Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jennie · 06-15-2003, 09:19 AM

Um. One reason I picked my husband is that I felt he'd be a good father; if you want children then I think looking for a good parent for them is a reasonable criteria.

I don't think that children are neccessary for marriage for other people by the way; but I wanted them.

yguy · 06-15-2003, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
In the thread about gay marriage, yguy keeps talking about heterosexuals who get married for wrong reasons. I'd like to know what he considers as right reasons for getting married.
Since his answer will likely be related to procreation I would like to ask few questions:

1. What is unselfish about having children? For planned pregnancies, people have children because they want them, because having kids will make their family complete, because they think their lives will be happier and more fulfilled with having kids. It isn't about making sacrifices for noble cause of continuation of human race, it is about making a choice which they think will make them happier, which is ultimately a selfish motive.

There are obviously mixed motives in even the best of parents. Ideally procreation is an imitation of Creation, the love of the couple coming together to produce something worth loving. It's the giving of the gift of life. To the degree that is the motivation for having kids, it isn't selfish.

Quote:

2. If it turns out that one partner is infertile, is it moral to abandon him/her just because of that? In case of female infertility, is it moral to put pressure on her to submit to various invasive and risky medical procedures to try to have a child?

No to both. Morally, they're stuck with each other, in my view.

Quote:

3. I know several childfree couples who plan to stay that way. They are very happy together and devoted to one another. Did they get married for the wrong reason?

I couldn't possibly know that, of course.

Quote:

Or is marriage about partnership first, procreation later if any?

From the POV of an individual couple it may well be. It is from a public policy perspective that marriage must be considered as child-centered, because without children who are as good as or better than their parents, the society stagnates, then dies. That does not mean, however, that it is in the state's interest to micromanage these things.

Dr Rick · 06-15-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
It is from a public policy perspective that marriage must be considered as child-centered, because without children who are as good as or better than their parents, the society stagnates, then dies. That does not mean, however, that it is in the state's interest to micromanage these things.

Since marriage is not necessary to reproduce children, and since marriage does not automatically reproduce children, it's hard to see why it "must be...child centered" any more than government military or transportation policies.

yguy · 06-15-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Since marriage is not necessary to reproduce children,

Hey, I'm sure we'll be able to Bokanovskify them any day now.

Jinto · 06-15-2003, 01:50 PM

Aparrently, yguy doesn't know that it's sex that causes pregnancy, not marriage. Hey, yguy, was your sex ed an abstinence-only program?

Loren Pechtel · 06-15-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto
Aparrently, yguy doesn't know that it's sex that causes pregnancy, not marriage. Hey, yguy, was your sex ed an abstinence-only program?

Yeah. A result of China's extreme repression of sex in the time of the cultural revolution: My wife had a few patients who presented with infertility--but were virgins. The usual procedure was just before they got married some relative would explain the facts of life to them. However, sometimes that relative was dead or sent to re-education. When that happened to both people ignorance was possible.

alek0 · 06-15-2003, 08:53 PM

I've read somewhere that such situations (i.e. virgins seeing a doc for infertility) happen in Singapore as well.

Chiron · 06-16-2003, 12:02 AM

yguy: "From the POV of an individual couple it may well be. It is from a public policy perspective that marriage must be considered as child-centered, because without children who are as good as or better than their parents, the society stagnates, then dies. That does not mean, however, that it is in the state's interest to micromanage these things."
You have stated something that, to me, is not obviously true. What about the married people who are happier, more productive members of society than they were before marriage, even though they plan to never have children? Gimme some evidence that children who are as good as or better than their parents are quintessential to the survival of the society.

By the way, what does it mean to "Bokanovskify" something?

-Chiron

AquaVita · 06-16-2003, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I sure hope not; before Jacey and I tied the knot, we visited a urologist and he tied and cauterized a couple of knots on me...

Godless Dave · 06-16-2003, 06:49 AM

I see public policy as being for the benefit of individuals as well as for a society or nation as a whole. After all, if individuals are prevented from engaging in the pursuit of happiness, what point does the society have? So it is in society's interest to enable two adults who are in love to legally join their lives together, whether they are going to have children or not.

06-16-2003, 12:02 AM	#18
Chiron Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: 9 Zodiac Circle Posts: 163	Re: Re: Right reasons to get married yguy: "From the POV of an individual couple it may well be. It is from a public policy perspective that marriage must be considered as child-centered, because without children who are as good as or better than their parents, the society stagnates, then dies. That does not mean, however, that it is in the state's interest to micromanage these things." You have stated something that, to me, is not obviously true. What about the married people who are happier, more productive members of society than they were before marriage, even though they plan to never have children? Gimme some evidence that children who are as good as or better than their parents are quintessential to the survival of the society. By the way, what does it mean to "Bokanovskify" something? -Chiron

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2003, 09:19 AM	#11
Jennie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Washington State Posts: 3,593	Um. One reason I picked my husband is that I felt he'd be a good father; if you want children then I think looking for a good parent for them is a reasonable criteria. I don't think that children are neccessary for marriage for other people by the way; but I wanted them.

06-15-2003, 01:50 PM	#15
Jinto Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: SLC, UT Posts: 957	Aparrently, yguy doesn't know that it's sex that causes pregnancy, not marriage. Hey, yguy, was your sex ed an abstinence-only program?

06-15-2003, 08:53 PM	#17
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	I've read somewhere that such situations (i.e. virgins seeing a doc for infertility) happen in Singapore as well.

06-16-2003, 06:49 AM	#20
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I see public policy as being for the benefit of individuals as well as for a society or nation as a whole. After all, if individuals are prevented from engaging in the pursuit of happiness, what point does the society have? So it is in society's interest to enable two adults who are in love to legally join their lives together, whether they are going to have children or not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.