I still can't figure out why marriage should be afforded two people who are stalled at the one of the various polymorphous perverse stages? Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?
Why should it be reserved for those who can procreate?
.
Because that is what is was invented for.
Insofar as procreation requiring marriage, you're talking to the wrong fella, but I did consider my children's welfare in deciding to give them a traditional birth right rather than be an outcast sideshow Bob and curiousity to their peers .... we couldn't have that VC ... they might commit suicide and I wouldn't knowingly sentence someone to that now would I?; God forbid that a couple would deliberately conceive children to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior
Nope, lots of marriages don't result in children, procreation is not a prerequisite of marriage.
You might have some feeling that your marriage was all about procreation, but not every shares your feelings on that, the meaning of marriage is like the meaning of life, the is no one holy grail meaning, every one has a different meaning, and the meaning is given by the people taking part in it, it's not up to you to tell other people what their marriage should be about.
Well lets visit what we actually can establish, rather than recall yarns from vested interest sites and journals.
We know:
that the royals through the ages have used marriage to cement alliances and that b4stard children don't get a geurnsey;
that b4stard children to common folk have traditionally been subjected to scorn and ridicule;
that legally, as illegitimates, they weren't entitled to the fathers putative estates that their legitimate half/full brothers & sisters were;
they couldn't use the father's surname;
the mother and child couldn't demand support from the father;
that bastard children are left out of lines of succession;
that until Whitlam came along, state welfare was not readily available;
children born outside wedlock were often taken from the delivery room to an institution or adoptive "married" couple;
unmarried pregnant women were often, sent to "visit" their aunty across country and returned sans child;
engagements and chaste brides are part of the customs of marriage, albeit less significant since the days of baby boomer protests and the pill;
these customs and taboos are not new and reflect strongly the expectation of society. They are not subordinate to revisionism, they are real history. It is obvious that marriage and children are an intertwined custom that also has the weight of the legal and statutory system behind it.
Denigrating the truths to open the door for abstraction does not lay well with those who still value tradition and dare I say sexual discipline.
Putting aside that I don't think any of those traditions are good things, and society has moved away from they anyway.
None of what you have said shows that marriages must be able to produce children to be valid, you have simply listed some out dated examples of traditions that involve relationships that do produce children.
You are making the composition/division fallacy. you implied that one part of something has to be applied to all.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
legitimatised children are a MAJOR core reason for marriage.
.
If I didn't intend to have children I would have continued on without marriage. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive
no doubt some people marry because they want children, but there is also no doubt other people marry for other reasons unrelated to children.
the composition/division fallacy you are making here starts when you look at the reason of part and say that's the whole reason.
Good for you, But a lot of other people feel differently, again this is the composition/division logical fallacy, you are suggest that what applies to must apply to everyone.
You are missing the point or being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea that marriage has a long tradition of being what it is..
There is no logical fallacy in what I have written ...
Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.
SSM is just like women trying to force their way into men's clubs.
.
It's an "up you mate" response, you have it so we want it, just to stick a finger in "the other lot's" eye
No you are missing the point, because you seem to think marriage is about one thing, when its not, and you are ignoring the fact the many people do not have children but still value their marriages and want the marriage recognised by their government, the fact that you feel your marriage had no value outside procreation is fine, but that's not what it means for most other people.
Yes there is,
you are suggesting that one part of something (procreation) is the whole/only reason for that thing (Marriage), which is false, and is a logical fallacy.
Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.
OK, not to be too trite, of course I'm talking about marriage as a majority, vast majority custom that goes back many generations, not the X an Y gens.
.
I'm not arguing that sterile people get married, etc. I'm stating facts insofar as what rights, expectations and privileges both govt and society have bestowed on marriage over a long long time.
Pandering to the margins to argue a point about the vast majority is not so much a logical fallacy, but statistically it is so small as to be discarded from the probability that when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.
SSM is just another breach of fortress marriage,
and people against gay marriage are like the men saying, "But I don't want women to have their own club, clubs are just for men, your taking my rights away"
It's not like that at all. Anti SSM people are saying there should be different clubs for different folks.
Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.
In this case the women's clubs are civil unions (about which I have not heard a good argument saying that they don't give the same rights as marriage), and the "men's" club is marriage which recognises the unique ability of TWO people to unite and have children and provides legal protection for those children.
You are comparing apples with oranges (again).
Not just sterile people, even people with kids value a lot more than just the procreation part of their marriage, that's where your fallacy comes in.
B?
Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.
In this case the women's clubs are civil unions
).
Please reveal the part of the marriage act that stipulates love and other bruises? The one you want to change?
Then start talking about logical fallacies......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?