Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

...Are you saying that "marriage" and "having children" are one and the same?...

Not always, for obvious reasons, including medical.

...I can assure you that their definitions are quite different. Not all married couples have children - either through choice or inability....are these couples not really married?...

Yes, they are married. If they didn't have children because of medical inability, they can be no fault in that.

If they choose not to have children, they are acting out of fear, selfishness, or some other reason of choice. Some choices might be valid, others might not.

...Some children are born out of wedlock - did their mothers not really have them?...

Yes, of course they had them.

They put themselves as well as their children at a disadvantage.

...there is nowhere in the marriage vows that states that marriage must result in the birth of a child.....

That is correct.

...procreation is not a necessity of conventional marriage, so why should those campaigning against gay marriage be concerned about the ability of those couples to procreate?

Those campaigning against gay marriage are pointing out the natural reason for the marriage commitment. Exceptions always apply to every debate.

For example, I'm all for extending economic benefits to everybody, not just homosexual couples. As far as I'm concerned, that's an issue between everybody who doesn't get them (health insurance coverage, for example) and the entity who fights it (like the health insurance companies).

That is even less of an issue with regard to homosexual marriage than procreation and child rearing.

If procreation has nothing to do with marriage, than health insurance has even less to do with it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That does nothing to diminish the viewpoint of the heterosexual community's viewpoint that marriage is primarily the means of procreating responsibly, whereby children are raised with both a father and mother.

I'm part of the heterosexual community, yet I don't share that viewpoint at all. The primary reason for marriage is to make a commitment to love and support each other 'til death. How many people make marriage vows that even mentions children?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That does nothing to diminish the viewpoint of the heterosexual community's viewpoint that marriage is primarily the means of procreating responsibly, whereby children are raised with both a father and mother.

I'm part of the heterosexual community, yet I don't share that viewpoint at all. The primary reason for marriage is to make a commitment to love and support each other 'til death. How many people make marriage vows that even mentions children?

My impressively powerful wife and I didn't.

But we did sign a document for the pastor that we would raise our children Christian.

 

[thaiboxerken]

LMAO. You signed a contract with the church that tells you how to raise your children! That's hilarious!!

So, how often do people sign such contracts? How often do people vow to have children when they marry? If marriage is primarily about procreation, why is procreation often not mentioned in marriage vows and ceremonies? I would think the primary reason for marriage should be mentioned somewhere in the ceremonies.

 

[Huntster]

LMAO. You signed a contract with the church that tells you how to raise your children! That's hilarious!!...

Yup. Not only did we mean it, we accomplished it.

...So, how often do people sign such contracts?..

Obviously, more often than you think.

...How often do people vow to have children when they marry?

More often than actually takes place. Usually, it's a vow taken between the two, unspoken during the official marriage ceremony.

...If marriage is primarily about procreation, why is procreation often not mentioned in marriage vows and ceremonies?...

Because procreation isn't a guarantee.

If people vowed to procreate in a marriage ceremony, and it didn't take place due to medical reasons, wouldn't you be howling like a wounded wolf right now?

...I would think the primary reason for marriage should be mentioned somewhere in the ceremonies.

I've been praying for you to begin thinking. Maybe my prayers have been answered.

Ken, I've gotta ask:

Are you married?

How many times?

Do you have children?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yup. Not only did we mean it, we accomplished it.

Poor kid.

Obviously, more often than you think.

How often is that?

More often than actually takes place. Usually, it's a vow taken between the two, unspoken during the official marriage ceremony.

If it's unspoken, then how do you know it happens? Is it written down somewhere in the marriage license?

Because procreation isn't a guarantee.

Yes, but they could vow to try. Even THAT isn't mentioned. There is no mention of procreation in most wedding vows.

If people vowed to procreate in a marriage ceremony, and it didn't take place due to medical reasons, wouldn't you be howling like a wounded wolf right now?

No, I wouldn't.

I've been praying for you to begin thinking. Maybe my prayers have been answered.

I've always been thinking, and those thoughts have always been of better quality than yours.

Are you married?

Yes.

How many times?

Once.

Do you have children?

No.

 

[Darat]

In the case of "kissing cousins", the obvious reason why states regulate it so that procreation isn't likely is to reduce the number of inbreeding disabilities. However, even in these cases, the recognition of procreation in marriage is recognized by the measure to reduce it.

Those advocating homosexual marriage are expected to use this fact to bolster their demand for marriage rights, but procreation isn't a factor at all in homosexual marriage (although adoption clearly is, even now, though HS marriage isn't a legal reality).

I doubt people advocating allow adults to marry who they want do use this as part of their advocacy. I suspect that when it is used it is used as I did i.e. to show how your current understanding of marriage as it is now constituted is in error.

Thus, I admit that the homosexual marriage issue to pro-HS marriage proponents has little to do with procreation. It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

And your point is?

That does nothing to diminish the viewpoint of the heterosexual community's viewpoint that marriage is primarily the means of procreating responsibly, whereby children are raised with both a father and mother.

Glad you acknowledged the shortcomings of your argument and the fact you were mistaken.

 

[Darat]

My impressively powerful wife and I didn't.

But we did sign a document for the pastor that we would raise our children Christian.

But I thought you were a Roman Catholic? I am genuinely curious as to what part of Roman Catholic doctrine this document arises from? Can you provide more details - perhaps in a new thread?

I say a new thread because what the Churches in the USA say and do regarding marriage has nothing to do with this issue. Remember "religious officers" can only marry a couple via the authority of the State not the Church. In other words a religious marriage is nothing but a bit of pomp and circumstance tacked onto the creation of civil contract between two people as far as the legal system is concerned.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yup. Not only did we mean it, we accomplished it.

Poor kid.

Kids.

They're very, very happy, prosperous, and a credit to me and Mrs. Huntster, as well as recognized assets to the community.

They're not "poor" at all.

Obviously, more often than you think.

How often is that?

As often as people get married in either the Lutheran or Roman Catholic Churches, as well as many other churches.

More often than actually takes place. Usually, it's a vow taken between the two, unspoken during the official marriage ceremony.

If it's unspoken, then how do you know it happens?

It's spoken between man and wife. At least it was between me and Mrs. Huntster, between my mom and dad, and between my daughters and their fiances.

...Is it written down somewhere in the marriage license?...

Not to my knowledge.

Because procreation isn't a guarantee.

Yes, but they could vow to try. Even THAT isn't mentioned. There is no mention of procreation in most wedding vows....

That's because it cannot and should not be, even though that is the goal among most married couples:

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

If people vowed to procreate in a marriage ceremony, and it didn't take place due to medical reasons, wouldn't you be howling like a wounded wolf right now?

No, I wouldn't.

Why do I doubt you?

I've been praying for you to begin thinking. Maybe my prayers have been answered.

I've always been thinking, and those thoughts have always been of better quality than yours.

Right.......(See sig lines below)

Go have a drink with your buddy, Kenny.

Are you married?

Yes.

How many times?

Once.

Do you have children?

No.

Still married?

Seperated?

Children are the blessings of marriage. I can think of no greater feeling of success than to bounce your own child on your lap one day, then bounce their children on your lap a generation later.

All other things seem meaningless after that. They just don't have continuity.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's because it cannot and should not be, even though that is the goal among most married couples:

Why not? Why couldn't a couple vow to, at least, try and procreate?

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

So you're arguing that marriage is about procreation because your religion dictates it?!


Yes, I'm still married and happy. We're not seperated and it's been 6 years. Neither of us are fond of children.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Those advocating homosexual marriage are expected to use this fact to bolster their demand for marriage rights, but procreation isn't a factor at all in homosexual marriage (although adoption clearly is, even now, though HS marriage isn't a legal reality).

I doubt people advocating allow adults to marry who they want do use this as part of their advocacy.

They certainly dismiss the impossibility of procreation as a factor.

I suspect that when it is used it is used as I did i.e. to show how your current understanding of marriage as it is now constituted is in error.

As is your right, but it certainly doesn't make you right.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Thus, I admit that the homosexual marriage issue to pro-HS marriage proponents has little to do with procreation. It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

And your point is?

It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That does nothing to diminish the viewpoint of the heterosexual community's viewpoint that marriage is primarily the means of procreating responsibly, whereby children are raised with both a father and mother.

Glad you acknowledged the shortcomings of your argument and the fact you were mistaken.

Residing in the UK makes me wonder about your understanding of the English language.

Was it my "accent"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

Sort of like the 14th ammendment forced everyone to recognize and legitimize the rights of all races, eh?

 

[andyandy]

Residing in the UK makes me wonder about your understanding of the English language.

drive by snipe....

Residing in the US makes me wonder about your understanding of where English originates from.....

I'll give you a hint....there's a clue in the name.....

 

[Darat]

They certainly dismiss the impossibility of procreation as a factor.

That's now a differnet point to what you started to argue. Do you now drop your original claim?

As is your right, but it certainly doesn't make you right.

No but the facts did.

It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

Second time you have stated this however I did not ask you to restate it but asked you what your point was . (In making this assertion and of course I mean in the context of the discussion in this thread.)

Residing in the UK makes me wonder about your understanding of the English language.

Was it my "accent"?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you; I thought you had accepted the facts since you are now saying " primarily the means of procreating responsibly" when previously you had said (in response to a statement of "..are "marriage" and "having children" one and the same? I never realised....") that "Apparently you didn't realize." which was saying that you believed that marriage and having children are synonymous.

If you are saying that you haven't changed your mind and you still believe that marriage is one and the same as having children how do you account for several states in the USA having laws that specifically only allow marriage if the marriage cannot "have children"?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
My impressively powerful wife and I didn't.

But we did sign a document for the pastor that we would raise our children Christian.

But I thought you were a Roman Catholic?

I "were" and am again. During my time at war and afterward, I was not practicing. Afterwards, and during our courtship, I was employed and lived in the wilderness. There was no church within hundreds of miles, and no way to get there.

We married in a Lutheran church. My wife, of Danish descent, was raised Lutheran. They had no problem with our logistic difficulties.

Since that time my lovely wife has converted to the RCC church, our children were all baptized, raised, and confirmed in the RCC church, and are all practicing. My two daughters are currently engaged with Catholic men, and are undergoing the RCC pre-marriage programs.

...I am genuinely curious as to what part of Roman Catholic doctrine this document arises from? Can you provide more details - perhaps in a new thread?

You mean the "raising children Christian" part?

That was Lutheran, although I've heard that the RCC has a similar policy.

...I say a new thread because what the Churches in the USA say and do regarding marriage has nothing to do with this issue. Remember "religious officers" can only marry a couple via the authority of the State not the Church....

That's because the state has taken all family law over, including 9and especially) financial.

The opposite is true; marriages recognized by the state are not recognized by the church, unless performed under the auspices of that church.

The same is true of my own opinion. Vegas chapel marriages are a farce. They have no meaning. They have no foundation. They don't even have much basis in civil law.

...In other words a religious marriage is nothing but a bit of pomp and circumstance tacked onto the creation of civil contract between two people as far as the legal system is concerned.

In other words a civil marriage is nothing but a bit of legal circumstance attempting to be tacked onto the creation of a spiritual union between two people as far as God is concerned.

 

[Huntster]

It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

Sort of like the 14th ammendment forced everyone to recognize and legitimize the rights of all races, eh?

Exactly.

Some of us didn't need the 14th Amendment to recognize our neighbors, but I'm glad it's there for you.

 

[Darat]

Huntster - are you under the mistaken impression that what is being discussed in this thread i.e. "marriage" has anything to do with the ceremonies religions like Islam, Hinduism and Christianity call "marriage"?

If so then you are mistaken, what is being dicsussed is what the state calls "marriage".

 

[Huntster]

That's because it cannot and should not be, even though that is the goal among most married couples:

Why not? Why couldn't a couple vow to, at least, try and procreate?

Because that's the will of God, not man.

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

So you're arguing that marriage is about procreation because your religion dictates it?!

I'm arguing that procreation is the blessing of marriage, because God created it so.

Yes, I'm still married and happy. We're not seperated and it's been 6 years. Neither of us are fond of children..

You might be fond of your own children, but I could be wrong.

It sure changed me.

Believe me, I'm not sure if I'd like the idea of you procreating, but it would likely make you a better man.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You mean the "raising children Christian" part?

That was Lutheran, although I've heard that the RCC has a similar policy.

Thanks for clarifying that, it sounded quite strange and I'd never heard of an RC document like this (albeit of course the pre-marriage meetings with the Priest this expectation is of course brought up and impressed upon the couple).

That's because the state has taken all family law over, including 9and especially) financial.

The opposite is true; marriages recognized by the state are not recognized by the church, unless performed under the auspices of that church.

The same is true of my own opinion. Vegas chapel marriages are a farce. They have no meaning. They have no foundation. They don't even have much basis in civil law.

In other words a civil marriage is nothing but a bit of legal circumstance attempting to be tacked onto the creation of a spiritual union between two people as far as God is concerned.

This is covered in my previous post - as I thought you are mistaken about what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

Residing in the UK makes me wonder about your understanding of the English language.

drive by snipe....

Actually, we snipe the drive-bys, not the other way around...........

...Residing in the US makes me wonder about your understanding of where English originates from.....

I'll give you a hint....there's a clue in the name.....

Ummmmmmmmmm.........

That's why I asked if "it was the accent".