Do you believe that I should not have the right to be married because I cannot reproduce? July 14, at Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it.
A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type i.
And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction.
And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that. Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it?
Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. July 17, at 1: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Opposite genders is a prerequisite of becoming one flesh, joined by God. Randall Ellison November 12, at Thus, we will have achieved equality, defeated the righteous Christian ego-trip, and assured that religion plays no role in the affairs of lawmaking. Its not replacing anything. Your very selected use of sources and cultural persceptive cannot address every culture at every time period. Can you honestly say that every culture has obeyed these rules, or even set them up as ideal? Some cultures had arranged marriages at very early ages, although not necessarily sexual until adulthood, they were never the less married.
Some cultures actually encouraged mixing and swapping spouses. They present evidence on that site. And lastly there are actual examples of marriages in ancient times between members of the same gender. One is that they have to overcome their own history around plural marriage, and appear more mainstream. But the actual reason it was stopped sounds like a legal reason: What reason would remain for the LDS church to refrain from practicing plural marriage?
I think that would raise a few eyebrows, maybe as much as actually practicing plural marriage. Either option could be detrimental to the existence of the LDS church. The fight against same sex marriage has generated a lot of public coverage, perhaps more than if it funded its own advertising and missionary effort alone. It does come with some potential penalties. Fatigue over the issue. Also the LDS people will loose the persecution card to gay people.
Officially gays and muslims are less popular than LDS people, but not by much. You are perceived as persecuting gays. I already think that the LDS religion is just homophobia. CandyT October 13, at 8: Parenting is not about giving birth, it is about raising children. Same sex partners can be great parents and contribute to the continuation of humanity by providing love and nurturing to the thousands of children cast off by heterosexual parents. The same is true of heterosexual partners who cannot physically give birth for whatever reason.
We can all play a valuable role.