Is procreation the reason for marriage

[Verv]

This is a dishonest thread because it presents it as if we are in a situation where we want to even legislate what we believe the purpose of marriage is for. That is not the case.

I'd prefer if everyone in the world was a fan of my comedy and I could replace Jay Leno, but it isnt what I am legally pushing for; I do not think Islam is the true religion, but I do not want to illegalize it.

And lastly...

Marriage is something done to resist temptations; both Christ and Paul speak of marriage as an outlet for the sexual desires that we have and that those who can go without marriage ought to consider as much.

 

[Maren]

This is a dishonest thread because it presents it as if we are in a situation where we want to even legislate what we believe the purpose of marriage is for. That is not the case.

Why isn't that the case? Pretty much every state you can start a petition to put whatever you want on the ballot. All you have to do is get a certain number of registered voters to sign it. And, studies have shown that it is extremely easy to get signatures on a petition; even for things that are complete nonsense.

Beyond that, the reason I started this thread is because there are a few posters who continue to claim that gay marriage is wrong because gays can't procreate together like a heterosexual couple. Yet these people, when pressed, show they have a double standard -- they do not want to deny any heterosexual couples the right to married (regardless of fertility or ability of the couple to have kids), rather it is just a convenient excuse against gays.

Because of this I became curious about how people really feel. Sure, we're not going to change the legal definition of marriage. Instead, the poll is just my attempt to understand exactly how people feel about the issue of marriage and procreation; nothing more.

And thank you for adding your thoughts.

 

[Beanieboy]

11 to 1
Yeah, EVERYONE ELSE is wrong.

Did a short bus just drive up? I can't believe the level of stupidity on the board right now.

 

[ttreg]

Once hoosexuals overcome their own homophobia will they create their own concept of marriage and wed accordingly. But! It requires courage and creativity on the part of the homosexual to do so.

Seperate is not equal.

 

[Sycophant]

Once hoosexuals overcome their own homophobia will they create their own concept of marriage and wed accordingly. But! It requires courage and creativity on the part of the homosexual to do so.

The marriage they are interested in is already very well defined. It is a range of rights, privileges, benefits and obligations that are legally bestowed upon a couple upon their agreement to enter into this union.

Beyond that, what it might mean on a personal, cultural, religious or even societal level is entirely up to that couple and their culture, religion and society.

Homosexuals have no need to crate their own concept of marriage as the concept is very clearly defined already, however the people it legally recognises are currently limited to a couple of opposite genders. The only change that needs to be made to meet their concept of marriage is that the restriction on opposite genders be removed.

As it stands at the moment a given couple (homosexual or otherwise) can make any agreement or pledge to one another that they want. Call it a tryst, union, marriage, whatever - but without the legal paperwork from the government that union is entirely between them and not recognised in any other way (making that union inherently 'less' than a legal marriage).

There are three options going forward:

1. Expand 'marriage' to include all couples regardless of gender.
2. Create a 'Civil Union' that has identical rights and privileges as marriage but allows couples regardless of gender.
3. Dissolve 'legal marriage' all together and have the state only recognise a legal 'Civil Union' that is available to couples regardless of gender. The marriage can be whatever they couple wants it to be personally or spiritually.

Personally I favour 1, or alternatively 3. Where I live we've opted for number 2 instead. An improvement in that all couples can enjoy the protections, rights and benefits of a legal union, but not ideal in that it creates and artificial and unnecessary separation.

 

[Verv]

Why isn't that the case? Pretty much every state you can start a petition to put whatever you want on the ballot. All you have to do is get a certain number of registered voters to sign it. And, studies have shown that it is extremely easy to get signatures on a petition; even for things that are complete nonsense.

Why should my personal views be law?

Beyond that, the reason I started this thread is because there are a few posters who continue to claim that gay marriage is wrong because gays can't procreate together like a heterosexual couple. Yet these people, when pressed, show they have a double standard -- they do not want to deny any heterosexual couples the right to married (regardless of fertility or ability of the couple to have kids), rather it is just a convenient excuse against gays.

The purpose for heterosexuals to be together in marriage is the fact it is a method of resisting sin and carrying on the religion through procreation.

Resisting sin is a large part of this.

However, what evidence there is to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural is the fact that the bits do not properly fit together and no procreation is achieved.

I do not even know why it is somehow questioned by westerners whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural.

It's pretty much common sense, guys.

Because of this I became curious about how people really feel. Sure, we're not going to change the legal definition of marriage. Instead, the poll is just my attempt to understand exactly how people feel about the issue of marriage and procreation; nothing more.

And thank you for adding your thoughts.

Your welcome.

 

[Maren]

Why should my personal views be law?

I'm not saying they should be; though I think you'll agree there are some here who appear to think their beliefs should be law. However, your vote is just as powerful as anyone who posts on this thread -- and probably more powerful in your own community, since most of us live elsewhere).

But again, I was just looking to understand people's views.

The purpose for heterosexuals to be together in marriage is the fact it is a method of resisting sin and carrying on the religion through procreation.

Resisting sin is a large part of this.

This is purely a religious belief, and one that is not even shared by most Christians. But your view does raise an interesting question: we know that most people's sexual orientation cannot be changed substantially (studies suggest about over 90% cannot change). As such, does God really believe gays are (or God created gays to be) more resistant to sexual sin then heterosexuals? If not -- and marriage is given to help heterosexuals resist sinning -- why is it that God seems to be setting many gays up for failure (assuming God disapproves of all gay relationships)?

However, what evidence there is to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural is the fact that the bits do not properly fit together and no procreation is achieved.

I do not even know why it is somehow questioned by westerners whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural.

It's pretty much common sense, guys.

Sorry, but no. Just because you don't think the "bits" fit right, there are plenty of others that disagree with you. And they'll counter your argument with how that stimulation of the prostate through the anus (what happens during male gay sex) is very pleasurable. That tends to contradict the idea that it is "unnatural" or "the bits don't fit". And they'll say that is common sense. Your claim also ignores the fact that there are many heterosexual couples that also engage in oral sex (both male and female homosexual acts) and anal sex (done by most gay men). As such, your believe it is unnatural doesn't work as a "logical argument" though I understand that you believe it.

Not to mention, the fact that so many "westerners" question your argument should tip you to the fact that it is colored by your personal feelings and not based on logic.

Your welcome.

 

[WatersMoon110]

We aren't on the brink of extinction.
There is no real need to procreate if you choose not to.

And many reasons not to procreate, like overcrowding. I have many Child Free friends who believe that procreation is unethical (though I disagree).

I think that it is more moral to adopt or foster children than to have one's own. Though I want to do both, have a kid and adopt more kids (and maybe foster while I still have children and certainly after they are grown).

 

[LittleNipper]

The Godly reason for marriage is to find a help meet of a like Christian mind, and start a husband/wife family unit as the foundation for a father/mother child raising unit. To get married to have sex is not a logical reason to get married. One doesn't need to marry to have sex. To marry to have a live in friend, is not a logical reason to marry. People can live together without ever having sex. That is not the bases of a family unit.

 

[Andreusz]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

Do you honestly believe that a wdow and widower in their 70's who marry are going to produce a child under any circumstances?

 

[selfinflikted]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

You just shot yourself in the foot with this one. If "science can conquer all", cannot science also give a gay couple children? Hmmm. I think so.

 

[ReadingForOrders]

OP


Are you asking about the legal contract recognized by the state, or the Rite as recognized by the Church. My answer varies depending upon to which you are referring.

 

[wanderingone]

Correct. Separate is not equal. But homosexuals are filled with self-contempt to such a level that they assume "separate but equal" equals "separate but lower". Once they finally overcome this contempt can they arise themselves out of their lethargy and assert their creativity to come up with an idea of marriage that's truly "separate but equal."

When anti gay Christians realize that there is marriage that is a contract entered into with approval of the state, and there is marriage that is a religious rite they will finally understand that their religious rite is not impacted by the allowing marriage for all. If I choose to be a member of a religion that has as its doctrine a rule that says marriage rites can only be performed for heterosexual couples then so be it. Their church and their members can continue to live by those rules. Why would they need secular law to define that for them? Why would they ask for state contracts to abide by religious doctrine? Christians already have a definition of marriage that they try to force on the state, however they choose ONLY to force it on the state for this particular situation they do not demand any other doctrines be upheld by the state when it comes to this rite.

 

[Verv]

I have always contended that homosexuals are just as any group of people with an acute sin - whether it is alcoholism or people who are overly aggressive - we are all born with some sins that we fall victim to and we must reel them in.

I believe that many homosexuals would make excellent clergy in the sense that they can be more sensitive and understanding. And take note: even though this phrase is complimentary to homosexuals I am sure someone will be upset that I play to a sort of stereotype.

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you honestly believe that a wdow and widower in their 70's who marry are going to produce a child under any circumstances?

I must say that there seems little logical reason for an older man and woman to get married. Apparently it was a fairly rear thing up until the later half of the 20th century. Often it causes legal battles over wills where grown children are concerned. But the social problem comes as to where does the line get drawn. At least the line is drawn at men and women. If we add men and men and women and women ,then basically one is establishing a colony of elderly without family (offspring) to take care of them in their old age. They then become wards of the state.

Sorry, marriage is all about families and not about buddies sleeping together and getting a tax write off. It does sound to me that CA, Govener Arnold Swartzennegger, is a liberal in the wool, or he simply has no clue what is at stake. I do hope he becomes more informed before he makes such bias unthoughtful statements.

Slavery and redefining marriage are simply not related.

 

[wanderingone]

I must say that there seems little logical reason for an older man and woman to get married. Apparently it was a fairly rear thing up until the later half of the 20th century. Often it causes legal battles over wills where grown children are concerned. But the social problem comes as to where does the line get drawn. At least the line is drawn at men and women. If we add men and men and women and women ,then basically one is establishing a colony of elderly without family (offspring) to take care of them in their old age. They then become wards of the state.

Sorry, marriage is all about families and not about buddies sleeping together and getting a tax write off. It does sound to me that CA, Govener Arnold Swartzennegger, is a liberal in the wool, or he simply has no clue what is at stake. I do hope he becomes more informed before he makes such bias unthoughtful statements.

Slavery and redefining marriage are simply not related.

Umm.. maybe because life expectancy was such that getting married later in life wasn't really an option... there wasn't much life later on.... we've already happily created colonies of elderly folks.. isn't that what florida is? and I don't know why you and several others insist there are no children when there is same sex marriage. Plenty of gay people I know have kids, and most didn't adopt.

 

[LittleNipper]

Umm.. maybe because life expectancy was such that getting married later in life wasn't really an option... there wasn't much life later on.... we've already happily created colonies of elderly folks.. isn't that what florida is? and I don't know why you and several others insist there are no children when there is same sex marriage. Plenty of gay people I know have kids, and most didn't adopt.

Yes, and plenty of "homosexuals" are not very true to their so called "nature." Adultery is always a very bad thing, as one former Jersey Governor seems to have learned ---- too bad the divinity school he decided to attend didn't at least consider character very important...

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The Godly reason for marriage is to find a help meet of a like Christian mind, and start a husband/wife family unit as the foundation for a father/mother child raising unit. To get married to have sex is not a logical reason to get married. One doesn't need to marry to have sex. To marry to have a live in friend, is not a logical reason to marry. People can live together without ever having sex. That is not the bases of a family unit.

To get married and have sex with tax breaks is a great reason and about the only truly logical reason there is.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I must say that there seems little logical reason for an older man and woman to get married. Apparently it was a fairly rear thing up until the later half of the 20th century. Often it causes legal battles over wills where grown children are concerned. But the social problem comes as to where does the line get drawn. At least the line is drawn at men and women. If we add men and men and women and women ,then basically one is establishing a colony of elderly without family (offspring) to take care of them in their old age. They then become wards of the state.

Sorry, marriage is all about families and not about buddies sleeping together and getting a tax write off. It does sound to me that CA, Govener Arnold Swartzennegger, is a liberal in the wool, or he simply has no clue what is at stake. I do hope he becomes more informed before he makes such bias unthoughtful statements.

Slavery and redefining marriage are simply not related.

Arnold is not a Christian which is one of the reasons I voted for him.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes, and plenty of "homosexuals" are not very true to their so called "nature." Adultery is always a very bad thing, as one former Jersey Governor seems to have learned ---- too bad the divinity school he decided to attend didn't at least consider character very important...

Many homosexual couples use in vitro fertilization, you know that icky science stuff that makes lots of extra fetuses that I get to use in genetic research.