Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
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.

705913[/snapback]

How can the infertile in good conscience enter a union for which the primary purpose is

procreation?

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
How can the infertile in good conscience enter a union for which the primary purpose is

procreation?

705918[/snapback]

 

It's not my job to answer that question; the government isn't expressing a concern about WHY two people marry. Still, the end result of most marriages, and the thing that the divorce ban protects, is families and children. That's what matters.

 

Why two adults marry is their business--they just can't divorce.

 

In the drafts I've seen, the Constitutional Amendment would be limited to a divorce ban.

Posted
Well if love isn't fun for you, you may not be doing it right.

705072[/snapback]

 

 

Oh love is a blast.....I'm merely pointing out that it is not a requirement to having fun.

Posted
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.

705913[/snapback]

 

 

What's hard to understand is how any sane person who professes enjoying life in a free country could agree with a law that would force someone to remain married to a person they hate.

 

It’s also hard to understand how little understanding of domestic violence those same people possess. As if battered women don’t have enough problems getting out of abusive relationships. Now we have nutjobs who want to make it illegal unless what? They can show bruises? Gimmie a break! :lol::lol:

Posted
What's hard to understand is how any sane person who professes enjoying life in a free country could agree with a law that would force someone to remain married to a person they hate.

 

 

If you hate the person, don't get married to them. And if you think you hate them once you're married, give it time and it will undoubteedly get better. A little commitment to marriage would be a good thing.

 

It’s also hard to understand how little understanding of domestic violence those same people possess.  As if battered women don’t have enough problems getting out of abusive relationships.  Now we have nutjobs who want to make it illegal unless what?  They can show bruises?  Gimmie a break!    :lol:  :lol:

705974[/snapback]

 

Abuse would be one of the few valid reasons for divorce.

 

Keep trying. No one has punched a hole in this yet.

Posted
If you hate the person, don't get married to them. And if you think you hate them once you're married, give it time and it will undoubteedly get better. A little commitment  to marriage would be a good thing.

Abuse would be one of the few valid reasons for divorce.

 

Keep trying. No one has punched a hole in this yet.

705987[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry, just because you choose to ignore all the reasons why your pet idea is absurd doesn't mean it hasn't been discredited.

 

Now see, if we applied your logic here, you would be forced to remain pigheaded for the rest of your life!!! :lol:

Posted
Sorry, just because you choose to ignore all the reasons why your pet idea is absurd doesn't mean it hasn't been discredited.

 

 

705999[/snapback]

 

And just because you can't find a hole in my logic doesn't make you right.

×
×
  • Create New...