Should we have 'intent' police for marriage?
2006-12-22 05:44:12 · 12 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NULLIFIED...don'tmince words, lawyer lady! lol...and sway, yes I would like you to answer to this hypocrisy, if you could.
2006-12-22 05:51:43 · update #1
and yes, marriages have been rendered null and void before...for instance, bigamy, not that I needed to tell you that...
2006-12-22 05:53:10 · update #2
no, if the governmetn finds out that bigamy has occurred, they will nullify the marriage. Many of the women in these instances are aware that the man is married to others...thanks for following up, and I'm glad you admitted that it was personal belief, and not law, that dictates your thinking...I wish others would do the same.
2006-12-22 05:58:45 · update #3
You must be 18 to enter into a contract. No existing laws would change, and minors would still be protected. Next?
2006-12-22 06:00:05 · update #4
If you argue that gay people shouldn't get married for lack of reproductive capabilities, than you are a hypocrite to say no to this.
Thank you, Susieq. I agree.
Moltar rocks, the same thing that stops heterosexuals from doing the same thing. Laws and society's mores. It'd be just as illegal for a 22 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl.
Ruth, at least you're not participating in a bunch of phony posturing to make yourself look better...
2006-12-22 05:47:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
This barely rises to the level of a weak HS debate Q.
What's the point? Is it your hypothesis that we who feel that a marriage must be between a man and a woman have to take the position that it's because that's what is necessary to procreate?
YOU are deciding why I believe that only a man and a woman should be legally married? No thanks... I'll speak for myself.
Here's a Q of my own. In your world of ideas, are there ANY acceptable restrictions on who may be married? If the answer is no, then I'd say you've lost all touch with reality. If the answer is yes, then I would ask who gets to decide on the restrictions. Is it YOU again (the marriage rules police?). Or is it "society" that decides?
(That's what we're doing now... read the polls)
Ponder this: Assume that marriage has long ago been made legal between any two consenting adults. Suppose I have a buddy who's my roomate and he has medical coverage at work and I don't. We decide to get "married" so as to share his benefits. Would you have a standard that says that a marriage can't be platonic? If so how would you differentiate? Would you have a "gayness" test?
If this all sounds absurd that's because it is!
2006-12-24 17:42:23 · answer #2 · answered by idlebud 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since when is having children a requirement of marriage?
The only requirement of marriage is 2 people who love each other unconditionally, and usually the fulfillment of that love is procreation, but not necessarily, since it is not possible for some people as you recognize.
If you are trying to argue the case for homosexuals to lawfully marry as I am guessing, the major flaw in your comparison is that homosexuals CANNOT have their own children through procreation, whereas heterosexual married couples MAY OR MAY NOT have their own children.
2006-12-22 16:55:43 · answer #3 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't particularly want to get married, and I definitely don't want kids, but I have lived with my girlfriend for almost a year, are planning on buying a house soon, and are getting sick of being discriminated against by insurance companies and the IRS. We are eventually going to do it for the benefits. Maybe they should take away all the marriage benefits.
2006-12-22 14:02:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course not,,marriage between two people is between those two people only. Nobody else has any say in it but those two. Fertility or child bearing should not be a requirement for a marriage license.
2006-12-22 13:55:21 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Marriage doesn't guarantee children will be born.
However there is a 100% better chance that a marriage between a man and a woman will bare children.
I know where you are going with this. Gay marriage. There is a 100% chance gay couples will never bare children. They can't.
Yes they can adopt but the optimal setting for raising children is still A Husband and a Wife.
2006-12-22 13:59:31 · answer #6 · answered by Bill 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No and no.
Nice try. Here's the problem.
Not wanting them is a choice. Not being able is not.
The slippery slope you are trying to go down, however, is to ignore tradition. What is to prevent a NAMBLA member from marrying a 12 year old boy, taking your implied argument to it's logical extreme? Where do you draw the line?
2006-12-22 13:52:38 · answer #7 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Marriage isn't just for procreation. It's also for two people who are committed to each other through the bonds of love and companionship. I'm talking about my guy and I. We don't ever want kids either...just us!
2006-12-22 13:50:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
No. Who says a married couple has to procreate?
2006-12-22 13:55:00 · answer #9 · answered by Fatboy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are we beating a dead horse to death, today?
Marriage can only be annulled by one of the two people in the marriage...
Marriage laws are largely governed by public policy in States, and should be kept that way. Contrary to popular liberal opinion, all of society is impacted by marriage laws.
But to answer your question, I do not subscribe to that particular theory for my opposition to homosexual marriage. I subscribe to the "abomination" theory.
EDIT: Check it out again... Even in bigamy cases, one of the parties must invoke the law.
EDIT2: This is governed differently, depending on the state.
2006-12-22 13:49:16 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋