- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The move to legalize same-sex marriage in La. commences TODAY
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:48 am to HeadyMurphey
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:48 am to HeadyMurphey
i just think that when you allow two gays to have a union and call that action a marriage you are saying that marriage can be understood apart from procreation and that makes zero sense.
Marriage has existed throughout history as a way to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation. So when you allow the union of two gays to be called a marriage, you are changing the definition so much that it is destroying the need for the institution of marriage.
Makes zero sense to me. None. Nada. Haha
Marriage has existed throughout history as a way to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation. So when you allow the union of two gays to be called a marriage, you are changing the definition so much that it is destroying the need for the institution of marriage.
Makes zero sense to me. None. Nada. Haha
6
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:50 am to The Stash
quote:
i just think that when you allow two gays to have a union and call that action a marriage you are saying that marriage can be understood apart from procreation and that makes zero sense.
So I assume couples with a sterile partner should also be prevented from marrying. Along with older couples with children who don't want to add to their brood, no room for them in the marriage club.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:50 am to The Stash
quote:
i just think that when you allow two gays to have a union and call that action a marriage you are saying that marriage can be understood apart from procreation and that makes zero sense.
Where does it say marriage is strictly for procreation? The Bible? Now you're getting into religious issues which shouldn't be relevant given separation of church and state.
The bottom line is, the fundamental difference between those for or against gay marriage is that those against still think gay people actually choose to be gay, rather than being born that way. Which is what really makes zero sense.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:52 am to The Stash
quote:
i just think that when you allow two gays to have a union and call that action a marriage you are saying that marriage can be understood apart from procreation and that makes zero sense.
So only two fertile heterosexuals can get married?
Posted on 2/12/14 at 8:08 am to The Stash
quote:Half of the children born in the country right now are born out of wedlock so this point isn't valid anymore. Words change or evolve over time.
Marriage has existed throughout history as a way to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation. So when you allow the union of two gays to be called a marriage, you are changing the definition so much that it is destroying the need for the institution of marriage.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 8:10 am to The Stash
quote:
Marriage has existed throughout history as a way to regulate the obligations and responsibilities of procreation.
Yes, but it has also been used as a way to obtain influential in-laws and strengthen group ties. Stephanie Coontz has written extensively about marriage, particularly in Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. Procreation is only part of what marriage has been about.
Besides, being gay or lesbian is not the same thing as being sterile.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:18 am to The Stash
quote:
saying that marriage can be understood apart from procreation and that makes zero sense
this is perhaps one of the worst arguments I've seen against it. what about married couples that don't want to or can't have kids? my wife couldn't conceive without a lot of science and money. had it not worked out, I can assure you our marriage would still be as valid as some redneck 16 year olds who got married at the courthouse because the chick got knocked up.
civil marriage is a legal regime established by the state, no one would or could force churches to recognize it any more than they could force muslims to eat bacon. that's just paranoia
eta: I knew I should have kept reading before posting, that was covered pretty quickly
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 9:21 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News