My husband has a super power. He can make the most incredible arguments about an issue that the other side has no hope of properly arguing back. I’ve seen him do this over and over on a local newspaper forum. What typically happens once he uses his debate mojo is that the other side stops responding because they know they’ve been defeated.
While he was playing Zen Master Leaf Blower, he came up with a response to people who claim that marriage is about procreation so they can justify not allowing gay people to get married.
Erik says, “If marriage is about procreation, then people should only be allowed limited licenses to be married, say, three years. If a husband and wife haven’t had kids within those three years, they should have to reapply for a new license. The marriage license would expire completely after the last child in the house reaches a defined legal age.”
Isn’t that brilliant? I mean, if you’re going to argue that marriage is solely about procreation, then let’s make it about procreation. Quit shilly-shallying around, trying to claim that marriage has any deeper reasons, meanings or benefits. Because, of course, then you’d have to admit that gays ought to be able to get married, right?
If we instituted this procreation-only marriage license, who do you think might scream the loudest? Perhaps those most vociferous about marriage being only about procreation?
I suspect the oppostition would argue that that would be too much GOVERNMENT intervention in private lives, though apparently GOVERNMENT regulation of marriage through licensing is not, nor is GOVERNMENT constitutional amendments or so-called “Defense of Marriage” legislation. I think the best argument against the claim that marriage is about procreation is that it completely invalidates marriages between couples who choose not to have children, are infertile, or are past the child-bearing age. Does the church refuse to marry such couples? No, thus exposing their hypocrisy.
If I was one of those people with whom your husband argues, I would respond to him by saying that a marriage cannot be dissolved because the marriage vows promising to love honour and obey until death do you part, are made before God.
Therefore, three-year marriage licenses would be a violation of God’s Laws, which you therefore can’t transgress without dire consequences in the Hereafter.
If the people with whom your husband argues haven’t countered him with this, then all I can say is that they can’t be too bright.
Of course, your husband could also counter this counter by saying that a couple taking precautions when in the Marriage Bed to prevent the the possibility of babies happening, is also a violation of God’s Laws, hence with dire consequences in the Hereafter.
However, I’m not absolutely sure that there’s anything in the Bible which says this. So your husband should research this before venturing on this potentially stony ground of argument.
My husband minored in religious studies in college, Philippe. He has studied the Bible from both a Christian and Jewish perspective. His Jewish studies class was taught by a Rabbi.
While we don’t argue a particular religion’s views on faith, we do argue with how those views intersect with laws that govern all of us. The United States of America was founded on the principle of religious plurality, if I’m not mistaken, although you wouldn’t know that from the way some people talk nowadays. Because of this, our laws need to take into account the basic rights of all human beings, no matter what their faith.
When following “God’s laws,” the laws of a particular faith, no marriage license ought to be needed at all, yet, we have marriage licenses because the laws of our government need to spell out property rights, health issues, custody rights, & etc. for married couples.
The problem is that we’ve allowed particular religious views to dictate what marriage should be at the state level. I don’t believe I will suffer in the Hereafter for preventing the conception of children, nor do I believe that those who get a divorce, thus severing the marriage license, will suffer either. Why should I be bound to religious views I don’t believe because some want them codified into law?
Wow! Well said, Mary!
I’d scream vociferously. . . I’d scream till my vocifer gave out, and then start gesticulating rudely till my gesticules gave out. I’m a married woman with a plan in place to make sure procreation NEVER happens to me.
But it’s funny to hear the people who insist on government mandating who can and can’t marry also carry on about how government is too life-invasive now-a-days.