Phoenix32890 wrote:I think that idea is fabulous. If marriage is for procreation, ergo, couples who don't produce children should not have the benefits of wedded bliss. I love it!
(Jes- You can borrow my kid, but I don't know if his wife would be too pleased about it!
0
You two are about this.
Fact is, the controversy has never really been about procreation...or even the "ability" to procreate. If anything, right now the world probably needs less "procreation" and more responsibility for the results of procreation.
And it certainly is not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage"...because marriage is in an incredible state of disrepair right now due to what married people do and don't do...not due to disruptive forces from outside of marriage.
This is about prejudice...and a learned loathing of behavior that is different. And it is absurd...which is why it probably makes sense to fight it with other absurities. Often...when the opposite absurdity is shown to someone displaying absurdity...it becomes apparent in a way that otherwise would not be apparent.
In any case, why would the state (which is supposed to be divorced from religion) be interested in "protecting" the "sanctity" of anything.
I think the idea is brilliant...and I hope it stirs up a hornet's nest. The more light brought to bear on this nonsense...the better.