[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]That is also your opinion.You're sh!tting me, right? You don't think the reason that men instinctively want to release their sperm inside a woman is because nature wants them to produce offspring? Except, as we've already established, some men don't have that instinct at all. Why should there be allowance for one edge case (childfree hetero couples) but not another? I don't make much of a distinction between heterosexual couples who don't have children and "marriages" between gay couples. Neither live up to the purpose of marriage.People reproducing by having sex =/= reproduction is its purpose.
lowe0
fidosim's forum posts
I'm not.Ya...people have sex for other purposes, but sex itself is an act of procreation. And by "nature", I mean that people are biologically driven to produce offspring.Proposing that a thing has an innate purpose means that it can have no other. But people do have sex for other purposes. Therefore when they have sex, their purpose is not procreation. Sex has the purpose intended at the time it is being done.
Your implied line of reasoning is an argument based on the origin of something (similar to the argument from tradition but we cant speak of tradition when it comes to something purely biological).
Also, a little note: nature wants nothing. The only ones who want in this case are the people. Back then the only concern was offspring. Now it isnt. End of story.
Teenaged
Only for pro-gay marriage tw@ts.Boring.
cybrcatter
Eugenics.
Y/N?
Um, yes it can. Two people permanently bond together in an agreement to produce children with one another, and stay together in order to raise said children.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Which is it? The regulation of procreation or the permanent bond? It can't be both.
worlock77
They can bond together and do that without marriage. And being married does not in any way keep them together if they don't want it. So again, why bother?
Without a formal compact, the guy can bail whenever he wants. Marriage, in principle, should prevent that from happening.Basically, you're divorcing concepts like love and friendship from the purpose of marriage entirely. nocoolnamejimThat I am.
The regulation of procreation.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Wait....I thought procreation was the fundamental purpose of the institution.
worlock77
Which is it? The regulation of procreation or the permanent bond? It can't be both.
Um, yes it can. Two people permanently bond together in an agreement to produce children with one another, and stay together in order to raise said children.In principle it does. "till death do us part." A lot of people may not live up to that standard, which is think is highly unfortunate and undermines the institution, but permanent bond is the fundamental purpose of the institution nonetheless.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Only it doesn't band them together. As many a family values conservitave on their 3rd or 4th marriage can attest. And two people can stay bound together without the marriage. So why bother?
worlock77
Wait....I thought procreation was the fundamental purpose of the institution.
The regulation of procreation.Many people doing something for fun=/=fun is its purpose. I've said this probably 20 times now. Sex is how people reproduce. It stuns me that you apparently don't accept that. That is also your opinion.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Sexual activity can produce children, but it is also possible that it doesnt. Many people have sex just for the pleasure it provides.
Therefore marriage is not necessarily bound up with regulating the production of children.
Unless you want to argue about the purpose of sex, but hey that's not an institution. ^_^
Teenaged
People reproducing by having sex =/= reproduction is its purpose.
You're sh!tting me, right? You don't think the reason that men instinctively want to release their sperm inside a woman is because nature wants them to produce offspring?It bands them together. Without the contract of marriage, one of the parents is not really bound to stay around and to his/her part in raising the child.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
You never did answer why bother with marriage? What benefit is it to two people who wish to raise children?
worlock77
Only it doesn't band them together. As many a family values conservitave on their 3rd or 4th marriage can attest. And two people can stay bound together without the marriage. So why bother?
In principle it does. "till death do us part." A lot of people may not live up to that standard, which is think is highly unfortunate and undermines the institution, but permanent bond is the fundamental purpose of the institution nonetheless.Sexual activity can produce children, but it is also possible that it doesnt. Many people have sex just for the pleasure it provides.Many people doing something for fun=/=fun is its purpose. I've said this probably 20 times now. Sex is how people reproduce. It stuns me that you apparently don't accept that.Therefore marriage is not necessarily bound up with regulating the production of children.
Unless you want to argue about the purpose of sex, but hey that's not an institution. ^_^
Teenaged
Log in to comment