Actually your marriage exists for the same reason, as does mine. There are two sexes, human reproduction is sexual, and our society, as have many across the globe, throughout time and place, figured this out. As to the feeling sorry part, you response seems to indicate, you feel wives are interchangeable with men. Personally my wife is all woman, but if some like 'em....<quoted text>
NO, that may be the reasons your marriage exists ( 8in which case I feel very very sorry for your wife ),
The states does that, at least legally. I have every right to advocate for monogamous conjugal marriage as the legal definition, as do you monogamous two person model regardless of gender composition, and polygamists also have the right to advocate for their definition.but it sure was not the reason for mine. You donít get to define what everyone elseís marriage is about.
What a coincidence, so do I. I also know people whose mother and father were not only married, but had sex to create them.I know people who married later in life, I know people that married with no intent of having children, I know people that married without the ability to have children
Actually, Big Denial, I don't, stated just that. Let's go to the audio tape:and you think their marriages is less than others are.. you are wrong... dead wrong, and a VAST majority of Americans will agree with me on that.
Pietro Armando said:
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.
Silly rabbit, why the heck would it have to be a requirement? Do you think married couples won't have sex? That there won't be any "oops" babies? As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up". That's not tradition, that's good old fashioned facts of life.The intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get a marrage license.
Not any tradition? Even the tradition that says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"?I donít give a darn about tradition,
That's because I won't climb the mountain to seek out your wisdom. I'm sure you have enough politicians, and judges doing that already.I certainly donít give a darn about what you think is important.
Nor do you sparky, but thanks for trying.I donít have to run every marriage past you for approval, you have no authority.
Is that on the marriage license? Are THOSE pre-requisites? Are they legal requirements? Besides, marriage has always been about "2 people", polygamy is a valid form of marriage world wide, and its practiced in this country, albeit without legal recognition.Marriage is about 2 people making a promise, to become partners in their lives, it is about love, and respect and a commitment to one another.
Who said anything about a ceremony?Tradition is unnecessary ( people can have a cerymony, or not, as they choose )
Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.Children are not a requirement ( no law will automatically decree a dissolution of a marriage based on intent or ability to have children, one of the parties has to WANT a divorce, and then any reason works, including eating crackers in bed )