So this is a new level of evil crazy. "Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing." Full Article ---> Lawyers: The Purpose of Marriage Is Procreation - ABC News
What about the DINKS (Dual-Income-No-Kids)? Are they failing in their duty to preserve humanity??? Those selfish dirty rotten DINKS! I mean really...living in the lap of luxury and all those exciting travel destinations...it's immoral!
Does that mean I can't sell my daughter as part of a business transaction with the man in the next village over? :eek:
This is news? This is one of the core "reasons" behind why these people are against gay marriage, and we've heard it endlessly for years.
I ask some straight people question should straight people who don't want children or can't have children be banned from getting married because marriage is about procreation and not love the same way they banned gays from marrying because they can't reproduce . A few pretended they didn't understand because let's face when you take away their reproduction argument they powerless . Also when i see online straight people saying that marriage is between a man and a woman because they can reproduce I say Oh so marriage isn't about love huh? just making babies ? then why are you guys together why not just pop out babies and date other people why use the marriage just to make babies. They always get mad at me for saying that
There's language in certain laws that refutes this logic. Arizona allows marriage of couples otherwise prohibited from marrying who are of an age where it's unlikely they can reproduce, or can be proven to be unable to reproduce in the same law that prohibits same sex marriage. Arizona Marriage Law. Same for Illinois and a few other states. I just looked up 2 examples.
And it's also estimated that by 2030 that there will be such a lack of protein on earth that starvation will be a real problem, even though it already is a real problem. Making more mouths to feed really is one of the worst things someone can do
Has no one read the marriage vows? Procreation is just ONE of the things in them, and older couples regularly take them out. What happened to "I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honour you all the days of my life."????!!!!
We also don't prohibit people who are infertile from marriage, nor do we prohibit people who are too old to have children, as was brought up in a recent case, arguing for gay marriage. There are many, many instances in which marriage is not merely procreative, and we don't go about banning heterosexual people from the institution due to these reasons.
What I was trying to say with this was that marriage was originally a business relationship between two men. So the purpose has changed throughout history.
In the Bible, God's original statement on that was fairly straightforward: "It is not good for the man to be alone" It does NOT say: It is not good that the man has no woman It is not good that the man has no children Innnterrressstinnng...
I have to give it to people - if you're crazy enough to get up and argue this kind of bullshit, then you really deserve an award...(the prize might be time spent in a field full of manure, but that's a different story. )
When my dad was in medical school they handed out an award for this kind of thing. It was called the golden shovel award, and it was handed out to the person who shoveled the most bullshit. Procreation? Really? That's all they have? Please. I bet these lawyers were the same kids who threw the monopoly board across the room in a temper tantrum when they were little.
Wouldn't that argument also apply to polygamy? After all, one guy with multiple wives could procreate like crazy. it was okay three thousand years ago, back when the earth an under population problem.
Huh. I guess that they're also inferring that trans women aren't women because they can't make babies.
Pretty sure this would mean my aunt and uncle would have to get divorced since they could never have a child of their own for whatever reason and had to adopt. Keep in mind that my uncle is by far the most religious Christian I know.
"Tuesday's brief was the second filed by the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Smith." the irony of the group's name. -.-