Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shinerbock
A stupid argument? Its simply unnatural for a couple not to have the ability to produce children. You can make excuses all you want, but thats the way it is. Marriage=male and female. Also, Marriage=usually provides ability to produce children. But you're right, that wasnt the way it was intended to be or anything, I'm sure thats just a random coincidence.
|
Well golly gee... so I guess we should stamp-out all those other pesky "unnatural" marriages - the infertile or sterile due to disease, age, or injury say... "sorry Grandpa but you can't be legal married anymore because you and Grandma can't produce kids anymore" -or how about- "You served your country proud soldier; tough break with that wound though... I'm sure your sweetheart will understand".
As for natural... well what is natural? Strickly speaking from a biological or evolutionary perspective the only major benifit providied by the institution of marriage is the long-term nurturing of young... a benifit also produced by communal raising systems. Other arguements would state that marriage is actually detrimental to the "natural" evolution of the species...
The marriage assumptions that you seem to be working on are the product of the practices of early Western non-Christian societies in mitigating internal strife over sexual partners; a system that then had Classical and finally Christian mores (sometimes conflicting) added on.
The major problem you seem to have is, in that using the arguement that "this is the way it has always been" it is a false arguement... just as arguing that the primary reason for marriage has always been the production of offspring ~ something that also doesn't bear up under historic research - historical marriage was about social contracts more than offspring.
Threaded Mode
