Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mojojockey
I would ask in reply to some of these comments:
Since when is marriage about procreating?
You can procreate perfectly well without marriage.
marriage is just a title we give the the promise to be faithful to your partner, to stay by their side always, to help them in raising any children that you may have had as a result of the procreating. plenty of women and mean are not able to have children, and i don't see how you can say that marriage is about procreation without insulting their marriages. The ways that some people are replying to posts in this forum are teetering on the border of insulting straight married couples because of situations beyond their control.
26 posted on 02/02/2007 11:14:12 AM PST by freedomadvocate35 (excuse me,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: freedomadvocate35

"I would ask in reply to some of these comments:
Since when is marriage about procreating?
You can procreate perfectly well without marriage."

Everybody understands that not all couples can have children for a variety of reasons. There have always been childless marriages. Childless married heterosexuals, however, do not radically redefine marriage in a manner which never existed before even in ancient Rome or Greece. They still present the role model of a couple who could have children or adopt children. Maybe they had children in the past. Whatever the case, they don't "stick out" from the crowd, if you will. Kids can look at the couple and think of Mom and Dad whether they have kids or not. I know childless couples who get involved with their friends' kids.
The comparisons you hear between gay couples and interracial couples are inaccurate. When the debate about interracial marriage was going on, the automatic assumption was made that the couples would be heterosexual. Allowing interracial heterosexuals to marry was a true expansion of marriage. Gay marriage is a redefinition.
The reason why children are so important is that they are our entire future. The government needs new children because this is how society perpetuates itself. The government has no compelling interest in getting involved in an institution which mostly involves adults because it has little to do with the long-term future. If married heterosexuals ceased to have that many children, the government would have no compelling interest in heterosexual marriage either. The great majority of married heteros do have children, but this does not mean that childless couples are inferior.
I am disturbed by your attitude towards illegitimacy. So many illegitimate children grow up in poverty and are inadequately supervised by adults. Surely we know by now that boys especially need fathers. Listen to an inner-city minister on this subject.
Couples with kids who live together without getting married are far more likely to break up than are married folks, and do it sooner. If the father is not the child's own, there is an increased risk of child abuse. This does not mean that all unrelated fathers abuse children, but a greater percentage do this than do genetic fathers. If you're interested in another conservative web site which posts a number of articles on these topics, go to http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp and type your topic into the search button in the upper left hand corner.


28 posted on 02/02/2007 2:34:25 PM PST by beejaa (HY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson