should people who can not procreate be allowed to marry?
Should every female have a fertility test to determine her ability to bear children...and males a sperm count?
Should we deny marriage to those who are past their child bearing years?
Should a perscription for viagra nullify the marriage contract?
Your thoughts....
2006-11-26 14:25:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
The purpose of marriage is to legally bind two people together for tax, monetary, and other reasons. It is not for procreation, though I do think I see where you’re going with this...
They use it as an excuse to deny gay people any semblance of acceptance. Marriage is considered a religious thing though in the US it’s more of a legal thing than anything else. It’s an excuse and a poor one at that, for those that can’t stop hating and want something to blame besides themselves for their hate.
It takes a person to hate not a bible, marriage papers, or any other thing. It’s hard to look at yourself in the mirror if you think you are a hateful person, so they attach to other objects to pass their hate onto. It’s an attack usually after they have tried the "your going to hell because the bible says you are", then someone says "what a loving god you have", then comes the "Marriage is between a man and a woman".
Bla who cares. All I care about is the one I love and taking care of him and making sure he is happy. Let the haters have their pathetic excuse of marriage which now a day means nothing any way... It pretty much says... Hang with them as long as you can, until you find someone else, then divorce, then re-marry. It’s become just an easy legal way to split.
So they can keep marriage, I don’t need it. All I need is me and the one I love! That’s all that matters. Let them keep their stupid ceremony if they want to get that upset over it.
2006-11-26 14:41:46 · answer #1 · answered by calcdffirefighter 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When I married a man (in my youth) who wore women's clothing, procreation wasn't something we even considered. I was not about to bring a child into the world of the 70's, it was just too heartless. Then my 16yr old sister got herself pregnant and we had a long hard discussion about what kind of people were reproducing, and decided that we had a duty to reproduce ourselves and try to balance things out. So we did and had twin daughters, who will replace each of us. However, the marriage was doomed to failure as we really had nothing in common and did not love each other, obviously not soul mates.
Now I have found my soul mate, and while we cannot legal marry in our state, we also can not reproduce as I am post menopausal and she is in the middle of it. So time has taken away our ability to procreate. So, if we cannot have children together, should we be allowed to marry? If one of us were male and the other female, this would be a ridiculous question. Of course we should be allowed to spend our "golden" years in the comfort of love, devotion and companionship, treated with legal respect by the state and the country we pay our taxes and vote in. However since we are of the same gender, somehow it becomes an issue of reproduction.
I want to marry legally, recognized in my state and in my country because it is simply the right thing for two middle aged, middle class, Midwestern women to do.
2006-11-27 01:01:41 · answer #2 · answered by tjnstlouismo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good point!!! But that is not why people are against gay marriage..... I live in the Bible belt, and I hear all this about homosexuality being evil, an abomination, etc. People are scared of what they do not know, what is not seen as normal.
Check out this video clip...Jimmy Swaggart is an asshole!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbcko2xyrlE
2006-11-26 22:48:07 · answer #3 · answered by country_girl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this is one argument I've never understood myself. why do those opposed keep saying this is what marriage is for? if this is their argument for us not being able to get married, then they should apply it to straight people as well. to those unable to conceive, or those who simply don't want children, should they be banned? or my mother and step dad, both widowed with grown children and past child-bearing age, should they not be allowed? marriage is for 2 people who love each other and are committed to each other....NOT just about children!
2006-11-27 09:28:51 · answer #4 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is a contract between two who pretty much become one. It is not for procreation, sex is for procreation, but abortion pretty much evens out the bad sexual experiences.
2006-11-26 22:28:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I asked and defended myself against a couple of religion people with this thought... on the religious sight when I seen the condeming homosexuals,,, (I was eaten alive)
Your thoughts are on the right track....hahaha
2006-11-26 22:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by southernboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is a union of two individuals, a public proclamation of their eternal bond & love.
Sex is for pleasure AND procreation.
2006-11-27 00:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by evemarkra 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If this is an anti gay remark, please leave those people alone. They have so much **** to deal with every day, but in answer to your question nobody should be denied the right to marry, to each is own.
2006-11-26 22:29:51 · answer #8 · answered by gitsliveon24 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is for two people in love, after that whatever happens, just happens.
2006-11-26 22:28:31 · answer #9 · answered by Nort 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What about those that marry for financial benefits and never get kids?
2006-11-26 23:15:55 · answer #10 · answered by Ravi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋