2007-02-22 01:10:01 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
yes
2007-02-22 01:13:47 · answer #1 · answered by Kedar 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think it's about cohabiting for life. To be honest, I always thought marriage was a waste of time and would ruin whatever was already in the relationship one had.
So i guess the 'marriage is for procreation' argument is pretty archaic. What if the couple can't have kids?!
2007-02-22 01:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by swelwynemma 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep.
There is no law requiring procreation or even fertility in order to get married or remain married.
There isn't any law that requires children to be born to married parents. People have children outside marriage all the time.
2007-02-22 01:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
More assuredly and it is also dishonest. If procreation is key, then childless couples should have their marriages annulled. Simple logic, but then, when has logic ever been the purview of a closed mind.
2007-02-22 01:48:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If marriage was only for procreation, then why would we allow infertile couples to marry? If you argue with "marriage is for procreation" then you are saying that women who can no longer have children or just can't or men who are sterile shouldn't be married, because they can't have children.
2007-02-22 01:16:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is. BTW, straights are ignoring gay rights because they think it's not going to affect them - well, heterosexual couples are next. The same groups that have been successful against gay rights are already starting to work on laws to make divorce more difficult for heterosexual couples, for doctors to push women to consider themselves "pre-pregnant" (meaning they will take supplements and avoid smoking and other things that could harm babies if they became pregnant unexpectedly), making adultery punishable by life in prison, trying to outlaw HPV vaccines for women because it might encourage promiscuity, and targetting people over 21 years old for abstinence programs.
2007-02-22 02:28:56 · answer #6 · answered by devouring_wind 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is archaic and outdated.
More than 50% of babies born today are out of wedlock and that is not going to reverse significantly. Babies will be born with or without the sanctity of marriage. That being so, marriage is more about tax write-offs than commitment or parenthood.
Hence, gays and lesbians should be entitled to the same realistic benefits of marriage too (tax write-offs)
2007-02-22 01:14:43 · answer #7 · answered by Clarkie 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's just a specious argument used to deny marriage to gays. It was never an issue for intentionally childless heterosexual couples, which is the current gay counter-charge.
2007-02-22 02:21:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You might have been better off combining all of your questions into one, rather than posting three within the last 15 minutes.
I can appreciate the discussion, but it is getting quite redundant.
2007-02-22 01:15:10 · answer #9 · answered by jrayhp 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
2007-02-22 01:18:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think "medieval" doesn't go back far enough in history to describe this line of thought.
2007-02-22 01:39:30 · answer #11 · answered by J J 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋