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

To: livianne
Yes, and my two male neutered puppies still seem to enjoy humping each other. But they can do that the rest of their lives and nothing will come of it.

Factually true. What's your point?

The reason for marriage is the creation of a family through procreation.

Well, there was the time when it also essentially transferred ownership of a woman from her family to her new husband. But I suppose that you won't want to get into the real history of marriage, because you already have your own fantasy about how marriage has been absolutely the same for the last 5000 years.

You show me ONE same sex couple that can naturally procreate without the introduction of a third party, then I will change my position right now. Just one.

Does this mean that you also do not support marriage between opposite sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to do so?
143 posted on 05/18/2004 11:22:09 AM PDT by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://tinyurl.com/3xj9m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio
Yes, and my two male neutered puppies still seem to enjoy humping each other. But they can do that the rest of their lives and nothing will come of it. Factually true. What's your point?

My point is simply that just because something naturally feels good to you doesn't mean it's what will naturally lead to the continuation of the species. And the creation and protection of the next generation is the only good reason in my mind to get married. If I wanted to be with my husband but never have children, we might not have gotten married. People who say marriage is about the rights of the people getting married have lost the real meaning of the promise that marriage SHOULD be.

Well, there was the time when it also essentially transferred ownership of a woman from her family to her new husband. But I suppose that you won't want to get into the real history of marriage, because you already have your own fantasy about how marriage has been absolutely the same for the last 5000 years.

Actually, I have no fantasy about what marriage used to be and what it is now. But in any definition of marriage, the purpose was for the woman to bear children and for the man to protect the woman and children. There were times when it was permitted for women to be treated horribly, and a time when women were simply property, and I wouldn't go back to those days. Don't pretend you have some sort of intellectual superiority to me simply because you deem your views superior to mine. Just because changes that have been made are positive changes for the family doesn't mean EVERY change is positive. Heard of reaching a point of diminishing returns? Well, we're past it. Way, way past it.

Does this mean that you also do not support marriage between opposite sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to do so?

That one gets a mixed answer. Do I support marriage for those who don't want to create a family? No, not really - I don't see the point if you aren't going to have children. Would I change the laws to make it so they cannot marry? No, because people change their minds all the time. As for people who can't bear children, some do end up with a miracle baby (often after adopting), and those who don't can offer a baby with nowhere to go a loving home and a mother and a father, which every child needs. By definition, a same sex couple can't offer a mother and a father.

144 posted on 05/18/2004 11:49:02 AM PDT by livianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | 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