Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins

[[I’m thinking of being married within ‘the image of potential procreation”]]

That is correct- however, procreation IS still the criteria for marriage- the government took over marriage for the sole purpose of incentivizing couples to procreate to create future generations of taxpayers- Marriage was, before that, a moral institution that allowed non DEVIANTS the privilege of being married- (however, religious preachers COULD deny marriage between certain heterosexuals too, if they felt the union would be detrimental- marriage was never a right- if it were a right, it couldn’t be denied to anyone- just like having a drivers license is not a right- you MUST meet certain criteria

The fact that some couples are infertile has no bearing on the marriage issue- They are allowed under the marriage ‘rules’ to be married- because what they seek is not immoral- polygamists, pedophiles, gay people etc are all seeking approval of their immoral behavior, claiming that they are deserving of respect and dignity that they think marriage will afford them-

The issue of marriage has to do, to put it bluntly, with morality- not procreation so much- The government took it over for the purpose of financially incentivizing couples to raise healthy future tax payers who will support the government via taxes- but it still held that marriage was only allowed for moral purposes- those things considered immoral were never allowed- brothers could not marry sisters, mothers, fathers etc- people could not marry their pets- etc etc etc

Now however, the whole issue is about the gay agenda trying to get homosexuality off the list of immoral behavior, and if they succeed, then there would be no reason to deny them marriage- that is what this whole gay marriage issue is about- IF the supreme court rules in their favor- it will no longer be allowed to consider homosexuality as immoral

Put bluntly and to put it in a non politically correct manner, It’ a morality issue- much as the gay agenda loathes to admit it-


18 posted on 04/29/2015 9:53:56 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Bob434

My point has to do with the justices who argued against procreative argument. They said that not all couples are fertile or desiring children so procreation is, according to them, not a requirement for marriage.

First, they are taking exceptions as a rule, but they get away with it. In reality, men and some women are able to reproduce into advanced years, and some couples, seemingly unable to procreate, has suddenly gotten pregnant out of the blue. And with modern fertility medicine, oftentimes fairly regularly.

However, even if infertile, a man/woman pair upholds the ‘image of procreativity’ in that they are what a procreative pair looks like.


22 posted on 04/29/2015 10:50:47 AM PDT by xzins (Donate to the Freep-a-Thon or lose your ONLY voice. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson