Is procreation the reason for marriage

ReadingForOrders · Nov 10, 2008

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

Last I read he was a regular communicant at St. Monica's Church. At the last Arnold Classic he ask for directions (not of me rats) to a Church that had very early mass. Has this since changed?

OphidiaPhile · Nov 10, 2008

ReadingForOrders said:
Last I read he was a regular communicant at St. Monica's Church. At the last Arnold Classic he ask for directions (not of me rats) to a Church that had very early mass. Has this since changed?

I have always heard that his wife and her family are Christian and he just goes to show them support.

ReadingForOrders · Nov 10, 2008

OphidiaPhile said:
I have always heard that his wife and her family are Christian and he just goes to show them support.

I suppose that may be true. I read elsewhere (internet is indeed unreliable) that he is a communicant. If he is (a communicant) he has at least received the Sacraments of Initiation at some point in his life.

fated · Nov 10, 2008

This is a pretender question. It's a "sort of, kind of, see some similarity now?" question. It avoids the objective proof by replacing the heart of the situation with a gross oversimplification and saying "see!"

Maren · Nov 10, 2008

ReadingForOrders said:
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.

The question is about legal marriage as people feel it should be defined by the state.

ReadingForOrders · Nov 10, 2008

Maren said:
The question is about legal marriage as people feel it should be defined by the state.

Thank you Maren;
As far as the legal contract which the State calls a marriage, no; as far as I know (at least in my state) a couple did not have to produce children to marry, nor was it a condition of staying married.

tcampen · Nov 10, 2008

Funny Fundie said:
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.

How about this...they enter into a sacred vow of being united to another person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law that affords them equal protection under the law with their heterosexual counterparts. They can call it....."marriage"!

Or do you think there is a lack of courage and creativity within too many hetersexuals to think and act accordingly?

wanderingone · Nov 10, 2008

LittleNipper said:
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...

Hmm.. no some are bisexual which means they may have had marriages with children and the marriage failed, some felt compelled to pretend and had marriages with children, and some have used science (you know science can solve anything, ask that funny fundie)

katautumn · Nov 10, 2008

Funny Fundie said:
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.

And science works in the favor of same-sex couples as well through means of artificial insemination and surrogacy. The problem is that even for infertile straight couples, only the wealthy are able of realizing the goal of having children in spite of medical adversity. People such as myself and my husband do not have the finances at our disposal to engage in such a luxury, so your point is moot.

Verv · Nov 10, 2008

It is interesting to see the allegedly non-religious garnering votes by other non-religious people.

I guess it was bound to happen.

Rebekka · Nov 10, 2008

KatAutumn said:
And science works in the favor of same-sex couples as well through means of artificial insemination and surrogacy. The problem is that even for infertile straight couples, only the wealthy are able of realizing the goal of having children in spite of medical adversity. People such as myself and my husband do not have the finances at our disposal to engage in such a luxury, so your point is moot.

Only because you live in the US.
Over here IVF is covered in basic (very affordable) health insurance - at least the first 4 (or 5) attempts are.

I don't think couples need to produce children in order to have a legal marriage.

Is procreation the reason for marriage

Is procreation required for marriage?

Couples are required to have children to remain legally married.

Couples should have children before they can become legally married.

Couples must prove they are capable of having children.

Procreation is not a primary reason for marriage.

Other.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

The White Hart

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

Prodigal Daughter

Senior Veteran

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency