olds.

And same-sex marriage advocates have their own logic box to contend with. If the purpose of marriage is NOT primarily to produce children, then it would appear to be hypocritical to allow same-sex marriage but prohibit adult incest (whether same-sex or otherwise)! Think about it.

All this analogizing relationships often results in people going 'round and 'round and not getting anywhere. I guess in the end the people, acting through their representatives, will answer the questions of what is a family, and what is the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage.

I appreciate mature, reasoned debate also. thanks.

Answer 2

My answer is "no" -- but that can be chalked up to the fact that 1) I think the argument that marriage is a sacrament based around the idea of reproduction and that reproduction is the purpose of a marriage is bogus and 2) the controversy surrounding even the idea of the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples, and the ferocity with which people argue that marriage is something between a man and a woman, period...well, these things baffle me.

That said (and don't take this as a criticism, it's not meant to be one at all) the proposition, rhetorical or otherwise, that marriage be afforded only to couples who can and do bear children (or at least to couples who can) is not uncommon, and often used to point out the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and blatant inanity of the whole "marriage is for the purpose of having children" argument.

Wouldn't that be interesting, though? Suddenly, a woman or man who has health issues that render reproduction impossible is no longer allowed to get married. There's a part of me that, at least for a day, or a week, would *love* to see that....

Answer 3

Even If there were any idiots out there who actually supported the idea of banning non-reproducing couples from marrying, it would never get passed. Marriage is a right that, as of right now, any man and a woman can persue and hopefully the laws around it will just become more and more lienient instead of back tracking and making it harder for people who already live with the burden of being unable to bare a child. Everyone should have the same chances and rights despite what kind of path God (or what/whoever) has paved for them. :)

Answer 4

Eelfins - yes, people are stoping them. They would like to have an institution of marriage - yet small minded bigots think that if 2 men or 2 women marry they will somehow love they're own wives/husbands less, raise a stink about it, force they're own beliefs on others, make ridiculous and offensive statements such as "will we be allowed to marry goats next." and so forth. You know its ironic too because many of the arguments raised for disallowing gay marriage are exactly the same arguments that were raised to disallow mixed race marriages. Funny how no one wanted to marry a goat when blacks were allowed to marry whites. Its just so stupid. the whole thing and frankly I'm sick of it.

Just how exactly are gay marriages going to directly affect your life? I would say, not at all.

Answer 5

You pose the question: Should all "non reproducing" couples be banned from marrying?

No, they should not be banned from getting married. If my 80 year old Grandma wants to get re-married, then so be it. She would fall under the "non-re-producing" catagory.

Gay women are able to re-produce. They still have their eggs. They still get their monthly period, just like straight women.

Gay men still generate sperm.

So are you saying that gay men and women cannot raise children? That they are "physically" unable to raise and care and love children?

How is it that "the Government" wants to put a law on 'Love'? What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? The "Church" of opposite-sex couples should not be in our 'states', but it is. For equality purposes, the 'Church' for same-sex couples should also be in the 'State'... unless you want to remove the 'opposite-sex' laws from the 'State'... which I doubt will ever happen.

Answer 6

I don't think anyone, gay or straight, should be denied the right to marry. I am so tired of the coservative christian right shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat. One of the pillars of this country is freedom of religion. I feel when religious lobbies influence how people vote and how politicians campaign freedom of religion goes right out the door. Of course there is no way a man and woman would be denied the right to marry because they were not able to produce children. So your question raises a very good debate.

Answer 7

No, what an absurd idea. Just because I choose to not have children is no reason to bar me from marriage. This would also apply to older people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together and live in a relationship sanctified by their church. The intended purpose of marriage was to protect the man's property from other men; ie: the woman and his children, the same as other laws protected his ownership of his other chattels. You should look at the entire population that woud be affected by this idea instead of one very small segment and ignoring the unintended consequences.

Answer 8

I can see your point. I believe that we all should have the same rights. If they are happy let them be, not everyone needs to reproduce! There are bad Straight people who get married and have kids that probably should not of !!!

Answer 9

they should be allowed to marry if they love each other then adopt one down the road of life but only take it one step at a time

Answer 10

My answer is a resounding YES.
Also adoption should not be an option for same sex couples.
Put your idea together with mine and you have the start of a Good Bill, you could submit to your congressman.