we dont need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)<quoted text>
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.
#204492 Jul 24, 2013
#204493 Jul 24, 2013
No, the whole reason for this argument is to correct you. No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage.
Yet you insist someone did. I have said (and I stand by it) that procreation is closely related to marriage and why argue otherwise? Any freshman sociology student knows that. And it's one of the reasons the government gives perks to marriage. Why argue otherwise? What is the goal of your spin? Of course procreation is associated with marriage. Of course it's never been a REQUIREMENT.
#204494 Jul 24, 2013
You said that someone said procreation is a requirement of marriage. You lie. No one said that.
#204495 Jul 24, 2013
I'd love to see you tell a judge that someday. "Your honor, I don't need to prove it, we already know and it is more fun to make fun that you are ignorant..."
Then you'd come flying out the courtroom door and land on your bony ass in the street!
#204496 Jul 24, 2013
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man fundamental to our very existence and survival. Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)
All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institutions inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman. Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing. Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law is one of the two principle ends of marriage. Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage. De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
#204497 Jul 24, 2013
Procreation is [o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony. Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage. Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race. Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
Having children is a primary purpose of marriage. Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation. Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony. Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation. Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children. Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
#204498 Jul 24, 2013
There isn't, for the umpteenth time, nor is there a requirement to have sex.
Of course we don't, its all about husband and wife, everything stems from that. A husband and wife, who choose not to have children, or cannot have children, are just a valuable to society as those husbands and wives that do. They both reinforce the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife.
#204499 Jul 24, 2013
I don't know why anyone would take the position that marriage is not associated with procreation unless they were trying to spin something.
#204500 Jul 24, 2013
You need to catch up, it is also between same sex couples, legally recognized on the state and federal level, as legal a marriage as yours or mine.
Procreation is not a requirement
Sexual behavior is not a requirement
Type of sex acts are not specified
#204501 Jul 24, 2013
I dont know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isnt now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
#204502 Jul 24, 2013
I dont think of you as any kind of judge, you are about the last person I would have judge anything.
The people that did bring the other side up in front of a judge, ended up with the judges laughing at the argument.
#204503 Jul 24, 2013
Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. Like Big D is thinking "Look at that son-of-a-b!tch Frankie eating those crackers like he owns the place."
#204504 Jul 24, 2013
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.
And it's dishonest to say someone said something they didn't.
#204505 Jul 24, 2013
They didn't laugh at the argument. They laughed at a joke about older people having kids. If the argument was laughable, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
#204506 Jul 24, 2013
Well I have some interesting information for you that you are obviously ignorant of.
There are millions of people married who either cannot, or choose not to have children. Our government has not restricted marriage only to people who can or intend to have children. That isnt an opinion, that is a fact.
There has never been a law restricting people from marrying because of their ability or intent to have children or not.
It never has, and we are not about to vote in a new law so you can specifically exclude these people.
#204507 Jul 24, 2013
You are like a little puppet on strings.. Dance Frankie.. Dance!( chuckle )
#204511 Jul 24, 2013
Here you go
you are implying and I will be happy to correct you
procreation is not now nor has ever been needed to obtain a marriage license, and has no place in any argument against same sex marriage.
Dance Frankie! Dance!
#204513 Jul 24, 2013
Communist Chinese are all but phonies, watch as their empire crumbles.
“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”
Since: Nov 10
#204514 Jul 24, 2013
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?
You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.
You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.
Man up VV.
You are running from a lie. Face it, and then we can talk about meeting.
However, I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form. The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
#204515 Jul 24, 2013
Not once have I, I don't need to, I have the luxury of being right
It has not now nor ever been a requirement in this country
Add your comments below
|Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15)||23 hr||Voter||122|
|Review: Senior Helpers (Mar '16)||Sep 23||John A||3|
|Weird noises are coming Apple complex (Feb '16)||Sep 23||flbadcatowner||50|
|Vote For Donald Trump||Sep 23||Trollbuster||16|
|Sunnyvale Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records||Sep 22||Carl||2|
|Report of Possible Alien Signal Sets SETI Commu...||Sep 19||Allright already||5|
Find what you want!
Search Palo Alto Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC