southernhybrid

I don't think that public policy should be involved with the personal reasons that a couple get married. Marriage is a legal aggreement that gives the partners certain legal benefits and responsibilities. I'm speaking of secular marriage in Western society only. If people have a religious reason for marriage, that's their personal conviction and should not be applied to public policy.

Let's put a different perspective on the children thing. My parents have been married for 55 years. They spent about 30 of those years raising three children. Since their children either remained childless, moved away or stopped having any contact with them, they have not been active as grandparents so even that role has not been experienced to any extent. Since only about half of their marriage was spent raising children, why give that role so much importance? What about all the years before and after the children are in the picture. That argument makes no sense with life expectancy rates as high as they are today. When life expectancy was about 40, it might make sense. Things have changed drastically since 1900. People no longer get married just to have children. It's not at all uncommon to see marriages that last over 60 years these days. Despite the high divorce rates we have today, many of us are in marriages that will last a lifetime, even if it took some of us two tries to get it right.

yguy

This question leaves my utterly speechless.

That came from Huxley's "Brave New World". It was an in vitro process which yielded thousands of zygotes from a single human ovum. Praise Ford.

yguy

Have I said otherwise?

Pyrrho

I think there are practical reasons for it (as it affects inheritance and the ability to make medical decisions for each other, among other things), but I'm not aware of any real moral advantages. It is an expression of a commitment, but one can be committed without a legal marriage. (Not to mention the fact that some people who are legally married are not too committed.)



I think this is usually due to foolish men being afraid of women being more intelligent than they are. Women sometimes pretend to be stupid in order for some oaf to be attracted to them. For my part, the more intelligent the woman, the better, though there are other qualities that are also extremely important (kindness, for example). (I'm already married, and my wife is extremely intelligent. And I am not concerned with whether she is more intelligent or not, as it seems wholly unimportant.)

So, my advice on this matter is this: If some man is too stupid to want an intelligent wife, he is unworthy of one.

And, as scigirl aptly pointed out, it can be extremely difficult to determine who is more intelligent, as one may be more intelligent in some ways, and less intelligent in others. Despite the illusion given with IQ scores, intelligence is a complex matter.

To directly respond to your last question, if you find a man you love*, and who loves* you, and you are more intelligent than he is, I don't see that as a problem. If you see it as a problem, or if he sees it as a problem, then it will be a problem for you. But it is only an artificial problem, something that is only a problem because you or he sees it as a problem.


*Of course, love is not all that is necessary for a marriage to work, but I am not attempting to say everything that is important to a good marriage in this post.

Bree

What about people who can't have children?

Even if I weren't a lesbian, I couldn't have children anyway. I am not "wired" correctly - endometriosis gets in the way and my insides look like a chocolate sundae. So if I can't have children, does it matter if I am a lesbian? I couldn't give a man a child if I tried. And if I weren't a lesbian, but a straight woman looking for a mate, would it be fair - moral, even - for a man not to marry me for this reason?

Pyrrho

You mean that people who want to play God are not selfish?

Chiron

Apologies, I should have phrased my speech-inhibiting statement more clearly. What I meant was, "Gimme some evidence that, for the society to survive, every marriage must have children that are as good as or better than their parents." That is, are you saying that the society would stagnate and then die without child-centered marriage? Remember that marriage is a thing apart from having children, and the very state of being married can have a positive effect on the society by making the involved parties happier and more productive. Perhaps people who are happy and productive without children would become unhappy and unproductive if they had children. Even a single child is a large drain on the family's resources: money for babysitters, more mouths to feed, one parent might stop working full-time or might stop working altogether, the stress of having a newborn, being kept awake at night, the necessity of spending time with kid, and so on and so forth. Not only that, but all of these resources which might have otherwise immediately benefitted society now are being devoted to a thing which only has the chance of benefitting society a decade and a half down the line, and probably not even then. So is it necessary for every couple to have (good/better than) children?

Here are some of my thoughts: I see government (ideally) as something of a non-profit organization. It should use its revenue to benefit individuals, not to benefit itself. The aim of government is to make life better for the people, not to increase the power and control of the government. This means that marriage, when considered from the point of view of the society, should still benefit the individuals involved.

-Chiron

southernhybrid

"It is from a public policy perspective that marriage must be considered as child-centered"... quote by you in an earlier post


Well, yes I thought so. Don't bother trying to explain. I've had enough.

yguy

Too late - you asked for it.

The details of any particular component of Windows are not Bill Gates' concern, but it is the concern of whoever writes that component. All Gates cares about is that the component enables Windows to function. Likewise, the concern of legislators with regard to marriage is not how the law affects any particular couple, but how they affect the nation as a whole.

yguy

I see no reason to provide evidence for a claim I haven't made. Obviously there is no way to ensure such an outcome; the best we can do is try to have the maximum number of successful children.

Yep.

Then those people shouldn't have children. I don't know how this contradicts my position.

If you wish to get the government out of marriage, that's another issue. However, some means must be found to keep the concept of marriage alive. Homosexual "marriage" is a step in the opposite direction.

It should benefit both. Traditional marriage, properly implemented by the participants, does just that, as the unprecedented prosperity we enjoy here is clear evidence of; ironically enough, without it, homosexuals would never have had the opportunity to try to screw it up.