Replies

"My argument was: The purpose of a legally-recognized institute of marriage is to provide stability for a man and a woman who have children."

The problem with that is, there are many heterosexual couples who don't (or can't) have children. Should they not get married then? I would tend to agree with the marriage based on love theory - although within reason. A marriage is a contract, but not of the business variety; it's a contract that binds two people who love each other to a lifelong commitment to care for each other. The debate shouldn't necessarily be why people marry, but who exactly is marrying whom (with regard to sexual orientation)

That was their argument (on the other forum), too. Both were straight and married, with no children.

But, the whole "model" of marriage is based on one man/one woman because they produce children together. So, while we might marry for "love", the reason for the state to recognize a legal institution called marriage is to provide stability for a family that a man and woman might produce together.

Anyway, I'm wondering how many Freepers would agree or disagree.

You are 100% wrong.

Straight couples who do not or can not have children STILL support the marriage for promulgation of society paradign.

There is always the reasonable possiblity that they will end up being parents. The issue of love to establish marriage has no place in law. You must not and can not have judges deciding if a marriage "had love". It is just too absurd. (What will we have a Love-o-meter to determine the alimony amounts?)

Society rewards an insitution not the individuals recreational sex. Marriage is NOT a mere contract. Mere contracts can not be altered annually by legislature with regards to divorce and support laws. Someone who married in 1950 under one set of divorce laws, got divorced in the 60's or 70's or 80's under different sets of laws.

Everything you speak of is just parroting the new DNC talking point put forth by liberal professor guru Prof. Lakoff.

Sorry but like lackoff, your points have no validity in the law or history of law with regards to marriage.

The problem with that is, there are many heterosexual couples who don't (or can't) have children. Should they not get married then?

Actually, most get married first then find they cannot have children. Some get married with the understanding they will not have children, but the option is always there, so many do change their minds and have children.

The basis for marriage is a stable environment for children. Governments have encouraged it just to keep those taxpayers coming.

Actually , the real counter argument for same sex marriage is to just do away with marriage and have no benefits for married people. Then the only reason for same sex or any marriage is gone. We are all the same, cohabiting and satisfying our lust.

But if you do that, who are the only ones that are penalized and have to sacrifice? People with children. It always gets back to the children.