Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Avenger

"As far as those folks who are unable to have children, I'd say that their union, though unable to produce children, at least symbolically reinforces and celebrates the societal model that typically does produce children."

That, I can agree with. However, some members don't seem to think so. Those who cannot produce children should get some kind of cohabitation agreement rather than a marriage certificate (see post #30).

"But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right (i.e. legitimate marriage candidates, not siblings or other partners) to be married" - just for clarification.


55 posted on 08/07/2005 9:33:09 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: All
This opens up the possibility that there will be NO single adults in Canada soon. All one has to do is make sure your partner and you have prenups that state that neither party gets anything from the other and then when one finds a female, or in the case of women, a male, that one wants to marry you simply get a divorce and remarry the person of the opposite sex.

This will start out as a trend and as it grows Canada will end any tax credits for married people because so many people will be married it will be digging into their tax base.

This could very well happen.

In other words, gay marriages could be the end of any benefits for married couples of any persuasion.

57 posted on 08/07/2005 9:41:14 PM PDT by calex59 (If you have to take me apart to get me there, then I don't want to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: NASBWI

"But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right (i.e. legitimate marriage candidates, not siblings or other partners) to be married" - just for clarification.



Curious why this person feels that siblings or parents and children are not legitimate canidates for marriage. Why not? I don't see how one could permit homosexual marriage and yet disallow unions between family members - especially same-sex unions among family member where there was no risk of having children.

Ulitimately there has to be a definition of marriage, and this definition will necessarily exclude some types of unions. Where do we draw the line? I find it interesting that most gays that I have talked with thought that marriage between father-son/mother-daughter was disgusting and unacceptable - they apparently have their limits too. There will always be someone on the outside whinning; perhaps it is best that society keeps these people in the closet so we don't have to hear it.


59 posted on 08/07/2005 9:45:07 PM PDT by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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