Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2006 Posted June 7, 2006 My parents were divorced and I connected with both of them. The problem isn't forcing parents to stay together, it's forcing parents to stay involved. Also, I can't believe there were no less than three calls for sterilization within the first six posts in this thread. How is mandatory sterilization going to solve the problem of parents getting divorced, or single parent issues? It would stop unwed pregnancies, I suppose, but how will it keep people together after they're married? Sometimes this place astounds me. 704746[/snapback] Never said it would solve the problem. Sometimes in life it's not completely solving the problem but making things better. And seeing forced sterilization will never happen it was kind of tongue in cheek. But anything that keeps dumb!@#$s from procreating has got to be a good thing. Hell, it can't hurt.
Rubes Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 No--marriage is for procreation. 704614[/snapback] Not in my world it ain't. Unless you're saying my wife and I shouldn't have been married if we didn't plan on having kids?
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 8, 2006 Author Posted June 8, 2006 Not in my world it ain't. Unless you're saying my wife and I shouldn't have been married if we didn't plan on having kids? 704811[/snapback] You're the exception, and you would also fall under the amendment. No worries, but marriage is still for procreation.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 8, 2006 Author Posted June 8, 2006 Oh you silly people feeding the troll 704824[/snapback] I've been a member here longer than you. Deal with the issues.
GG Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 Wouldn't this just ensure that no one would even consider marriage? Maybe it's a diabolical plot by the gays to make sure everyone is on even footing.
Chilly Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 I've been a member here longer than you. Deal with the issues. 704842[/snapback] Weren't you born in the early 1700s?
Rubes Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 You're the exception, and you would also fall under the amendment. No worries, but marriage is still for procreation. 704840[/snapback] Sorry, I just don't believe that. I know plenty of couples that have no interest in procreation. Marriage can be religious or not religious, and for procreation or not for procreation. There is no overarching definition of marriage that should include either.
Chef Jim Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 You're the exception, and you would also fall under the amendment. No worries, but marriage is still for procreation. 704840[/snapback] Wife and I have been working on that procreation stuff for 25 years and still no children. Oh well, back to the drawing board I say.
Chef Jim Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 Sorry, I just don't believe that. I know plenty of couples that have no interest in procreation. Marriage can be religious or not religious, and for procreation or not for procreation. There is no overarching definition of marriage that should include either. 704894[/snapback] Religion Procreation What the hell ever happened to just doing it for love.
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 Religion Procreation What the hell ever happened to just doing it for love. 704901[/snapback] or just for fun!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 or just for fun! 704928[/snapback] Or cash!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 Question for the science neeeeerds around here: Could eugenics ever succeed in eradicating low IQ, criminality and other unwanted aspects of the current situation? Not sayign I advocate it, but rather asking if it COULD work.
Johnny Coli Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 Question for the science neeeeerds around here: Could eugenics ever succeed in eradicating low IQ, criminality and other unwanted aspects of the current situation? Not sayign I advocate it, but rather asking if it COULD work. 705017[/snapback] Without delving into what is considered a disease versus a trait/allele, and which non-deleterious traits would be desirable versus undesirable, from a genetics and evolution standpoint a clonal population is not very ideal as it becomes very susceptible to disease. Basically, it is genetic diversity that helps insulate a population from extinction events (from a disease or niche standpoint...not much you can do about an asteroid for example), and it is genetic diversity that helps a population adapt to change. You never know when an unwanted trait might become very desirable.
Chef Jim Posted June 8, 2006 Posted June 8, 2006 or just for fun! 704928[/snapback] Well if love isn't fun for you, you may not be doing it right.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 9, 2006 Author Posted June 9, 2006 By the way, the divorce ban is hardly new. It's the law in Ireland and worked fine there.
Alaska Darin Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 By the way, the divorce ban is hardly new. It's the law in Ireland and worked fine there. 705884[/snapback]
X. Benedict Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 You're the exception, and you would also fall under the amendment. No worries, but marriage is still for procreation. 704840[/snapback] Don't know many post-menapausal women do you?
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 9, 2006 Author Posted June 9, 2006 Don't know many post-menapausal women do you? 705901[/snapback] What's so hard to understand: it would be law for everyone to abide by, but the primary beneficiaries would be kids. People who are sterile, infertile, or don't want to have children would just have to follow the law. No one forces anyone to get married, and when you do, you commit to do it for life. If you don't want to make that commitment, don't get married. It's pretty simple.
Recommended Posts