A simple question for proponents of neutering marriage:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that procreation is not entirely predictable and even though it can't be entirely predicted, when it does occur it invokes significant obligations on the procreating couple. Further, let's assume that the fulfillment of these obligations is of vital importance to society, that when the procreating couple does not meet its obligations to the children it produces not only do the children suffer, but the community at large can be affected.
Now let's say that these obligations are so significant and the impact on the community is so great that society sets aside an institution specifically to look after these concerns. Would it be wrong to exclude from such an institution arrangements such as same-sex relationships without any potential to procreate?
A simple question for opponents of neutering marriage:
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of argument, let's assume that sexual orientation is not entirely predictable and even though it can't be entirely predicted, when it does occur it invokes significant obligations on the procreating couple whose child arrives differently-orientated. Further, let's assume that the fulfillment of these parental obligations is of vital importance to society, that when the procreating couple does not meet its obligations to the children it produces not only do the children suffer, but the community at large can be affected.
Now let's say that these obligations are so significant and the impact on the community is so great that society sets aside an institution specifically to look after these concerns, namely, the family.
Wouldn't it be wrong to wage a campaign designed to convince certain parents that their own children deserve to be excluded from the benefits otherwise available to others who strive to enter a committed relationship?
Wouldn't it be wrong to wage a campaign designed to convince certain parents that their own children deserve to be excluded from the benefits otherwise available to others who strive to enter a committed relationship?
ReplyDeleteNo, not if this so alters the meaning of the institution that future generations no longer see it as even being an institution specifically to look after the concerns and obligations related to procreation.
A question for marriage neutering proponents: Is it your contention that people should not be married to, or that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not sexually attracted to?
"A question for marriage neutering proponents: Is it your contention that people should not be married to, or that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not sexually attracted to?"
ReplyDeleteWell, duh! But it's not just sexual attraction. It's also emotional, mental and spiritual attraction, too. So, yes, it is my contention that people should not be married to, and that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not emotionally, mentally, spiritually, *and* sexually attracted to.
Reality is, R.K., the way you folks are approaching this contest, you're gonna wind up accomplishing nothing other than increasing the percentage of our next generation who take a dim view of the institution you claim to be defending.
ReplyDeleteit's not the potential to procreate - every couple, indeed every individual has a potential to procreate today, given modern laboratory techniques than enable cloning and same-sex conception - the important issue is whether a couple should be allowed to procreate or not. After all, siblings certainly have procreative potential and yet are excluded from marriage, even if they have already procreated. Marriage is state approval of the couple procreating together, combining their own genes to create offspring. The approval has nothing to do with their potential to procreate.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, it is my contention that people should not be married to, and that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not emotionally, mentally, spiritually, *and* sexually attracted to.
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying that if the first three are present, but not the fourth, that's enough reason why they should not be married?
I'd like to get your answer to this too, Chino.
Also, are any of you saying that homosexuals cannot be emotionally attracted to anyone of the opposite sex?
ReplyDeleteAre any of you saying that homosexuals cannot be mentally attracted to anyone of the opposite sex?
Are any of you saying that homosexuals cannot be spiritually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex?
Are any of these dependent on sexual attraction?
My first question again: "Is it your contention that people should not be married to, or that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not sexually attracted to?"
ReplyDeleteA hint of what I'm getting at: Note my use of the word "be".
And let's not forget my question, the question named in the title of this post. Nobody has answered that one yet.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, op-ed, for allowing them to sidetrack and thus avoid answering your question. My answer to your question is no, of course, it would not be wrong. But I'll wait and see what the response of those on the other side is before continuing my line of argument, even though I have a point I'd been leading to which I'd like to address.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that op-ed's hypotheticals accurately describe marriage, but he asks that "for the sake of argument" that we assume this hypothetical institution exists. It's hard to answer hypotheticals, but I could certainly imagine such an institution where it would still be wrong to exclude couples, such as the elderly, without any potential to procreate.
ReplyDeleteTo help decide whether this particular hypothetical institution should be able to exclude them I would like to know more about the significant obligations that are incumbent upon the procreating couple.
I will also answer R.K.'s question. I believe that society should not encourage someone to get married to someone to whom he or she has no sexual attraction. However, I believe that once a couple is married, society should generally encourage them to remain married regardless of how sexually attracted they are to one another.
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteDid you misread the question?
I mean, this takes the politicians addage a step further. You've probably heard the addage, "if you cannot answer the question given, answer the question you prepared for". But it seems you can't even answer the question you discussed either.
I had to double check Op-Ed's question because your comment lead me to believe he was asking about elderly couples.
He isn't. It seems the one he asked would be much easier to answer since it does not have a blurred line like age would. Try giving the question asked a shot first, then talk about the more complicated one later...
Chino,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be wrong to wage a campaign designed to convince certain parents that their own children deserve to be excluded from the benefits otherwise available to others who strive to enter a committed relationship?
It would be wrong in my book, which is why I consider harassment websites like ex-gay watch to be such a social malady.
Taking the flip side of that coin, as a committed adult centered relationship deserves recognition, you might have a point. Try looking into what Hawaii has in RB's which try to cover all committed adult relationships -- not just gay romantic relationships like a lot of CU or DP programs do, or same-sex marriage does in extending marriage focus.
RB= reciprocal beneficiaries
ReplyDeleteFamily is more important than marriage, no?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, did anyone else notice this article?
Census study of gay married couples finds similarities to husband-and-wife couples
Interesting statistics. And it sounds like there's lots of data set to come out in the next couple years. As such, not sure I want to spin my wheels pondering hypotheticals.
Wow, did I screw up the link to that article?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, here it is:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12614608
As far as answering questions, thing is, I'm not hung up on procreation. To me, that's the least interesting aspect of family life. I tend to think we ought to be more concerned with whether or not adults are equipped to do a good job raising kids and otherwise caring for their families.
People get married for all sorts of reasons, but I agree with the comment above and think we do all have a stake in making sure everyone is encouraged to take marriage seriously and stay married once that commitment has been made.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteLast I heard about Hawaii's RB's was from Sister Hartmann, who was profiled in this great article:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3710
She says that after looking into what RB's actually offer, she realized they don't work as advertised.
Family is more important than marriage, no?
ReplyDeleteAn interesting dichotomy. False, but interesting.
In any case, did anyone else notice this article?
I've taken on the topic in another thread. We can deal with both topics, but no need to cram them in the same thread, no?
One point I will make however is that the data in that post may support the claim that people who believe in neutered marriage are less likely to believe in marriage at all.
I only bring it up here because, perhaps, we see that in your comment also, as much as Op-Ed is describing marriage though I'm sure...
As far as answering questions, thing is, I'm not hung up on procreation. To me, that's the least interesting aspect of family life.
That sounds like an answer that you do not think such an institution should exist as outlined by Op-Ed above. Is that correct?
once that commitment has been made.
Another good arguement for RB's as mentioned above.
RB's and Marriage can co-exist as shown in Hawaii, and both Op-Ed's purpose (taking responsibility for procreation) and yours (simply taking responsibility for commitment) are fully satisfied.
Case solved, no need to get rid of an institution which addresses Op-Ed's concerns though I'm still wondering.
Chino, you have your own site to post what you are more interested in. Why even bother coming to this thread at all if you aren't interested in discussing the topic at hand? The article was not very meaningful at all (for reasons explained above), but I'm still interested in your answer to Op-Ed's question. I'm not interested in how interested you are or not in answering it, to be honest.
she realized they don't work as advertised.
ReplyDeleteOp-Ed's question is very interesting as it points to the ability of the state to target according to purpose. I'm still interested in your answer to that question.
In fact even moreso now since you bring up Hartman's complaint about RB's. My complaint with your program is that it is too exclusive. You can say some lady in Hawaii complained about RB's not handing out enough benefits, but that just magnifies how hypocritical your solution is. Extending marriage to gay and lesbian couples, as would a program like CU's or DP's, would continue to deny the benefits entirely from a large portion of adult committed relationships. Can you justify that exclusion? Could you even justify that exclusion to Hartman?
Op-Ed's program simply targets commitments (if not more boradly then needed) for a specific purpose. Yours isn't even broad enough to cover everyone in your own stated purpose.
That said, Op-Ed's question is even more meaningful now. I await your answer, and continue to note your diversions :)
danderhall: I don't agree that op-ed's hypotheticals accurately describe marriage...
ReplyDeleteOh really? It seems it does a much better job of describing marriage than your agenda allows you to admit. You're the one that named marriage, after all. My question never did.
...it would still be wrong to exclude couples, such as the elderly, without any potential to procreate.
At what age is that?
I would like to know more about the significant obligations that are incumbent upon the procreating couple.
I agree. You should, particularly before you decide to exclude "the elderly."
Chino: Wow, did I screw up the link to that article?
Great. Not just Chino-spam, but failed Chino-spam.
As far as answering questions, thing is, I'm not hung up on procreation.
As far as answering questions, who asked what you were hung up on? Your hang ups don't change what affects our society or how.
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteDid you misread the question?
No. In case, I thought I was clear. But my answer to the hypothetical is, YES, IT COULD BE WRONG.
The question asked if it would be wrong to exclude arrangements without any potential to procreate. Op-Ed gave an example of such an arrangement, he said "such as same-sex relationships" I decided to provide an additional example. It seems to have touched a nerve. I also had to change the WOULD to COULD because we were dealing with a hypothetical. The answer may depend on the details. I'll repeat my answer, though. YES, IT COULD BE WRONG.
So I answered, the question. I note, however, that my question was not answered. Op-ed agrees it's a good question, but doesn't answer it. I'll repeat the question a second time.
I would like to know more about the significant obligations that are incumbent upon the procreating couple..
You're the one that named marriage, after all. My question never did.
I know. You were dealing with hypotheticals. As you have tried to justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage, it seemed to be where you were headed with this hypothetical. I just wanted to be clear before answering the hypothetical that I do not think it describes marriage. That I believed you thought you were describing marriage does not mean I think it does. I still don't.
At what age is that?
It would be wrong at any age.
You should, particularly before you decide to exclude "the elderly."
What?!!?! I said YOU SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE THEM! So I'll repeat my answer yet again. YES, IT COULD BE WRONG TO EXCLUDE ARRANGEMENTS WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL TO PROCREATE. And this is your hypothetical. You are the one that should be providing these details.
danderhall: I decided to provide an additional example.
ReplyDeleteAnd failed. I asked at what age "the elderly" don't have any potential to procreate, like a same-sex couple. You answered:
It would be wrong at any age.
How random. At least when you were not answering my question about same-sex couples you pretended to be trying.
I'll repeat the question a second time.
And I appreciate that since it puts your advocacy in its proper perspective. Ignorance is the worst basis from which to advocate change.
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteI think its always fun when I see someone with the chutzpah to write such self-adulating commentary like they have struck 'struck a nerve'. Thanks for lightening things up.
Can I sum up your answer? I just want to nail down where we are at...
-- It might be wrong in the case of elderly couples (depending on whatever you are fishing for), and it is not wrong in the case of same-sex couples. --
Does that reflect your answer?
That would put us in agreement, is that the nerve you anticipated?
I only ask for that specific clarity because as my previous post notes, I don't see it (and I don't know why.) You say it is up to Op-Ed to clarify, and I think the use of a clear cut example is ample clarification.
Also a note on some of your sideways bickering, Op-Ed presented a premise which may or may not be hypothetical or in other words may or may not already exist. You may think it is hypothetical, but that is another argument :)
Your substitution of "would" for "could" is also needlessly disorienting. The use of the word "would" is already conditional to premise. "Could" denotes you have conditions beyond the existence of the premise, which I assume only apply to the unclear delineation of who are the elderly couples.
Hence my post above (and repeated here) asking for clarification on the clear cut case mentioned specifically before moving to the one with the blurred line of age.
At least when you were not answering my question about same-sex couples you pretended to be trying.
ReplyDeleteThat was just a simple misunderstanding of your question. I thought you were asking at what age the elderly should be excluded. My answer was not at any age. You were asking at what age the elderly are unable to procreate. After a woman has completed menopause she is unable to procreate. When I said the "elderly" I was referring to a couple which included a woman who had completed menopause.
And I appreciate that since it puts your advocacy in its proper perspective. Ignorance is the worst basis from which to advocate change.
I'm not advocating anything in this thread. I was trying to respond to your hypothetical and wanted more details. It's YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. Of course I'm ignorant of the details. YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE THEM DESPITE REPEATED CLEAR REQUESTS! Why is that?
-- It might be wrong in the case of elderly couples (depending on whatever you are fishing for), and it is not wrong in the case of same-sex couples. --
Does that reflect your answer?
No. It does not reflect my answer. My answer was it could be wrong to deny arrangements without the potential to procreate from this hypothetical institution. That would depend on the details of this institution.
Op-Ed presented a premise which may or may not be hypothetical or in other words may or may not already exist.
A hypothetical means something that is assumed as a premise. That is exactly what we have here. That premise may be true, or it may not be true. I agree with you that it is another argument about whether this hypothetical exists. For now I'm assuming the hypothetical for the sake of argument AS I WAS ASKED TO DO.
Your substitution of "would" for "could" is also needlessly disorienting. The use of the word "would" is already conditional to premise. "Could" denotes you have conditions beyond the existence of the premise.
The "could" is necessary because even assuming the premise, the answer may depend on the details. Given these premises I can imagine a situation where it would be wrong to exclude such arrangements, and I can imagine a situation where it would not be wrong to exclude such arrangements. If it would help we could phrase the question as "Would it ever be wrong to exclude from such an institution arrangements such as same-sex relationships without any potential to procreate?" Then I can give a clear answer: YES.
Note the "could" here has nothing to do with who are elderly couples. The issue has to do with the details of the institution. Hence my post (above, and above, and repeated again here) asking for details on the institution. An alternative, though, is just to the add the word "ever" and then I can give a clear cut answer: YES.
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteThis first part is the important one...
My answer was it could be wrong to deny arrangements without the potential to procreate from this hypothetical institution. [...] the answer may depend on the details. Given these premises I can imagine a situation where it would be wrong to exclude such arrangements, and I can imagine a situation where it would not be wrong to exclude such arrangements.
So you already specified the elderly as the case where it could be wrong. Are same-sex couples the case where it would be right?
If so then we are in agreement.
Feel free to present your own situations if those do not adequately reflect what you mean. Vague hand waving that there could exist details outside of your ability to even imagine at this point is just plain silly. Instead, give some breadcrumbs here, give some details which your expect your decision would hinge upon.
However, given that advice, I'd still appreciate your answer to the above anyway, as that is more in line with the question posed originally. If there is grey area with elderly couples, then lets see if the same-sex couples are more easily determined.
For now I'm assuming the hypothetical for the sake of argument AS I WAS ASKED TO DO.
Premise. You say, "given the premise". Calling the premise a hypothetical is disorienting in this particular exercise.
A hypothetical means something that is assumed as a premise.
A premise is already an assumption. But specifically a proposition lending to support a conclusion. A hypothetical (e.g. hypothesis) is a premise you assume to exist so you can in turn show it to be true or false. However the truth of the premise is not in question, (as you noted) and we are simply discussing the reasonableness of the conclusion
A hypothetical situation is also logically one where you make a conjecture that is specifically not very well supported by evidence. Again, that is a ground not covered (let alone ceded) in this debate.
Premise is adequate for your purposes (as stated so far) and more accurate given the nature of the question. It is simply a premise.
You can say, "given the premise".
danderhall: I was referring to a couple which included a woman who had completed menopause.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you don't know the details of a woman's menses, would that mean you would not know who is an "elderly couple" by your definition? That would make "elderly couple" an unavailable distinction.
That's fail #2, by the way, "to provide an additional example."
YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE THEM DESPITE REPEATED CLEAR REQUESTS! Why is that?
The real question is: Why waste all this time trying "to provide an additional example" when the question includes a perfectly good example that is valid?
So you already specified the elderly as the case where it could be wrong. Are same-sex couples the case where it would be right?
ReplyDeleteYou still misunderstand me. Both for the elderly and for same-sex couples, IT COULD BE WRONG. Both for the elderly and for same-sex couples, IT COULD BE RIGHT. My answer does not depend on the details of why the arrangement lacks the potential to procreate. It depends on the details of the premised institution.
Instead, give some breadcrumbs here, give some details which your expect your decision would hinge upon.
These are op-ed's premises. I thought it would be more productive for op-ed to provide the details. Still, if it would help I'll provide you an example of each. (1) First let us take op-ed's premises and suppose further that these obligations only concern conception through childbirth and nothing before or after. Suppose further that the institution only addresses issues relevant to procreation. In this case it would be okay to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate. (2) This time let us take op-ed's premises and suppose that the obligations include obligations both before conception and after childbirth. Let us suppose further that the institution while set aside to address concerns of procreation also in the process addresses other concerns. Let us suppose further that the institution works quite well even for couples who do not procreate. In this case it would be wrong to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.
So once again, so we are absolutely clear. The gray area has nothing to do with elderly couples vis-a-vis same-sex couples. I believe op-ed's question concerned arrangements without the potential to procreate and not specifically same-sex couples. If it helps, though, imagine my answer is just for same-sex couples. It still depends on the details of the institution as I explain above.
I'm not going to get sidetracked into an argument over the difference between hypothetical and premise. If you prefer to use variations on the word "premise" that's fine. I've now edited this post to do just that. I hope that allows us to focus on the actual question asked.
And if you don't know the details of a woman's menses, would that mean you would not know who is an "elderly couple" by your definition? That would make "elderly couple" an unavailable distinction.
ReplyDeleteSure, if I did not know the details that distinction would be unavailable. If we did know the details it would be available.
The real question is: Why waste all this time trying "to provide an additional example" when the question includes a perfectly good example that is valid?
So that we don't focus specifically on one type of arrangement and deal with the general issue. I didn't mean to waste so much time. I just mentioned in very briefly. You and On Lawn keep coming back to it. Since it seems to be wasting so much time, let's forget it and focus instead on the general category "arrangements without the potential to procreate" or even the specific category "same-sex relationships" You choose. My answer is the same either way.
By the way should I even bother asking for a fourth time to provide the details? As a reminder:
I would like to know more about the significant obligations that are incumbent upon the procreating couple.
These are the obligations that you refer to in your premise. I just wanted to know more. Seems like a reasonable request.
danderhall: (1) First let us take op-ed's premises and suppose further that these obligations only concern conception through childbirth and nothing before or after.... (2) This time let us take op-ed's premises and suppose that the obligations include obligations both before conception and after childbirth.
ReplyDeleteSo let me just make it explicit that you are questioning whether the obligations inherent in procreation end at birth.
Let us suppose further that the institution works quite well even for couples who do not procreate.
Irrelevant. An ambulance suits a mom transporting her kids to a soccer game just fine. That does not make withholding it from her wrong.
Sure, if I did not know the details that distinction would be unavailable. If we did know the details it would be available.
'nuff said.
By the way should I even bother asking for a fourth time to provide the details?
Ask away. Questioning the premises is explicitly off topic, but your question reveals much (see above) about other discussions in which you have engaged. Did you mean to ask to have the question clarified?
Assuming procreation is sufficiently important to society that it reserves an institution to safeguarding its interests in that regard, is it wrong to exclude relationships specifically unrelated to that purpose?
Your answer so far is "No, though that could change if the premises change or if additional premises are added."
Your answer so far is "No, though that could change if the premises change or if additional premises are added."
ReplyDeleteThat is not my answer. (It's funny how people love to change my answer here.) I noted that the premises do not provide enough details to answer the question yes or no. EITHER WAY additional premises must be added in order for me to give a yes or no answer. My answer so far is "That depends, but I could probably give you a clear yes or no answer if you provide additional details." You refuse to add to them. So you will either have to accept "It depends" as an answer, or provide more details.
So let me just make it explicit that you are questioning whether the obligations inherent in procreation end at birth.
Yes. These are the obligations to which you refer. I would also like as much detail about these obligations as you can give.
Did you mean to ask to have the question clarified?
Yes. I'm not questioning the premises. I'm asking to provide more detail about them.
Irrelevant. An ambulance suits a mom transporting her kids to a soccer game just fine. That does not make withholding it from her wrong.
This detail might not be relevant to you, but you're not the one answering the question. It's relevant to me. If it doesn't matter to you, though, is it fair for me to assume, for the sake of argument, that the institution does do more? If it's not fair, then my answer must remain, "It depends."
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteBoth for the elderly and for same-sex couples, IT COULD BE RIGHT.
There we go. There could exist obligations to procreation "which [are] sufficiently important to society that it reserves an institution to safeguarding its interests in that regard" meaning it is not "wrong to exclude relationships specifically unrelated to that purpose"....
Sure, if I did not know the details [of menopause] that distinction would be unavailable.
Which is an important distinction which could mean that despite lumping them together as the same there could exist cases where elderly are not excluded but the same-sex couples are.
In other words we could say it is right to exclude both, however the unavailability of the information on menopause (and privacy issues concerning obtaining them) it may not be enforceable on the elderly couple.
Can you think of a way either of the above can be completely ruled out as possibilities?
This time let us take op-ed's premises and suppose that the obligations include obligations both before conception and after childbirth.
Both, not either.
Let us suppose further that the institution works quite well even for couples who do not procreate. In this case it would be wrong to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.
That is your belief, but logically its a non-sequitur. And I'd go so far as to argue its a mistaken belief.
Op-Ed's example of the ambulance shows how the logic is a non-sequitur, the ability to assist a different purpose has not made it wrong to exclude those that belong to the different purpose.
It is a mistaken belief as it assumes the purpose is still addressed explicitly (remember that is the premise of the question) while focusing in on groups which without question do not match that purpose. Ambiguity and grey areas aside, its the definite examples which provide the contradiction. Your belief then is simply in the ability to hold a contradiction as valid.
I believe op-ed's question concerned arrangements without the potential to procreate and not specifically same-sex couples.
Just another nitpick, Op-Ed's question may have application to couples who are not same-sex couples, however you cannot reasonable say that he did not specify -- explicitly -- same-sex couples.
Danderhall asks: "I would like to know more about the significant obligations that are incumbent upon the procreating couple."
ReplyDeleteThe obligations aren't given to every procreating couple. For example, if the procreating couple are siblings, or one is already married, not only are the obligations not given, but they are not even offered, they are not allowed. Those couples are not allowed to procreate. That is ALL that the marriage license licenses. It is the official approval of procreating together, and has NOTHING to do with whether they are likely to procreate or not. After approving of the couple procreating together, it THEN obligates the couple to each other (supposedly).
There we go. There could exist obligations to procreation "which [are] sufficiently important to society that it reserves an institution to safeguarding its interests in that regard" meaning it is not "wrong to exclude relationships specifically unrelated to that purpose"....
ReplyDeleteIt's great that we have some agreement. It's also important to be clear what we've agreed upon and where we still disagree. I agree that under certain premises it would not be wrong to exclude certain relationships from an institution designed for a given purpose. Please remember, though, that the sufficient premises included both those proposed by op-ed AND ADDITIONAL PREMISES. I disagree, however, with a number of those premises. In particular,
(1) The premise that there exists an institution designed specifically to deal with issues of procreation.
(2) The premise that the obligations of procreation end at childbirth. I would hope you join me in disagreeing with this premise. Unfortunately for the sake of our agreement, this was one of the additional premises that led to my conclusion that it would be acceptable to exclude same-sex couples from the institution.
(3) The premise that the institution doesn't work well for arrangements that don't procreate. I disagree with this premise. You and op-ed find this premise irrelevant, but I don't. Again without it I do not join in the conclusion that it is acceptable to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.
There are also at least three other issues that have come up that we have a disagreement about. I'll just highlight them and leave it to you if these are issues you wish to discuss further, and if so when and where:
(4) The issue of whether the suitability of the institution to other purposes is relevant. I don't believe Op-Ed's example proved anything. But I won't say anything further unless you want to pursue this issue further.
(5) The issue of the couple with a post menopausal woman. Again we certainly have some disagreements on this issue, but I'll leave it to you to decide if it's something you wish to discuss further on this thread.
(6) The issue of whether the original question concerned a general case with an illustrative example, or dealt with a specific case. This doesn't seem worth arguing, but it is an area of disagreement, and again I'll leave the choice to you.
So I'm happy to discuss any of these matters further. Where we stand now, though, is that we agree that under certain premises which may or may not be true it would be acceptable to exclude certain arrangements from an institution which may or may not exist. It's not a lot, but I guess it's a start.
Okay, I'm back.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let me clarify my answer to Chino's first attempt to divert from Op-ed's question.
Wouldn't it be wrong to wage a campaign designed to convince certain parents that their own children deserve to be excluded from the benefits otherwise available to others who strive to enter a committed relationship?
On Lawn's answer was correct; yes, it would be wrong, which is why it's wrong to tell people that they should only marry someone they feel sexually attracted to. No child is being excluded from the benefits. I made the mistake of answering as if Chino had asked this, which is what he really meant, of course:
"Wouldn't it be wrong to wage a campaign designed to convince certain parents that their own children and those they feel most sexually attracted to deserve to be excluded from the benefits otherwise available to others who strive to enter a committed relationship?
And my answer to this remains, NO, for the reasons I gave above.
Okay, now back to my question, if it's OK. (Or, if it should be moved to a new thread, let me know via E-mail).
ReplyDelete"Is it your contention that people should not be married to, or that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not sexually attracted to?"
KatieKat's answer:
Well, duh! But it's not just sexual attraction. It's also emotional, mental and spiritual attraction, too. So, yes, it is my contention that people should not be married to, and that society should not encourage them to be married to, someone who they are not emotionally, mentally, spiritually, *and* sexually attracted to.
So, in KatieKat's opinion, I guess it's also OK when the couple who've been married for 30 years or more, and who've had children, decide to call it quits because they no longer feel sexually attracted to each other. And that society should not encourage them to stay married.
Danderhall's answer to my question:
I believe that society should not encourage someone to get married to someone to whom he or she has no sexual attraction. However, I believe that once a couple is married, society should generally encourage them to remain married regardless of how sexually attracted they are to one another.
Well, that's a little better. But tell me just how society can really send the message that "people should not get married when there's no sexual attraction" without simultaneously conveying that "people should not stay married when there's no longer any sexual attraction?" I don't see how it's possible.
You know, ever since this debate began, proponents of neutered marriage have loved to point to how high the divorce rate is among heterosexual couples. Well, as I see it, one of the biggest factors, possible even the biggest factor, in the already high divorce rate among heterosexuals is this notion that the marriage is "living a lie" if they are not sexually attracted to each other, or no longer "sexually satisfied".
ReplyDeleteI have seen so many long-married couples, and even recently-married couples, break up due to this belief, that I would like to say to them that I do not give a rat's posterior whether or not they are "sexually satisfied". I don't, of course, feeling that it's none of my business, but really, in the larger sense, it's all of our business, since the future of our children and society depend on this belief being exposed for the destructive force that it is.
What has this got to do with neutered marriage? (BTW, Chino, thank you for admitting that that's what SSM really is). Plenty. Neutered marriage can only reinforce and indeed enshrine and codify the notion that a marriage is a "lie" unless the couple is sexually attracted to each other and "sexually satisfied". As it's entire rationale is that certain people should not be in a marriage as it's always been defined because they could not be "sexually satisfied" in such a marriage.
The belief that a marriage depends on "sexual satisfaction" started long before the campaign for neutered marriage did, of course. But it's not hard to see how it can only get worse with the enshrinement of the latter.
Neutered marriage proponents argue that it's wrong for a homosexually-inclined person to marry the opposite gender because that's not in their nature to be attracted to them.
Well, really, it's in the nature of some?/many?/most? men, even as they age, to be most sexually attracted to young women. And, likely, also in the nature of some?/many?/most? women, even as they age, to be sexually attracted to young men (though perhaps to a less pronounced degree). Faithful husbands and wives resist this tendency. But when society sends out the message that "if you're not sexually attracted or satisfied enough, you're living a lie", is there any surprise when more and more don't stay faithful?
If anyone can explain how neutered message is not only further reinforcing this pernicious message, please do.