Slight rant about marriage argument

[Sea Thrift]

"The institution of marriage is not about the couple; it's about the children."

I've heard this argument twice now, and it makes me both laugh and grit my teeth. Marriage is about children, and not the two people who are married?

Wrong. SO wrong. This argument is stupid on so many levels.

1. Why do two people get married? Is it because they want to produce and take care of children? Probably not, at least that would most likely not be their first goal in mind. Unless they live under a fringe, ultraconservative/religious household that demands they come together and create offspring to fill the world, the main reason two people decide to get married is this: THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. Marriage, first and foremost, at its foundation--has really nothing to do with children. It has to do with a mutual love between two adults. Ideally.

2. This is where this argument falls apart even harder: if marriage is about children, and not couples, then what about infertile couples? What about couples who DON'T want to be parents? Are their marriages somehow nullified because they don't have children? Are they somehow obligated to adopt or seek out a female for a surrogate pregnancy? NO, BECAUSE MARRIAGE ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CARE OF CHILDREN. IT'S ABOUT TWO PEOPLE MARRYING EACH OTHER. THAT'S WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS.

Oh yes, another stupid argument I've heard for "protecting" this institution of marriage: because it takes a male and female to have sex and make a baby (FALSE. A male and female having sex isn't necessary to make a baby. A male and female don't even need to meet or know each other to make a baby. It's called artificial insemination), that means marriage should stay between a man and a woman.

...How the hell is that suppose to mean ANYTHING? Yes, it takes these chromosomes and these chromosomes to make a baby. Glad they figured that out! But how does that scientific fact prove that straight marriage is the only marriage that counts? Are people saying that marriage magically allows reproduction to be possible between a male and female? Lol What the hell does that argument suppose to prove? A male and female can have sex and produce a baby out of wedlock, right? I'm not imagining this, am I?

Or maybe this argument is saying that because it takes a male and female to make a baby, then straight marriage just makes the most sense? Here's where this argument fails:

Sex =/= gender. Female =/= woman. Male =/= man. Straight couple =/= male and female together. Straight couple = man and woman together. Therefore, two trans people of the opposite genders, or a trans person and a cisgender person, can totally be a straight couple. Uh oh, what then?! And if they've had sex changes, then having babies is completely out the window! The argument, then, that because a male and female can make babies means that straight marriage is the only kind of marriage--MAKES NO FRIGGIN SENSE AND DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRAIGHT TRANS COUPLES. It proves nothing.

I feel better now. I just had to get that out of my system. If anyone has anything else to add, please add it!  

[Purple Robot Queen]

Sea Thrift

"The institution of marriage is not about the couple; it's about the children."

I've heard this argument twice now, and it makes me both laugh and grit my teeth. Marriage is about children, and not the two people who are married?

Wrong. SO wrong. This argument is stupid on so many levels.

1. Why do two people get married? Is it because they want to produce and take care of children? Probably not, at least that would most likely not be their first goal in mind. Unless they live under a fringe, ultraconservative/religious household that demands they come together and create offspring to fill the world, the main reason two people decide to get married is this: THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. Marriage, first and foremost, at its foundation--has really nothing to do with children. It has to do with a mutual love between two adults. Ideally.

2. This is where this argument falls apart even harder: if marriage is about children, and not couples, then what about infertile couples? What about couples who DON'T want to be parents? Are their marriages somehow nullified because they don't have children? Are they somehow obligated to adopt or seek out a female for a surrogate pregnancy? NO, BECAUSE MARRIAGE ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CARE OF CHILDREN. IT'S ABOUT TWO PEOPLE MARRYING EACH OTHER. THAT'S WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS.

Oh yes, another stupid argument I've heard for "protecting" this institution of marriage: because it takes a male and female to have sex and make a baby (FALSE. A male and female having sex isn't necessary to make a baby. A male and female don't even need to meet or know each other to make a baby. It's called artificial insemination), that means marriage should stay between a man and a woman.

...How the hell is that suppose to mean ANYTHING? Yes, it takes these chromosomes and these chromosomes to make a baby. Glad they figured that out! But how does that scientific fact prove that straight marriage is the only marriage that counts? Are people saying that marriage magically allows reproduction to be possible between a male and female? Lol What the hell does that argument suppose to prove? A male and female can have sex and produce a baby out of wedlock, right? I'm not imagining this, am I?

Or maybe this argument is saying that because it takes a male and female to make a baby, then straight marriage just makes the most sense? Here's where this argument fails:

Sex =/= gender. Female =/= woman. Male =/= man. Straight couple =/= male and female together. Straight couple = man and woman together. Therefore, two trans people of the opposite genders, or a trans person and a cisgender person, can totally be a straight couple. Uh oh, what then?! And if they've had sex changes, then having babies is completely out the window! The argument, then, that because a male and female can make babies means that straight marriage is the only kind of marriage--MAKES NO FRIGGIN SENSE AND DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRAIGHT TRANS COUPLES. It proves nothing.

I feel better now. I just had to get that out of my system. If anyone has anything else to add, please add it!

I do totally agree with you, but for the record I doubt that most of the ultra-conservative people making these arguments would count the trans relationships you listed as "straight". I think they'd pretty much only count a biological male and biological female together as a straight couple, for the sake of this argument.  

[Sea Thrift]

Purple Robot King

I do totally agree with you, but for the record I doubt that most of the ultra-conservative people making these arguments would count the trans relationships you listed as "straight". I think they'd pretty much only count a biological male and biological female together as a straight couple, for the sake of this argument.

I thought about that, yes, but I decided to throw in the sex =/= gender argument anyway, just because while many ultraconservative persons might not believe it, it's still a very relevant point, especially nowadays.

Even if they want to say that a straight trans or trans and cis couple isn't actually straight according to their rulebook, the argument is still extremely weak. It still leans on the logic that marriage is all about children and not about the couple. It assumes that all straight couples, if married, are out to reproduce because they're male and female. It's as if these people are thinking, " well, what else would a couple do if not make babies? I just can't imagine anything else! *gasp* It would be so selfish!" Lol, it's just some of the silliest reasoning I've heard yet.

But yes, you made a good point, and I did consider it. Thanks for bringing it up.  

[Purple Robot Queen]

Sea Thrift

Purple Robot King

I do totally agree with you, but for the record I doubt that most of the ultra-conservative people making these arguments would count the trans relationships you listed as "straight". I think they'd pretty much only count a biological male and biological female together as a straight couple, for the sake of this argument.

I thought about that, yes, but I decided to throw in the sex =/= gender argument anyway, just because while many ultraconservative persons might not believe it, it's still a very relevant point, especially nowadays.

Even if they want to say that a straight trans or trans and cis couple isn't actually straight according to their rulebook, the argument is still extremely weak. It still leans on the logic that marriage is all about children and not about the couple. It assumes that all straight couples, if married, are out to reproduce because they're male and female. It's as if these people are thinking, " well, what else would a couple do if not make babies? I just can't imagine anything else! *gasp* It would be so selfish!" Lol, it's just some of the silliest reasoning I've heard yet.

But yes, you made a good point, and I did consider it. Thanks for bringing it up.

Yeah, just thought it was worth mentioning. Like I said, I totally agree with you.

Personally, the line I've grown tired of hearing is "Marriage is a religious institution." That's total crap. Even if there are religious origins to marriage (which is a much longer discussion for another time) the fact is that it's also a political and social institution in modern society. If it were strictly a religious observance then atheists couldn't marry, married couples wouldn't get tax incentives, marriage would not affect inheritance laws or power of attorney or laws about testifying in court or hospital visitation rights or insurance coverage . . . yet all those things (and more) are true of marriage. So the "religious institution" garbage gets old and is clearly bogus, yet it still keeps being repeated.

That and the "unnatural" thing. Which, again, it isn't true to begin with that homosexuality is unnatural (if it were, it wouldn't appear in so many animals). Even if we were to grant that rather massive point, though, marriage of any kind isn't "natural" anyway. It's a ceremony and a legal contract, not a tree, so what the hell does nature have to do with it?  

[Sea Thrift]

Purple Robot King

Yeah, just thought it was worth mentioning. Like I said, I totally agree with you.

Personally, the line I've grown tired of hearing is "Marriage is a religious institution." That's total crap. Even if there are religious origins to marriage (which is a much longer discussion for another time) the fact is that it's also a political and social institution in modern society. If it were strictly a religious observance then atheists couldn't marry, married couples wouldn't get tax incentives, marriage would not affect inheritance laws or power of attorney or laws about testifying in court or hospital visitation rights or insurance coverage . . . yet all those things (and more) are true of marriage. So the "religious institution" garbage gets old and is clearly bogus, yet it still keeps being repeated.

That and the "unnatural" thing. Which, again, it isn't true to begin with that homosexuality is unnatural (if it were, it wouldn't appear in so many animals). Even if we were to grant that rather massive point, though, marriage of any kind isn't "natural" anyway. It's a ceremony and a legal contract, not a tree, so what the hell does nature have to do with it?

Indeed. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one despite religious associations, for the reason you've already pointed out.

The whole unnatural argument is incredibly faulty, too. "Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore gay marriage is unnatural!" Pardon me, but... how can one go against one's nature? Show me proof that this is possible.

But then people argue, "Then what about murder and rape and horrendous stuff everywhere!" I'd say--are we really comparing homosexuality to murder and rape? Get real, lol. Apples and friggin' oranges. But I digress. A topic like that could become deeply philosophical very quickly, lol.  

[FauxZombie]

Actually to add further to this... there has been research going on that a male may not even be needed in some pregnancies - that means, of course, that sciences and medical steps in to help with this process.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Bam!
However, of course, it's not perfected but the point is... it is another alternative to further reproduction.  

[Purple Robot Queen]

Sea Thrift

But then people argue, "Then what about murder and rape and horrendous stuff everywhere!" I'd say--are we really comparing homosexuality to murder and rape? Get real, lol.

My grandmother, when talking about the state of modern society, is prone to using the phrase "all these rapists and murderers and homosexuals".

The ironic (and horrible) thing is that my uncle, her son, is actually in prison right now for raping a 12-year-old, and she seems to want to overlook that.  

[Shanna66]

I hate that argument so much. and they never have any answers when you bring up infertile couples  

[Sea Thrift]

FauxZombie

Actually to add further to this... there has been research going on that a male may not even be needed in some pregnancies - that means, of course, that sciences and medical steps in to help with this process.

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Bam!
However, of course, it's not perfected but the point is... it is another alternative to further reproduction.

Science can be cool like that.  

[AmeliaParadox]

eh, they won't know when they marry my man and I, will be laughing inside cat_razz  

[XrosHeartless]

I don't believe in marriage at all. I've seen what it does to people and there's a reason 50% of marriages end in divorce. It's not something that's actually needed and yet we as a society consider it a requirement, a goal.  

[-Explosion-Array-]

We decided upon not having children. Do you know much those things cost?! Honestly. And anyway, there's a lot of kids out there that are already born that need help. I think it's selfish the way people continually pop out these children and make a big deal about it.

We're married. Mainly because we wanna share our finances and the rest of our life together. It's funny, because we're kinda old-fashioned, but at the same time. This notion of us not wanting children certainly isn't. XD

I think people don't really grow up anymore. It's not a requirement, it's an option that people overlook. Therefore, commitment frightens them. Besides... the Garden of Eden didn't have children screaming about it.  

[Maculkin]

Sea Thrift

Purple Robot King

Yeah, just thought it was worth mentioning. Like I said, I totally agree with you.

Personally, the line I've grown tired of hearing is "Marriage is a religious institution." That's total crap. Even if there are religious origins to marriage (which is a much longer discussion for another time) the fact is that it's also a political and social institution in modern society. If it were strictly a religious observance then atheists couldn't marry, married couples wouldn't get tax incentives, marriage would not affect inheritance laws or power of attorney or laws about testifying in court or hospital visitation rights or insurance coverage . . . yet all those things (and more) are true of marriage. So the "religious institution" garbage gets old and is clearly bogus, yet it still keeps being repeated.

That and the "unnatural" thing. Which, again, it isn't true to begin with that homosexuality is unnatural (if it were, it wouldn't appear in so many animals). Even if we were to grant that rather massive point, though, marriage of any kind isn't "natural" anyway. It's a ceremony and a legal contract, not a tree, so what the hell does nature have to do with it?

Indeed. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one despite religious associations, for the reason you've already pointed out.

The whole unnatural argument is incredibly faulty, too. "Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore gay marriage is unnatural!" Pardon me, but... how can one go against one's nature? Show me proof that this is possible.

But then people argue, "Then what about murder and rape and horrendous stuff everywhere!" I'd say--are we really comparing homosexuality to murder and rape? Get real, lol. Apples and friggin' oranges. But I digress. A topic like that could become deeply philosophical very quickly, lol.

LOL republicans disagree :p

where did rape eve come from.. these people  

[Shanna66]

XrosHeartless

I don't believe in marriage at all. I've seen what it does to people and there's a reason 50% of marriages end in divorce. It's not something that's actually needed and yet we as a society consider it a requirement, a goal.

no its not needed but it does have plenty of benefits. my husband and I get a lot back on our taxes because we are married and I don't work much, its great!

not to mention I get to be on my husband's health insurance! to me that is a thing I need to survive

if a marriage is done well then it shouldn't change the people involved at all.