Comments on: Marriage is for Breeders, Part II: Marriage in the Social Contract

By: D. Fletcher

D. Fletcher — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:15:41 +0000

I think that’s what was intended, A Nonny.

By: A. Nonny Moouse

A. Nonny Moouse — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:43:14 +0000

and a society that does not have or raise children has bleak prospects indeed (the counter example of the Shakers noted)

I would argue that the Shakers are a prime example of this statement — not a counter example at all: what was once a thriving and incredibly popular religious movement has been reduced to a handful of followers (like 3? 2?) and the name of town in north-eastern Ohio who’s residents probably don’t even know what a Shaker is.

But anyway… I digress :)

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:20:00 +0000

Hey Mark… I’m actually going to address that in a coming post.

By: Mark IV

Mark IV — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:43:42 +0000

Thanks, Silus G.

I’m wondering where you stand on the state allowing gay people (couples or singles) to adopt.

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:47:25 +0000

No… I’m saying that marriage — inasmuch as it touches on the bearing and raising of the next generation — is _very_ much the state’s business.

Now, _how_ the state regulates it, well, that’s a matter up for debate.

By: MahNahvu

MahNahvu — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:13:07 +0000

I believe the state has a vested interest in _regulating_ relationships where children are sired and/or raised… which is not the same thing as “blessing” said unions.

So what you are saying is that marriage, as a concern of the state, is for breeders AND those who raise kids or may raise kids.

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:03:39 +0000

Let me re-word your statement: I believe the state has a vested interest in _regulating_ relationships where children are sired and/or raised… which is not the same thing as “blessing” said unions.

By: MahNahvu

MahNahvu — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:29:16 +0000

Beyond that, the animal kingdom offers us another reason: un-coupled individuals of breeding age pose numerous problems to the herd/pack/tribe/society… and it’s best to get them into a couple or out of society.

Silus, this is, of course, an argument for encouraging SSM. Is there a reason you see this as being a societal interest, but not a state interest?

By: D. Fletcher

D. Fletcher — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:23:58 +0000

Silus, I admit, I don’t really understand your last post, how it relates to mine. It does seem to be true from your original post that you think the state should be involved in blessing the unions of couples who intend on raising children, whether they can have those children naturally or not. My simple argument is that this would pertain to same-sex couples as well as traditional couples.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:17:35 +0000

Silus,
This is interesting. I have to admit that I haven’t ever really thought about marriage in these terms or with this much depth. I don’t have anything more to add to this post. I’m looking forward to the next.