View Single Post
Old 2015-07-30, 06:01   #1525
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

2·1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux View Post
First, I didn't ask what affect the change would have on you personally. I asked what affect the change would have on society. Do the two unions serve the same social purpose?

Second, we can switch your "if I was in a relationship that couldn't have children" from being an a priori hypothesis to being part of your personal choice, by backing-up-in-time to the wedding event.
For this first question I honestly believe in society writ large if somehow everyone were in relationships with different biological consequences the net result would be the same. People get their licenses from city hall and additionally apply religious ceremonies if desired. So these actions are the same.

The tacit assumption that there would be less or more child bearing couples has less to do with facts of biology and more with social and scientific institutions abilities to allow pathways foreward when exigencies balk particular couples abilities to progress with their desires for child rearing.

I do not believe that the statistical consequences are significant other then a constructed bias in viable couples established by the hypothesis.

As for backing up circumstances to the wedding event, this a generalization and a forcasting problem best described by applying emotional affective forecasting to emotional feelings about child rearing.

Last fiddled with by only_human on 2015-07-30 at 07:06 Reason: verb problem, changed to subjunctive. s/apply additional/additionally apply/
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote