"If you can't procreate, you shouldn't be allowed to marry." WHAT???

[fabshelly]

This was actually posted on another thread, and I wanted to call out some discussion about it.

If you're unable to bear children, says JimFitz, you should not be allowed to get married, because marriage is for procreation only.

If you have a medical condition that prevents you from having children
If you choose to not have children
If your children are grown and you have, after menopause, found the love of your life...you shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I strongly disagree.

 

[i<3Disney]

Geez, that's the goofiest thing I've heard in a loooooooooooong time.

 

[disykat]

You are apparently a master at misconstruing someone's words. Disagreeing with someone doesn't give you license to misquote them.

I see a lot of posts on the DIS where people say if you say this, then you must mean this. You brought this art to a new level by starting a new thread to misquote someone!

 

[poohandwendy]

Good thing I was pregnant when I got married. (hey, that is the first time I ever said that, LOL)

As the the idea presented, it's dumb. Doesn't even seem like something that could be debated...but I am sure it will be..

 

[Hixski]

This was actually posted on another thread, and I wanted to call out some discussion about it.

If you're unable to bear children, says JimFitz, you should not be allowed to get married, because marriage is for procreation only.

If you have a medical condition that prevents you from having children
If you choose to not have children
If your children are grown and you have, after menopause, found the love of your life...you shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I strongly disagree.

Oh, right, ok, I will get right on divorcing my husband first thing in the morning. WTH. Where the heck was this posted? I have to see this. I got married when I was 25. Planned on having children but it just never happened. So I guess now that I have been married for 21 years I should get a divorce. What craziness. And how many people know when they get married if they can have children or not.

Edited: I read the other post and it was taken a bit out of context. Guess I don't have to get a divorce after all. I would like to know exactly what he meant though.

 

[poohandwendy]

You are apparently a master at misconstruing someone's words. Disagreeing with someone doesn't give you license to misquote them.

I see a lot of posts on the DIS where people say if you say this, then you must mean this. You brought this art to a new level by starting a new thread to misquote someone!

LOL, this was started because something another poster said? AND misquoted? LOL

I would like to see what Jim actually said...anyone have a link?

 

[fabshelly]

Exact quotes:

Marriage is between a man and a woman for the sake of procreation.

 

[disykat]

I don't know how to link. I found it by going to the OP's other posts and finding her response.

Jim Fitz made the statement against gay marriage because they can't have kids. (I'm assuming he meant biologically) While I certainly understand why the OP would disagree with him on this point, she was the one who turned it into "if you can't procreate, you shouldn't marry". He did not say that.

While I understand the desire to debate his opinion using a "if you say this, then do you mean to say that..." argument, I think misquoting him and bringing it on to another thread was just wrong!

 

[PrincessTiff]

I think your taking that quote out of context. They could have been getting at the fact that a man/man or a woman/woman relationship doesn't have this. I'm curious to see where this goes though...

 

[poohandwendy]

Exact quotes:

I gotta agree with Disykat here. That is the direct quote, but it does not equal "If you can't have children you should not get married" nor does it equal the title of this thread, "if you can't procreate, you shouldn't be allowed to marry" which is what you said was actually posted on another thread. It wasn't. And neither was the rest of the stuff you siad in the first post.

 

[disykat]

Exact quotes:

OK, I apparently saw a different post. However, I still maintain that his quote is NOT the same as yours. You can't assume because someone feels the purpose of marriage is procreation that they are saying that people who can't procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[poohandwendy]

Why not just ask him what he meant by that?

 

[JadenLayne]

Honestly I don't agree with the exact quote. My exact quote would be,

Marriage is between two people who deeply love each other and want to be exclusive to each other for their lifes.

 

[RayaniFoxmur]

While that may not be the meaning that was intended (What OP took from that quote) I can certainly see how it would be misconstrued that way. I mean... if you're speaking out against gay marriage in this way, it's pretty flawed because then you're basically saying "Oh but you know, if you're straight and can't reproduce that's ok!". Total double standard.

 

[barkley]

i'm not going to debate the validity of the quote-just comment on the concept.

in actuality there are some religions that if you look at the actual church 'law' their rules for marriage are based on the assumption of procreation. that's why some churches that have adamant stances against divorce will permit them in the form of an annulment (even years after the fact) if one spouse is found to be infertile or unwilling to have children. the same churches, if you look at their actual 'law' on premarital sex-are against it because their 'law' states that sex is only for the purpose of procreation, and procreation is only to occur between a married couple. that's why MANY years ago-in some very traditional catholic families once a woman decided she no longer wished to have additonal children all sexual relations with the spouse ended (it's been widely documented that Rose Kennedy took this stance in her marriage-allegedly because she attended convent schools that taught the hard line church doctrine that supported this).

now this is a totaly skewed interpretation of this kind of church rule or law BUT, when i was in college i had a number of friends who belonged to a very mainstream church that followed this type of belief system (and the church also held that married couples not use birth control)-so there was a common practice that the young adults who did'nt want to have kids but did want to be sexualy active with their partners would enter into a 'trial marriage'. they would get married legaly but not have it 'sealed' in the church-they used birth control until they were ready to have kids at which time they did the church wedding and then discontinued using it. the way it was explained to me was-it was a HUGE sin to have premarital sex, a BIG sin to use birth control within a church reccognized marriage- but a much lesser sin to have 'recreational sex' with birth control in a marriage that was 'at least' reccognized by the state (and when an 'oops' pregancy occured during the trial marriage-they hot footed it to have that marriage reccognized by the church). i knew a few people that had a 2-3 'trial marriages' before they wed-but only the one sealed by the church was reccognized as valid (and the weird thing was in that mind set they saw it no different than a dating couple making a commitment to be monogomous-kind of like akin to saying 'we're going steady' ).

 

[AKLRULZ]

The quote/misquote or whatever isn't Biblical so it possess no validity with me.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

So after women go through menopause and are no longer capable of baring children (with some exceptions, of course), should they then get divorced??

ETA: Sorry, just read the whole thread. I gotta start doing that before I reply.