Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please show me a state or federal law that says procreation is required for marriage?
If you believe marriage is all about procreation, do you support banning the elderly, post menopausal women, and infertile from getting married?
Heh.
I'll show everyone state laws that require infertility (ie, the inability to procreate as a couple) for marriage.
Arizona allows marriage between first cousins provided at least one of the first cousins can prove they are unable to procreate (and similar laws for marriages between other than first cousin - see the link). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin...tates_by_state
Of course, the feeble and nonsensical argument that procreation is a necessary component of marriage has largely been abandoned by anti-gay litigants because one court after another has definitely shown that there has never been any sort of legal requirement for marriage requiring the ability of the two marrying to be able to procreate as a couple. Litigants, unlike a great many C-D posters, generally prefer not to manifest their foolish ignorance by making absurd and long-debunked arguments.
As to the main question of this thread, I am not concerned with consensual sexual relations between competent adults. Period.
I didn't vote, because I didn't like the lack of limitations in the choices. Age of participants, for instance.
But, to cut to the bottom line, I really don't care what somebody else does in the privacy of their own homes or motel rooms. I don't care about the marriage of cousins, either.
I didn't vote, because I didn't like the lack of limitations in the choices. Age of participants, for instance.
But, to cut to the bottom line, I really don't care what somebody else does in the privacy of their own homes or motel rooms. I don't care about the marriage of cousins, either.
Marriage laws were designed to protect people. In particular the people who might be born from the union. If they offered no protection, they wouldn't be worth having. So, legally, we have to care about some things but to each his own behind closed doors as long as they are responsible. The only reason marrying your sister is illegal is that the risk of birth defects goes up.
As long as we're redefining marriage, and marriage is no longer about protecting women and children why not incest? If marriage isn't about protecting people (children in particular), you have to really allow anyone to marry anyone. Why would you discriminate? You only have an issue if marriage is about protection (particularly for children) but now you're back to marriage being regulated in cases where children can be born of the union with no need for marriage in other cases where biology would dictate that children won't be born of the union.
The real question here is what is the purpose of marriage laws. Answer that and you'll have your answer to all the other questions.
If marriage is about equality and recognition of one's freedom to pick a life partner, then you have to allow anyone to marry anyone and as many anyone's as they want to marry. If it's about protecting the children (and women because we take a financial hit by being the ones who bear children and do most of the child care) who might be born of a union, you only need legal marriage in cases where the union could produce children. There really is no in between here. Determine why we need marriage law and we'll know who can and cannot marry. If marriage is just about love, there is no reason to even have legal marriage. It's none of the government's business. If it's about protection for women and children, that's different because the government would have to step in if women and children are not protected.
I can't answer the poll because I do not support incest. I see no need to redefine marriage. The purpose of our marriage law is to protect women and children and, at this point in time, I see no need to change that. I would hope that the day would come when women would no longer be discriminated against because we are the ones who get pregnant and take leaves. When that day comes, women won't need marriage any more. With DNA tests, we already don't need it for children. Maybe some day the government can just get out of our private lives altogether.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-06-2014 at 10:16 AM..
Why are the marriage re-definers having such a hard time with this one?After all, its all about love, consent, and equality.Right?
Who or what are the "marriage re-definers"? I know of no such people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
