2007-02-07 05:21:07 · 32 answers · asked by PARKERD 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
At the very least I can tell who pays attention to the news of the day.
2007-02-07 05:30:30 · update #1
No, because some couples choose not to have children and there is no need for heirs.
2007-02-07 05:23:55 · answer #1 · answered by Jen of Eve 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Infertility used to be grounds for divorce!
I would say no to your question. If that were the rule, would we prevent the elderly from marrying? Or make people divorce after the kids leave home?
Marriage is based on the nculear family, a concept which has been around as long as society has.
Society has an interest in preserving these conjugal unions, even in those cases where children are not produced (although in most cases they are). The government does not withdraw benefits granted based on this status. If it did, people would not be able to plan their lives with any certainly.
Men and women are not identical. The law recognizes this.
This issue has been rasied by some same-sex "marriage" advocates in Washington to make a political point. To be perfectly blunt, I don't know that the state has an interest in fostering and protecting homosexual activity. The states have already decided they do not have an interest in sanctioning polygamy, so there is some precedent.
2007-02-07 05:30:30 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That concept will never work. They can't apply that just to gay marriages, talk about discrimination! They can't apply that to ANY marriage. Can you imagine how many heterosexual couples would have to have their marriages annulled because they decided not to have children, or couldn't have children, or those who got married when they were too old to have children? The concept that marriage is for the procreation of children and nothing else comes from the really gone nuts wing of the Religious Wrong.
2007-02-07 06:06:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No because even though marriage is the first step in forming a family even if it doesn't produce children it does not destroy the template on which a decent society is built. Gay marriage on the other hand should remain discreet because it does disrupt the basis for a decent society. I don't think that gays should be punished, and believe that it is genetic but that kind of relation is not in the interest of the society at large and should not be recognized as equally acceptable.
2007-02-07 05:37:54 · answer #4 · answered by hershadow1 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just because they do not produce children, doesn't mean that the marriage should be annuled. The goal to become parents can also be achieved by adoption.
2007-02-07 05:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, for what? Just because a marriage doesn't produce children does not mean that the two people in the marriage aren't loving, caring, committed people. Children don't make a marriage. It's the relationship and love between those two people that do.
2007-02-07 05:26:18 · answer #6 · answered by Vasilly 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know why this question is in politics, but no. Some folks can't have children, do to whatever reason, and there are children out there who have no parents and need adopting. Some people just plain love each other, but don't want kids. There is nothing wrong with that. People who are in love should never be separated, especially since love is so very hard to find.
2007-02-07 05:29:13 · answer #7 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
all you silly people chill out, he's just baiting you...
Standard practice is for couples to marry, have kids, raise kids, then those kids (when they become adults) marry other adults, etc. That's the rule, not the exception, and we make laws based on the rule, not the exception.
This is the cycle of life- the same way basically all the other animals on earth does it.
When you try to things differently, (i.e. same-sex marriage, marry mutliple people, have kids before marriage, adults marry kids, kids marry kids) then things don't go as smoothly. This should be obvious but for some people it's not.
2007-02-07 05:43:43 · answer #8 · answered by anidealworld 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
marriages in this country should be annulled in their totality!! Marriage is a broken institution. Americans as individuals and as a country lack the commitment necessary to pull off a long term relationship. I say we just shack up at random. Women work, men work we should delete all benefits for spouses and save a boat load of cash!!! Except for those married for a real length of time like 20-30 yrs.
2007-02-07 05:30:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. Some people wnat to be married and not have children. Some people can't have children.
It is more responsible to not have children, then it is to have children you don't want and then give them a crappy home life.
Ph_yo- News Flash- Gays CANNOT get married in most states. That is a lame arguement
2007-02-07 05:27:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, just because a man and a woman are unable to or don't want to produce children together doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.
2007-02-07 05:59:42 · answer #11 · answered by Milton's Fan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋