Friday, February 10, 2012

Andrei Question of the day: The unanswerable question

Managing perpetuation of the species is a problem for all civil societies. In the most of the World this has been done via an institution called marriage which in our Western heritage means one man bonded with one women for the purpose of conceiving and raising children.

It has been this way for well over 2000 years with minor variations in form.

For some reason it is now considered unfair or something that men cannot marry other men or women marry other women.

It is a matter of "rights" we are earnestly informed but nobody can actually articulate what these "rights" might be.

In what way are anybody's rights being denied by restricting marriage to people who are mutually procreative?

9 comment(s):

Anonymous said...

Managing "perpetuation of the species" is not an issue, either for humans, or other animals. It comes quite naturally. I don't kniow if you've noticed, but there is no shortage of human births.

It has been this way for well over 2000 years with minor variations in form

Human history diod not commence when the Jesus Myth was created, we've been at species perpetuation for a lot longer than 2000 years, sometimes with, sometimes without, marriage.

In what way are anybody's rights being denied by restricting marriage to people who are procreative?

Why should marriage be restricted to the "procreative"? I have an aunt, happily married for over 50 years, never able to conceive. The Best Man at my wedding has been married to his wife more than 30 years, again, no children. He is sterile.

Why should they be denied marriage purely due to a biological misfunction? Must all intending couples have fertility tests before marrying?

Andrei said...

Well what a surprise, the meaning of this post sails right over the head of LRO!

Yes LRO reproduction does come naturally. We could for example allow any man to have sex with any woman he fancies regardless of her opinion on the matter - this has occurred in some societies. The male of course has no vested interest in the child resulting from such a union and the mother is left to fend for herself and her offspring - which is not optimum and not a very nice state for females to live under. As a result societies that have gone down this track have not prospered which is why it is rare but not unknown in human culture.

Having males and females bond before conceiving children and working together to raise them works much better with monogamy working best of all which is why the Jews came to that way as did the Ancient Greeks and Romans well before the Christian era.

As for the question you didn't answer it. You did what every good lefty does when asked a tricky question - diverted by changing the subject

James said...

Its their rights to liberty,property and the pursuit of their own happiness that all human beings inalienably have due to being born human. Marriage is not about procreation between a Man and a Woman...that's one later variant on the original theme which was mainly about property protection and lineage and social status.

Marriage never belonged to Christians and the Church so is not their to lend out to anyone else...its always been a common good for everyone who wants it.

Turning your question... around just what rights were Women being denied by being seen as the owned property of their Husbands?

Unknown said...

Where did Andrei say it belongs to the Church? And your "turn" is a strawman argument and not worth answering - its simply not a valid question.

The real addendum to what Andrei has written, and the logical necessary follow up question: what are the obligations of marriage, and who can meet them all?

Begetting children is one of those obligations - all species must reproduce, mankind has a unique set of circumstances in which it does it. Homosexual behaviour cannot reproduce, hence it cannot be afforded a similar right to heterosexual behaviour because it simply cannot meet that obligation.

Now all the other arguments you and others will undoubtedly make to this are spurious: you cannot fit a round peg in a square hole.

Anonymous said...

We could for example allow any man to have sex with any woman he fancies regardless of her opinion on the matter - this has occurred in some societies.

Yes, and there are a number of stories in the bible where god encouraged and condoned this behaviour. Thank Darwin for a secular law that outlaws it.

There have been many succesful human communities with marriage, and many without. The latter were screwed up by missionaries with their fairytales and sexual hangups.

Denying marriage to homosexuals denies them many human rights, rights that are only available to married couples, not cohabitors, not just the rite of marriage. It denies them the protection of the law in property, health decisions, social services.

Marriage is no guarantee of a child being raised in a loving family, we see many stories of children abused by their married parents.

Marriage is not a magic spell pronounced by sky daddy, it is a public expression of love and committment and it is a legally enforceable contract.

Why are you so insecure that the marriage of two men will make you less of a husband to your wife?

Anonymous said...

The real reason Andrei is opposed to gay marriage.

James said...

Unknown..Having children is not an "obligation" to anyone you Neo-Nazi sounding dropkick. That sort of Uber-mensch "rebuild the white race numbers' breeder thinking is cold and totally repulsive.

People marry for different reasons...having children is but one.

Answer me this....just what actual harm does two gay people marrying cause anyone else? What right does it violate of any other person?

Unknown said...


Andrei said...

          If people don't have children then within a few generations there a no longer any people! How hard is this for you to grasp?

For a society to prosper it needs new people entering adulthood to replace those who have grown too old to work and who are shortly going to die. How hard is this for you to grasp?

It takes twenty years to raise a child to maturity - this takes time, effort and money. How hard is this for you to grasp?

Therefore any society which is going to prosper and persist has to find some way of ensuring that children are conceived and raised and raised well How hard is this for you to grasp?

This is why we have marriage!

This is why it is a near universal cultural priority involving men paired with women

Now again what purpose is served by changing the institution to accommodate "same sex" couples?

And in what way are "same sex" couples denied their "rights" by not opening it up?

This is a very very dangerous thing to do, changing the meaning of something so fundamental to the continuation of our society - and for no earthly reason that anyone can actually articulate

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.