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 Unseen in Politics. Last reply by SteveInCO 2 hours ago.
Started by Belle Rose in Politics. Last reply by matt.clerke 3 hours ago.
Started by Shane Michaels in Small Talk. Last reply by Shane Michaels 9 minutes ago.
Started by Richard Foster in Politics yesterday.
Started by Unseen in Politics yesterday.
Sunday School June 26th 2016
Sunday School June 19th 2016
Sunday School June 12th 2016
Posted by innerspaceboy on June 23, 2016 at 10:00pm
Posted by innerspaceboy on June 23, 2016 at 7:32pm
Computer Help Forums
© 2016 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.