Christians think tanks, such as those at the Family Research Council, use the child bearing one a lot. I don't think its a very good argument.
The FRC version of it reasons that:
1. It is the only relevant factor, i.e. ignoring property rights and more in regards to marriage because "unions" and other legal statuses can deal with that
2. The fact that many couples choose not to or are incapable of having children does not put a damper in their stance because those who don't intend to have children might change their minds, and those incapable might be surprised and have one
The idea that the couple can use an alternate legal method to attain couples rights sounds exactly like Sophie's picture, to me.
The 2nd justification is just plain silly. Many couples who choose not to have children simply will not change their minds, and there are ways to reduce the chances of childbearing to close to 0 that we can safely say they won't have any accidents. Some people marry at very old ages, or who are missing the means to reproduce, for whatever reason, such that they definitely won't be surprised with a child... we don't discriminate against these people for wanting to have a marriage even if it definitely won't involve having a child.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Kirk LeFou in Small Talk. Last reply by Kirk LeFou 18 minutes ago.
Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk 12 hours ago.
Started by Ole Fredrik Skjegstad in The Bible, The Koran, and other scripture. Last reply by TJ 14 hours ago.
Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk. Last reply by TJ 14 hours ago.
Started by TJ in Philosophy. Last reply by TJ on Sunday.
Sunday School July 24th 2016
Sunday School July 17th 2016
Sunday School July 10th 2016
Posted by Davis Goodman on July 26, 2016 at 8:20pm
Posted by navid on July 26, 2016 at 10:00am
Computer Help Forums
© 2016 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.