Originally posted by FortAnthem
A union which does not result in children is pointless and it is no wonder that such unions so often end in divorce.

And unions that do result in children never end in divorce, right? Jeez, if only all those parents who got divorced had just had children... .... What?

Anyway. Yes, that is the natural purpose of marriage. But that doesn't mean it's the sole purpose of marriage. We have transformed as a species far beyond the natural needs of things. Our children can remain children until 18, unlike the old days when they had to begin working and marrying at 12. The natural end of childhood has transformed to the modern end of childhood. Marriage need not be for one sole purpose.

My girlfriend feels that marriage is an archaic method of making wives and children the property of men, which it is by its nature. That doesn't mean that's all it has to be.

ok, so if a man and woman cannot beget a child, to put it in terms of this argument, because either one has a predisclosed physical disability that would prevent conception does that put them in the same boat as gay people? neither group can get married because they can't beget a child? that makes no sense.

Oh wait, heres why it doesnt make sense, because the wording of the conclusion doesnt reflect the main point of the article, which is that parents should be able to provide a stable and nurturing environment.

The article says that men and women bring seperate components to build this environment, but this does not mean it is restricted to just men and women. It is very possible for a man to bring the qualities usually provided by the woman and vice versa.

In fact, in my argument thiss article seems to state that marriage should be based upon the ability to demonstrate a positive environment to raise the chhildren in. I do not know any gay couples with children, but i do know that many children raised in these homes are campaigning for gay marriage. I also know that I have seen MANY heterosexual couples that are unfit to raise kids!

Regardless of any of this, it would be impossible to set or enforce standards for marriage based upon the Natural Law arguments of this article.

Originally posted by Ozzy Mandias
I do not know any gay couples with children, but i do know that many children raised in these homes are campaigning for gay marriage. I also know that I have seen MANY heterosexual couples that are unfit to raise kids!

Omgeez that is because thar brainwashed by thar gay parents! With thar gay aganedanes!

Well natural law can also be used to justify Polgamy, polyandry, homosexuality and eugenics.It is in short anything you want it to be.

I am not justifying any of the above but support anyone's right do as they please within reason.

T

Marriage is a legal concept not a natural one. As such it is defined however we collectively want it to be defined.

What this article is talking about is monogamy (in the sexual not legal sense) not marriage. Monogamy can be said to have a natural purpose in that it is the most efficient mating pattern in terms of passing on ones genes.

Marriage has nothing to do with this, as evidence I point to various cultures that have allowed polygynous marriages for thousands of years. Clearly marriage can and has been defined differently to what this article suggests.

This article is wrong because it starts with an incorrect assertion; it is in essence one long straw man argument.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Mike_A]

Interesting article, though it raises more questions that are not brought about. I believe a marriage is more than what is mentioned in that article and all of the trouble started with the body politic. If you are to use that article as an argument, as it is, then it could be argued that all marriages are invalid as they are not arranged by society or a person to bless and determine that such a match would produce a child. Nor does it take into account people, of opposite sex, who live together, have children, but choose not to wed, as they find it not within their interest for such. As much as the proponents of keeping marriage wants to not let it be defined any other way than what they view it, the question is are they willing to give up everything to keep it that way? Are they willing to give up all of the bennifits that are associated along with being married under the eyes of the law? If you consider that the main reason why those who are homosexual want to have the right and the option to marry is because they want the same rights and options that married couples are bennifited under the eyes of the law. Is it right that 2 people who are in a stable monogmous relationship for a good 20 years, not be afforded the same bennifits under the law just cause they are the same sex? Or do we go back to the age, of where marriages are arranged, and then end up with a marriage of a lack of love, or where the couple ends up living in 2 separate rooms cause neither can stand the other, only for the man to come in and attempt to get the woman pregnant for the purpose of having a child. Is that a healthy atmosphere for a child to be brought up in? The reality as hard as it may be to swallow would be to take the bennifits of marriage out of the law and return it back to that of the religions, where it is the aspects of the churches to determine what constitutes as a legale marriage, instead of having it in the aspect of legale issues. Historically speaking, at one time it was the chruches that would preform not only the marriages, but also the divorces. There is one other aspect that in todays society that is not covered and would raise interesting aspects. A couple who have been married and then one decides to get a sex change, is it still a legal marriage? Or how about a post op transgender person is proposed to and then accepts the proposal, would that be a legal marriage? There are too many aspects and questions that are not discussed. I for one say cut all bennifits that the law affords 2 people who want to get married, tax, insurance, and death. Take it out of the law and see where the argument goes from there.

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Anyway. Yes, that is the natural purpose of marriage. But that doesn't mean it's the sole purpose of marriage. We have transformed as a species far beyond the natural needs of things. Our children can remain children until 18, unlike the old days when they had to begin working and marrying at 12. The natural end of childhood has transformed to the modern end of childhood. Marriage need not be for one sole purpose.

My girlfriend feels that marriage is an archaic method of making wives and children the property of men, which it is by its nature. That doesn't mean that's all it has to be.

It is this kind of teaching that public indoctrination centers and the TV have made many who do not know or seek the One true God into believing that
marriage is no longer a current need that we as a civilization have grow past as we evolve into god like creatures.

There are studies that prove children need their bio mother and father through out their development, what has happened is that we as adults have been taught it is some one else that must bare the responsibility of proper raising of the child. We are a society of it is someone else's fault we give children free reign of their lives at about the age of 10, we do not participate in the lives that they have in public schools where they learn many things that take away their childhood innocence.

Marriage is to be with one man and one woman for life, most of the people today are not satisfied with what they have and are constantly looking over the fence for greener pasture.