New link in the top of page "IRC Chat".
Register | Login
Views: 107024731
Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Last Posts | IRC Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album
05-29-22 04:06 AM
0 users currently in Debate Shrine.
Xeogaming Forums - Debate Shrine - If "marriage is ONLY for the procreation of children," then... | |
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Rogue
If you're reading this... You are the Resistance











Since: 08-17-04

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 18 hours
Posted on 10-02-08 07:30 PM Link | Quote
- Couples who don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry.

- Polygamy should be legal.

- Vasectomies, tubal ligation, hysterectomies, and removal of any sexual organs should be grounds for divorce.

- Being barren or having other conditions that inhibit child-rearing should be discussed on first dating someone along with saying a person has AIDS, HIV, or other STDs.

- Senior citizen women should be forbidden from dating.

- Unmarried people should carry around cards saying they're allowed to buy or be prescribed contraceptives, as those who are married are not allowed to use such implements.

- Abortion doctors who terminate the fetuses of married women should be arrested or severely fined.
Cyro Xero

Rune Mage

Rave Atom








Since: 02-23-05
From: Minnesota!!

Since last post: 1929 days
Last activity: 1842 days
Posted on 10-02-08 08:13 PM Link | Quote
..And where did this come from?
Rogue
If you're reading this... You are the Resistance











Since: 08-17-04

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 18 hours
Posted on 10-03-08 02:51 AM Link | Quote
California has a proposition on the next ballot that if passed will ban our recently reinstated rights for homosexuals to get married.

I'm tired of hearing the same old argument from the people who want this (Prop 8) to go through: "Marriage is for the procreation of children."

I was watching the news when I wrote the above.

I'm also REALLY exasperated with people who say things like "Marriage is a Christian thing" or "Gay marriage isn't in the Bible."

I don't know how allowing gays to marry hurts YOUR family, but there's also been a few people with bumper stickers that read out, "Because I care about preserving families. Vote YES on Prop 8." Uh...?

So yeah, I was starting to exaggerate, but if society actually followed the idea that you should only be allowed to marry if kids are going to come out of the deal, then wouldn't the next logical step be preventing abortions (something conservatives are already strongly for)? Perhaps then outlawing contraception (already "forbidden" among Catholics and other religions)?

Who knows? Maybe America will take up the harem idea. One man, ten fertile women putting out the next wave of soldiers and consumers to keep the economy going.


(Last edited by Rogue on 10-06-08 11:15 AM)
FX

Zombie Marco








Since: 03-24-06

Since last post: 2922 days
Last activity: 2818 days
Posted on 10-03-08 02:52 AM Link | Quote
Yeah, those commercials are making me realize that this will never be over. Every year there will either be a bill trying to legalize gay marriage, or one trying to take out the one passed the year before.

Christ.
Lord Vulkas Mormonus

Vile
High Xeodent of Xeomerica.








Since: 10-29-04
From: North Carolina, United States. World, Sol System, milky way

Since last post: 1614 days
Last activity: 695 days
Posted on 10-03-08 11:14 AM Link | Quote
I think that a better way to phrase your quote, Rogue, would be, "marriage is only for the procreation and raising of good children."

And...this is why I think that the government shouldn't ban marriage between anyone(although I am against homosexuality, I just don't think that anyone has a right to stop it.)

HOWEVER, I don't think that gay couple should have children, ever. No adoptions. No foster children to call their own. It's a bad idea, because children need a nurturing mother and a strong father. Gay men, try as they might, just can't be as nice as a real mother.

Because of this, I think that they should ahve a different sort of marriage liscense, one which doesn't allow the raising of children, but does allow them to ahve the other benefits of marriage.

I'll get some links to studies and statistics for you soon.
FX

Zombie Marco








Since: 03-24-06

Since last post: 2922 days
Last activity: 2818 days
Posted on 10-03-08 02:25 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Vulkar
It's a bad idea, because children need a nurturing mother and a strong father.


So single parents should have their children taken away?
Cairoi
This isn't about you and your loud mouth,
This is about me and my fucking beard.








Since: 08-29-04
From: PA

Since last post: 3940 days
Last activity: 3564 days
Posted on 10-03-08 03:02 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by FX
Originally posted by Vulkar
It's a bad idea, because children need a nurturing mother and a strong father.


So single parents should have their children taken away?



Of course, man.

And Vulkar, trust me, most mothers I've observed in my life (as long as you've been alive) are complete bitches.

Being a mother does not automatically make you right. Being gay does not make you automatically wrong. There is a spectrum that all people are a part of, regardless of orientation, sex, or race. Anyone is capable of anything. Why can't we allow them to be what they want to be?
Katana

Dark Wizard
\"She said tonight...come on come on collide...see what I fire feels like..I bet its just like heaven.\"








Since: 08-15-04
From: Philadelphia, P.A.

Since last post: 647 days
Last activity: 464 days
Posted on 10-03-08 03:50 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Vulkar
It's a bad idea, because children need a nurturing mother and a strong father.


Before I lay into this, Vulkar...(not making it out to be an attack against you, so don't take it that way. ) I must ask...

Why?

Why do children need a nurturing mother and a strong father?

While there are many things I could say here, I'm going to stick with the simplest...families can't afford (most families at least) to have one working parent and the other stay home. So now, both me and my husband (use your imagination here) are doing the same thing. We're working AND taking care of our child(ren). It's not fair to me to say that I'm not strong like my husband, while we're both working our asses off. And it's not fair to my husband to say that he isn't nurturing when he holds our baby and sings him/her to sleep just like I do.

While there are biological differences between men and women, we're all capable of surviving, meaning we can put on the necessary roles when they're called for.

I know it looks like I'm straying, but I'm really not. I want Vulkar to answer my question before I bring my point to a head. (Though I'm sure many see what I'm getting at.)
FX

Zombie Marco








Since: 03-24-06

Since last post: 2922 days
Last activity: 2818 days
Posted on 10-03-08 03:52 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rogue
- Couples who don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry.


You forgot about that one. And should couples get divorced once their children move out, since they're done raising them?
Rogue
If you're reading this... You are the Resistance











Since: 08-17-04

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 18 hours
Posted on 10-03-08 05:47 PM Link | Quote
I do agree that children need both strong female and male role models in the sense that children who don't often grow to have complexes and mental issues.

Ex: Young girls who don't have a good bond with their fathers or were abused/molested by them often grow up to be sexually active early on, accept abuse from other men, and overall have a warped sense of relationships and intimacy.

Same thing with young boys and their mothers. If mommy was abusive or controlling, the boy will learn to subconsciously hate women and perhaps become abusive or have other social issues.

Now this isn't to say that all children should grow up with both parents, but children do take their social cues from those who are raising them--racist parents inadvertently teach their kids to hate, abusers produce another line of kids who might grow up to be abusive parents themselves, and so on and so forth.

So I do agree that a child should be exposed to both sexes (be it aunts, uncles, grandparents, close friends of parents, etc) and, when possible, all ethnicities and backgrounds.


(Last edited by Rogue on 10-03-08 05:48 PM)
Katana

Dark Wizard
\"She said tonight...come on come on collide...see what I fire feels like..I bet its just like heaven.\"








Since: 08-15-04
From: Philadelphia, P.A.

Since last post: 647 days
Last activity: 464 days
Posted on 10-03-08 09:55 PM Link | Quote
Well, yes, I agree too. There are biological factors and questions that only certain genders can answer...but Rogue, you nailed it. Aunts. Uncles. Cousins. Whathaveyou.

It doesn't HAVE to be the parents. If that's the case...then with the way society is changing... With women becoming more and more of a force to be reckoned with in the working world, yet whispers of old-time sexism still occur...well, children may end up "confused" anyway, if confusion is the reasoning behind prohibiting gay couples the right to children...

This is one of the topics I have had time to observe others and form my own opinions on for a looong time. Usually I don't involve myself in these debates, simply for lack of knowledge.

Gay marriage isn't the exact topic, but I guess gay marriage kinda comes hand in hand here...since that has been one of the biggest reasons why I've heard gay marriage isn't right...for the whole procreation thing.

One thing I'm not too knowledgable in, so I'd like some input here...but does marriage help the economy really? If so, then why would there be sooo many limitations on marriage? I mean, there should be some, just to ensure it's conducted in a responsible way...but...I don't know...
Ryan

Ptooie
Is back!









Since: 10-01-04
From: Stafford, UK

Since last post: 3736 days
Last activity: 3696 days
Posted on 10-04-08 12:59 PM Link | Quote
I don't really see much point in marriage anyway. It's just a religious thing that's found its way into current law, which is pretty much the reason why gay marriage isn't accepted, because religion doesn't accept gay couples in the first place.


And now here's my reasoning behind marriage being a bunch of bullshit and chips: Say a guy and a girl are going out, but the guy cheats on the girl with another girl. A bit of a social issue but nothing legal involved. All marriage would have done in this situation is allow the woman who was cheated on to take something from the man for his insubordination.

I'm a little rushed, so I can't expand much further, but I might go more into my thoughts later.
Rogue
If you're reading this... You are the Resistance











Since: 08-17-04

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 18 hours
Posted on 10-04-08 01:52 PM Link | Quote
Ryan, I have the same thoughts on marriage as you. Seriously, with how high the divorce rate is (1 in every 3 marriages fails, and it's very quickly about to hit 1 in 2), I feel it's best for most people to hold off on marriage.

Now, while I'm not marriage-minded at the moment, my argument in this thread is that marriage should be available for all humans who seek it (I'm excluding bestiality/interspecies-love, sorry). If a man and a woman, two men, two women, and even to a further extent of two men and one woman, two women and a man and so on and so forth, want to tie the knot, that's their business how they sort it out legally.

Now personally, I'm not a fan of polygamy. Most people, no matter how open-minded they claim to be, do resort to jealousy and chances are it'll end in divorce anyway, but if 3+ people want to make that type of commitment and legally-bind themselves to multiple people, again that's their bag.

Now on gay marriage, by saying that one couple can marry while another can't exercises inequality.
Ryan

Ptooie
Is back!









Since: 10-01-04
From: Stafford, UK

Since last post: 3736 days
Last activity: 3696 days
Posted on 10-05-08 06:22 AM Link | Quote
I don't even care that one in three marriages are pretty much destined to fail. It's just the fact that in this day and age marriage shouldn't have any form of laws regarding it, considering we no longer live in a Christian controlled society. True, that's pretty much my entire knowledge of British history, but whatever, I'm trying to make a point here!

Religion and law need to be seperated, badly. Not everyone believes in religion, and isn't required to, yet everyone must obey the law. To put religious beliefs into law forces religious ideas onto people, and people should be entitled to their own ideas and beliefs.
EDIT: Of course, the opposite can be said, that people who are against gay marriage are entitled to that belief, and sure, you are, but you shouldn't use those beliefs in ways to restrict the actions of people of the opposite school of thinking.

Gay marriage seriously doesn't hurt everyone, and it seems as though people think that if gay marriage is allowed, everyone is gonna turn gay and the entire human race will have died out by the next generation. However, it just so happens a large amount of people are heterosexual too, and will perform the procreation part of marriage.

Then again, I have issues with couples having to be married to have sex and children too. All marriage does is allow the people in the relationship more rights than they would have got without it i.e. custody (or really ownership) of the children.

On polygamy: Again, if people want that kind of relationship, so be it.
On marriage: Pointless in current day society, my point being it's just a way for religion to continue to control a society, really the way I see a lot of religion at the moment. It's like how Christianity had hold of British society until about the 1600s. Thank you Henry VIII for rescuing us from forced religion!


(Last edited by Ryan on 10-05-08 06:27 AM)
Cyro Xero

Rune Mage

Rave Atom








Since: 02-23-05
From: Minnesota!!

Since last post: 1929 days
Last activity: 1842 days
Posted on 10-05-08 05:28 PM Link | Quote
Who ever is saying marriage is just for procreation is wrong. If you want to make babies you have the freedom to do it who ever you choose and when, without marriage thrown in (might be a different story in China, though). Marriage was a religious thing back in the ancient days, but in our culture today and in some others, times have changed and people have slowly been growing up without religious morals and see marriage as a "thing" to do. And some see it as overrated.

Marriage has no religious control over society, Ryan, nor is it pointless. And I can tell you why. Marriage for is two people who want to be with spend the rest of their lives together. To grow old and watch sunsets and sunrises. It's wanting to be more than just boyfriend/girfriend or fuck-buddies. It's as I've come to call it,"living a life together". You don't have to have children to just be married. That's a ridiculous idea. Some couples prefer to simply be with each other and not want to have the responsibility of raising a kid. Think hard about it. You can conceptually see it as two people becoming one being, or creating a team. A couple works together to help overcome each other's life problems, to help pay bills, to raise children and hopefully carry on the name for as long as possible. These aren't things that you get married for, they should be things you do during marriage. It's why a lot of them fail today. A lot of dumb people get married because the sex is great, or because they're at Vegas, or because they lost a bet, etc. Would you marry for something so foolish? Do be like them.

If you believe you can live with a person for years, have fun, be able to take care of each other and want to be a permanent part of their lives, that's what you should get married for. That's why marriage isn't pointless. So Rouge, I understand how you felt when you heard that monkey-ass stuff on the news. I don't believe those people who are voting for that learned enough information on what marriage actually is. The world is getting over populated anyway. I can only take pity on them because of that fact.
Ryan

Ptooie
Is back!









Since: 10-01-04
From: Stafford, UK

Since last post: 3736 days
Last activity: 3696 days
Posted on 10-06-08 02:54 AM Link | Quote
But marriage is unnessecary to perform everything you said. A couple can live together without having to be married, and could happily live their whole lives together. All marriage does is make it slightly more difficult to split up if the partners feel they made a bad decision.
FX

Zombie Marco








Since: 03-24-06

Since last post: 2922 days
Last activity: 2818 days
Posted on 10-06-08 03:17 AM Link | Quote
Marriage does have legal benefits. And making it harder to split up is sort of the point; it's a commitment. It's saying "I promise to be with you forever," and showing it by making a legal commitment.
Lord Vulkas Mormonus

Vile
High Xeodent of Xeomerica.








Since: 10-29-04
From: North Carolina, United States. World, Sol System, milky way

Since last post: 1614 days
Last activity: 695 days
Posted on 10-06-08 10:39 AM Link | Quote
So, I had a long post written out which argued point by point everything you all said...and then I accidenly deleted it. Evil. I'll try to retype it later this afternoon.

But Ryan, marriage is important if only for the children, to dictate who they're raised by, and in the vent of a seperation, who they go with to be raised by. No official document saying that the parents are together means that the children go with their mother, no matter how unfit the mother is.

Also, there's a lot more things like child support, combined incomes, and, of course, a pledge that they bother have to be together.

Also, a friend of mine served a two year mission in south america. In this mission, he encoutnered a group of people where the parents were not usually married, and the children were always being shuffled between parents, step parents, foster parent,s and generally whoever they happened to be near. Needless to say, they weren't raised properly.

Now, I'm not saying that that's what it would turn into, but I'm just saying that marriage is important for legal matters, for children, and for the parents themselves.

I'll type up the rest again later.
Ryan

Ptooie
Is back!









Since: 10-01-04
From: Stafford, UK

Since last post: 3736 days
Last activity: 3696 days
Posted on 10-06-08 02:04 PM Link | Quote
Maybe the law saying the woman is forced to have the kids if not married should be taken away, since it's technically sexist.

And surely if a permanent relationship REQUIRES a legal document that says "If this doesn't work out, we've made it difficult to seperate, and means I can load you with the kids and get half your stuff." Surely this breaks a big trust that is generally required in such a relationship.
Shuyin

Baron of Radical








Since: 08-19-04

Since last post: 3057 days
Last activity: 2963 days
Posted on 10-07-08 03:19 PM Link | Quote
Vulkar I get what you're trying to say. Marriage is important in raising children. I think everyone agrees on that.

Being brought up by a father and a mother may be the best choice in raising a child, but that's merely by default. Many children turn out just fine while being raised by a single parent. A gay couple would be able to give more nurturing to a child then a single parent. Many heterosexual couples are completely unfit to have kids. With homosexuals, there's no accidents. You have a child because you WANT a child. So they're more likely to put that child first in everything that they do.

If two people can get married on a whim and then get a divorce a month later. Why can't a gay couple who is honestly in love and have been together for years get the same right? I don't see how anyone can look at that as fair.

The saying maybe be trite but it's true: "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one."
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Xeogaming Forums - Debate Shrine - If "marriage is ONLY for the procreation of children," then... |



xeogaming.org

AcmlmBoard 1.92++ r4 Baseline
?2000-2013 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper, DarkSlaya*, Lord Alexandor*
*Unofficial Updates
Page rendered in 0.215 seconds.
0.046