Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/3/05 11:18 PM, The_FUNK wrote:

At 2/3/05 10:40 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:
What is your view on heterosexual married couples that never conceive a child? Are they an invalid marriage because of this simple fact? Can the state deprive them of their marriage license because they are 50+ and cannot conceive?

Simply put, YES. There is EXTENSIVE legal precedent of annulment due to infertility. Henry the VIII, for one. Hell, it's even in the Bible, the precedent goes back that far. However, an annulment also requires consent of at least one partner, so if the couple is happy with having no children, there's no real need for litigation.

Read my last sentence I wrote and think again on where I was going. So with your logic, 50+ year olds can't get married, as well as women who have had their tubes tied, since there is a good possibility it is irreversible.

Simply put, NO. Yes if there were false pretenses before the marriage that there would eventually be child bearing and there is failure of either parties to do so, then there is a possibility for divorce/annulment. That's because of false pretenses.

You act like "false pretenses" are a direct attempt at deception. How do you know you're fertile until you try to have a baby? YOU DON'T. You could have a perfect relationship in every other way, but if you fail to bear children, the marriage can be declared annulled.

You are thinking differently then what I am thinking. I am thinking in a perfect relationship when it is capable for the couples to have a child, and one party refuses, even if they said before the marriage that they would like children. This is grounds for annulment, false pretenses. Infertility on the other hand is not a grounds for annulment in the a lot of the states in the United States.

My question to you is why are infertile couples allowed to marry? If the basis of marriage is to create children, then why aren't there bans to PREVENT marriage of infertile couples? We're getting ahead of ourselves with talking about divorces and so on, because we haven't reached that point yet.

Scientific fact= gays can't marry..... hmm I can't see the coorelation. I can see the coorelation that gays can adopt a child, and raise a child, as well as the fact that they cannot conceive a child. I just can't see marriage as in any science except in social science. Also, I'd like the ISBN number of a book that says that it's scientific fact that gays can't marry.

Try highschool health, for one. Man+Woman+Sex=Baby. Man+Man+Sex=No Baby. Woman+Woman+Sex=No Baby. Marriage is for having babies. Marriage is a social institution. Social institutions have a functional purpose. Gays can't have babies, so they can't have the social institution of marriage.

Functional purpose= adoption. There's about 117,000 kids that are eligible for adoption. (Link ) I'm still waiting on that ISBN number too.

Civil unions? Fine. Wanna call that civil union a marriage? Fine. Will it be a real marriage? No.

Then let's call all civil unions, homosexual and heterosexual, a marriage and end the debate here.

It's not a grab for power... We just know that if we try to stop state funerals, we will lose the battle before we start it. We just want to separate the church and state as much as the voters are willing to, as this is a DEMOCRACY , and we (the liberals) can't do all we want to do.

liberals are crazy

At 2/5/05 08:17 PM, DavSngSorrow wrote: liberals are crazy

ANYTHING to back that up, please?

There's no real point to that post......I mean......If I were just say "I hate you", without a handhold, a purpose, there would be no point. We can't be like that anymore, seriously....I went overboard on my first post on this thread because I was mad at something hardly related....that harshness was a mistake, as was your post.

Nobody is fundamentally crazy, except for mental patients.

At 2/5/05 06:22 PM, sickdood wrote:

:... this is a DEMOCRACY ...

Actually, this is a republic. A democratic Republic. GET IT STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!!!

jews cant be cremated.
it's against jewish law.
sorry.

At 2/3/05 11:18 PM, The_FUNK wrote: Try highschool health, for one. Man+Woman+Sex=Baby. Man+Man+Sex=No Baby. Woman+Woman+Sex=No Baby. Marriage is for having babies. Marriage is a social institution. Social institutions have a functional purpose. Gays can't have babies, so they can't have the social institution of marriage.

But by stating that marriage is for having babies, shouldn't you then divorce every couple that does not or cannot have children? I mean marriage is for children, then with no children there should be no marriage. Moreover, if marriage is for children, then shouldn't it be illegal of have children outside of marriage? If you are going to go that far as to make sure that marriage is for children (and as you've stated "mariage is for having babies") then conversly no marriage = no babies?

Ok, so I know that reasoning doesn't work but I'm trying to make a point. Sure, two guys having sex doesn't produce a child, big deal. If a man and woman have sex using contraceptives they won't produce a child either. Moreover, if either partner was infertile for a variety of reasons they couldn't have children either. Yet if any such people were to get married you wouldn't protest. From what I can see, the reasoning of "they can't have children" is more of an excuse than a valid point. So either admit you just don't like gay marriage or come up with another point for me to shoot down. :-P