Comment by YmMot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YmMot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split

Yes, except it doesn't seem to be working.

> It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it

In theory yes...in point of fact, it doesn't always work out that way.

I could pick apart your extremely loose reasoning more, but let's get down to brass tacks. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.

There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage. However, if you expand the definition to include them, you must include homosexual couples too.

You're partially right. Marriage encourages stability. I would disagree that is the only reason for it though. More importantly what you're missing is that it's beneficial to society to have ALL families stable...regardless of whether they have biological children or not. It makes for a healthier and happier population.

>Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.

I disagree. Rather than patently absurd, I think it is a natural and biological imperative that the traditional nuclear family is ideal.

I believe that children who do not have a conventional male/female parental duality (i.e., a permanent "mother" and "father" figure that operate as the dominate force in the child's development) are instantly disadvantaged.

>There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage.

This is false; my argument does not exclude heterosexual relationships even amongst infertile people. First, there is the possibility these persons will become fertile; we cannot say for sure that they will not. Secondly, in a home ruled by a permanent heterosexual coupling, there is both a permanent mother figure and a permanent father figure for adopted children. I believe that duality is a majorly important part of the functional development of a child, and therefore intentionally placing a ward in the home of a permanent homosexual coupling is placing them at a serious disadvantage. A home ruled by a permanent homosexual coupling by definition does not have a mother and father figure that fill their respective roles; instead, they have "two dads" or "two moms".

Thirdly, even if a heterosexual coupling can never have or adopt children, it is valuable because it promotes a tradition of stability, garnishes the minds of those who observe its operation with thoughts of elevation, unity, and eternity, and allows individuals who, normally through no personal fault, are infertile to retain dignity and honor among their peers. Fertility is a very personal medical issue and we shouldn't need to broadcast it. I would also like to establish that in this context, polygyny is rather reasonable.

This doesn't mean that mockeries of the true way, like permanent homosexual coupling, are passable; these are counterfeits, minted by confused and misguided individuals. They are no replacement for a permanent heterosexual coupling. As such, we have no interest in the government actively encouraging them and awarding special privileges to practitioners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com