[clever alias]

(05-14-2013 09:47 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:43 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:33 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  

Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I don't understand how you could possibly separate the two. The rich had children to pass on their land and title. The poor had children to work that land or they would starve. Marriage has always been about procreation.

no, but procreation rarely, if ever, happened outside of procreation. correlation does not equal causation.
every child has married parents == every marriage is about children.

Procreation rarely happened outside of procreation? What does that mean

No one said every married couple has children, but the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Exceptions do not change the rule.

oops, typo procreation rarely happened outside of MARRIAGE