tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391211.post8412282123639924969..comments2023-10-02T04:16:11.219-05:00Comments on never been here before: No children? Then no marriagestephaniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14760765831975016535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391211.post-80413042608363084282007-02-24T07:56:00.000-06:002007-02-24T07:56:00.000-06:00That's pretty much the point, I think. I think the...That's pretty much the point, I think. I think they are counting on people realizing the absurdity of the initiative and when the question "why?" comes up, the asnwer will be - "well, children is not what makes a marraige valid." This opens doors for same-sex marriage defense.<BR/><BR/>We all know that a marriage isn't a "real" one just because procreation occurs. But that's what Washington's ruling last summer basically says. Those who defend same-sex marriage take issue with that, saying, "well, if that's the case, then every single marriage must result in children. Otherwise it's invalid."<BR/><BR/>It makes us all ask ourselves: why is same-sex marriage illegal? Just because that can't bear children together? No. Because not every hetero-sexual marriage will produce children. Some people are infertile, some people don't want kids, and like you said, some people get married after child-bearing years. It's not fair to restrict a marriage to procreation. And thus, the argument supporting same-sex marriage is strengthened.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the idea is absurd. It's starting the dialog. And you know how I love that.stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14760765831975016535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391211.post-77423874885648686702007-02-23T17:33:00.000-06:002007-02-23T17:33:00.000-06:00Yikes! That is definitely a new spin on 'real' mar...Yikes! That is definitely a new spin on 'real' marriage for me :)<BR/><BR/>What about people who get married after child-bearing years?<BR/><BR/>The idea is an absurd one!kc bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17440862813109808755noreply@blogger.com