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.
Marriage is not about procreation. What can you not understand about that. And why then do parents of adopted kids get all the 1049 benefits and rights? You fail again.
No marriage isn't about procreation. It ADDRESSES procreation. Marriage exists because of procreation. If we divided like amoebas we wouldn't have marriage.
For example, we have an income tax deduction for mortgages. Why doesn't that law say why we have one? The purpose is to promote homeownership but it doesn't say so in the law. We have speed limits but there's no reason given for why one highway has a speed limit of 55 and the next 70. Laws address whatever the law needs to address but that is different than its reason for existing. I'm sure there's a reason why the expressway nearest to me has a speed limit of 55 but it's not listed anywhere I know of. I just know if I go 70, I'll get a ticket.
If you want to know why marriage exists, look at the history of marriage. It dates back to a time when women and children were the property of the husband/father. It dates back to a time when women lacked the ability to support themselves and their children. It addresses the issue of support for women and children. No the law doesn't say that but laws rarely state why they exist. They just address the situation they address.
And yet case precedence shows that marriage is NOT about reproduction. Why is that? An incarcerated criminal with no possibility of parole, thus no possibility of reproduction, can get married. YET a same sex couple that can have children through the same means as millions of heterosexuals couples can not.
If you want to know how law works look at case precedence.
Also several states only allow some couples to get married if the prove that there is NO possibility of reproduction. That alone proves that marriage is not all about reproduction.
I have shown him/her case precedence that shows that marriage is not about procreation repeatedly, but they refuse to accept it. Maybe if they backed their arguments with actual facts instead of emotion we could get somewhere.
Both marriage and adoption address procreation in that they result in the children being taken care of. Either way, you have legal guardians for the children who are financially responsible for the children and yes, those legal guardians get a deduction for the child (that's another thing that should go away now that the number of kids we have is our choice but that's another debate). Marriage exists because we have procreation that requires a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure if we just divided like a single celled organism marriage would never have been dreamed up.
No marriage isn't about procreation. It ADDRESSES procreation. Marriage exists because of procreation. If we divided like amoebas we wouldn't have marriage.
Marriage addresses many things, reproduction is one, and is not a required element. NONE of the 1100+ benefits and protections require reproduction.
And yet case precedence shows that marriage is NOT about reproduction. Why is that? An incarcerated criminal with no possibility of parole, thus no possibility of reproduction, can get married. YET a same sex couple that can have children through the same means as millions of heterosexuals couples can not.
If you want to know how law works look at case precedence.
Also several states only allow some couples to get married if the prove that there is NO possibility of reproduction. That alone proves that marriage is not all about reproduction.
REALLY??? NOT allowing reproduction, say in cases where the two parties are too closely related, prevents children from being born who might have genetic issues...
However, AGAIN, reproduction is front and center.... but marriage isn't about procreation is it???
Both marriage and adoption address procreation in that they result in the children being taken care of. Either way, you have legal guardians for the children who are financially responsible for the children. Marriage exists because we have procreation that requires a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure if we just divided like a single celled organism marriage would never have been dreamed up.
Yet I reproduced and can't get married. My friends adopted two children and can not get married.
Your argument has been tried in EVERY same sex marriage case and has failed miserably. I suggest you look over the arguments and the judges replies.
Trying the same argument over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity.
Did removing the race restriction remove any other restriction? Nope. There is your answer. Removing the gender restriction has nothing to do with any of the other restrictions.
You fussing and tossing out emotional rants does nothing for your case. Try backing your thoughts with actual facts. Case precedence, state laws, something.
REALLY??? NOT allowing reproduction, say in cases where the two parties are too closely related, prevents children from being born who might have genetic issues...
However, AGAIN, reproduction is front and center.... but marriage isn't about procreation is it???
Really, thus marriage is not all about reproduction. Reproduction is not required for marriage, and marriage is not required for reproduction. Do you honestly think that IF cousins wanted to have children the ability to get a marriage license would stop them? Seriously?
Also the elderly can legally marry, yet there is no possibility of reproduction. Incarcerated criminals can get married IN PRISON and there is no possibility of reproduction.
No, I am showing you how the law works. You do not remove all restrictions just because ONE is removed.
Pot was legalized in some states, does that mean all controlled substances are now legal? Nope. ONE restriction was removed it did nothing to the other restrictions.
REALLY??? NOT allowing reproduction, say in cases where the two parties are too closely related, prevents children from being born who might have genetic issues...
However, AGAIN, reproduction is front and center.... but marriage isn't about procreation is it???
And yet a brother and sister could still have kids outside of marriage if they really wanted to do that. What you're essentially saying is that incestuous couples are barred from marrying because then they'd have sex and have screwed up kids. But incestuous couples pretty much will do that anyway, don't you think? Since "social convention" isn't really high on their list of priorities?
In fact, consanguinity laws really made more sense when families were making arranged marriages to protect their wealth and produce heirs and they routinely dipped into the cousin pool.
Those laws don't make sense now when maybe 0.00001% of people would ever consider marrying their sibling and having kids with them. It's really not an issue.
Reproduction and marriage OFTEN go hand in hand. It CAN go hand in hand. But it is NOT REQUISITE. Otherwise, there'd be an upper age limit to marriage. Also, where almost the same % of same sex households are raising children as heterosexual households, you're NOT encouraging stable family units. You're actually hurting children and acting like a grown one yourself.
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.
