If an XXY cannot father a child without in-vitro fertilization, (s)he would not need marriage under the economic criterion.

kehoe it's nice knowing your family, we should get together for a Carolina BBQ

The fact that the preacher is repeating his narrowminded view of marriage without commenting any arguments for value (even economic value) in marriage besides children proofs monte right in his perception of the preacher being a wall.

BTW, shouldn't married people that can not produce offspring any more (due to age or accidents or surgery ) be "un-married" since the sole purpose of marriage that is accepted by the preacher is gone? This should also be true for those with offspring once the children reached maturity. No more marriage for aged persons!

So the generally accepted view of marriage being between a man and woman will no longer be valid, but why stop there? Let's let adults marry animals if they so choose. There might just be consenting love there. If we are to stretch the boundaries of marriage lets do it all the way. Since procreation is no longer the usual underlying requisite behind marriage let's really open up the definition. Human + human should not be the stopping point!

now you are just trolling simba

No I'm not, just challenging the generally accepted institution of marraige. Forget about religion, our species was scientifically designed to pair male with female. If we are going to abolish that train of thought let's not fuck around. Let's do it all the way.

I love my dog. My dog loves me. I can sexually gratify my dog. My dog can sexually gratify me (I guess). We can spend time together. We live together. We share the same bed. My dog is very cute and actually does television commercials, so she has an income to help with the bills. We eat dinner together. We watch TV together. We go on vacation together. She really loves the beach. Who the fuck are you people to judge our relationship and deny us our love?


p.s. I don't own any pets.

Obviously because the Commonwealth of Virginia knows that the above is your stance (doggystyle) on human/pet relationships and has banned you from doing so. (a la Michael Vick)

"No I'm not, just challenging the generally accepted institution of marraige. Forget about religion, our species was scientifically designed to pair male with female."


this is actually not true, there are many evolutionary advantages for having a small chanse of being gay. that is why in almost every single herd animal, there is gay sex. having some gays increases the cohesion of the herd and creates an individual which will focus his/hers life on helping his/hers sisters and brothers bringing up their children, without having any conflict of interest with ones own children.

Cypher:

If the man for some reason cannot naturally-engineer a child, he doesn't lose the right not to be parasitized and lose the consortium of his wife and her full attention to his offspring because of another male. The wife, likewise, even if she cannot naturally-engineer a child, recieved in exchange of her pledge of fidelity a pledge by the man that he would not dilute his attention to her offspring by fathering offspring elsewhere.

And if you have terminable marriages, who decides when they are to be terminated? Again, information costs.

retitle this thread:
Bigotry Page for Asswipes.