Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

should fertility testing be a requirement... (S/O of sorts)

Posted by   + Show Post

...of marriage?

I often see those against Same Sex Marriage argue that marriage is for the procreation of children and that there is a societal benefit to protect partnerships that create children.  

There are many heterosexual couples that are unable to have children.  Should the state require proof that a couple can procreate before they provide a license to sanction the union?  

Should the state require a couple procreate in a set period of time to avoid the automatic dissolution of their marriage?  


by on Feb. 6, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Replies (91-100):
SunshneDaydream
by Silver Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM

But homosexuals can create a family and add to society.  Most times, when 2 people are raising a child together, regardless of their relationship, they mold into mother/father roles regardless of their gender.  My SIL is essentially raising her daughter with her mother (my MIL) and the girl's father is not in the picture at all.  It is astonishing how my MIL seems to embody the father figure in their situation.  I am quite sure the same would ring true for homosexual couples; one fills a "mother" role and one fills a "father" role.  Or they both fill each role in different aspects of their lives.  

Furthermore, while I'm not sure how I stand yet on incestual relationships between infertile relatives, I do wholeheartedly believe that consentual polygamous relationships SHOULD be legal as well, and I'm not sure why there isn't more of a push towards that in tandem with the SSM fight. 

Quoting futureshock:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html


coronado25
by Silver Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Awesome.  I love it. Voting for you for president.

colins_mom
by Silver Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Don't worry i didn't :)

Quoting HeathersForever:

Hilarious I went to catholic most of my life, but I learned about history through reading for fun. Don't take offense at my correction being accurate



Quoting colins_mom:

Ah.








Public schooling at its finest right here.






Quoting HeathersForever:

No she wasn't. He tried to argue she had "knowledge" of his brother which would make it semi incestous and void their marriage if she had sex with his brother who was her first husband but they were only married a few days before he died thus resulting in the rushed marriage to Catherine. The Pope found for Catherine basically saying that if Henry had wished to raise his objection which he held no proof of he should have done it many years earlier.







Quoting colins_mom:

He used incest as his clause. Im pretty sure she was his cousin









Quoting HeathersForever:

Lol the first one is debatable because everyone knew he boned her. So it was basically a divorce so matter what he said. I say if he didn't touch number 4 he gets an escape clause. Lol











Quoting krysstizzle:

Yes :) So was Catherine of Aragon (anulled), but saying "anulled" instead of "divorced" doesn't have that nice ring and flow to it. I like my history to have a nice ring to it. 

Quoting HeathersForever:

Hey now! Anne of Cleves 4 was annulled. When he met her they say he thought she was so ugly but he married her because he had agreed to, and could never get it up for ole horse face.













Quoting krysstizzle:

Best way to remember his wives: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, died survived. In that order :)

Quoting HeathersForever:

They had a whole series on it, which is on Netflix I believe that was great, it was called "The Tudors" the entire time I watched it I was googling every episode to check historical accuracy. They stayed pretty close, at least on the major things.

Quoting joyfullem:

Damn what a guy

Quoting HeathersForever:

That is not exactly how it happened.

He got a divorce from his first wife.

He had his second wife killed because he thought she was having affairs, and he his interests had turned elsewhere. He tried her for treason. She was not having affairs.

His third wife died in childbirth, and gave him...a SON!

His fourth wife the marriage was never consumated because he thought she was ugly so he had it annulled.

His fifth wife WAS having affairs and was far too young for him so he had her tried for treason and killed.

And his sixth wife outlived him.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:

 I do not know about that Op but I do beleive there may be a law still in some books that allows for the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds that the partner was /is infertile and unable to procreate.








Wasn't it Henry VIII who killed his wives becasue his wives did not birth a son? 






Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
HeathersForever
by on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Nope you just decided to supply misinfo then tried to put me down to make your own mistake look bright, charming

Quoting colins_mom:

Don't worry i didn't :)



Quoting HeathersForever:

Hilarious I went to catholic most of my life, but I learned about history through reading for fun. Don't take offense at my correction being accurate





Quoting colins_mom:

Ah.











Public schooling at its finest right here.








Quoting HeathersForever:

No she wasn't. He tried to argue she had "knowledge" of his brother which would make it semi incestous and void their marriage if she had sex with his brother who was her first husband but they were only married a few days before he died thus resulting in the rushed marriage to Catherine. The Pope found for Catherine basically saying that if Henry had wished to raise his objection which he held no proof of he should have done it many years earlier.









Quoting colins_mom:

He used incest as his clause. Im pretty sure she was his cousin











Quoting HeathersForever:

Lol the first one is debatable because everyone knew he boned her. So it was basically a divorce so matter what he said. I say if he didn't touch number 4 he gets an escape clause. Lol













Quoting krysstizzle:

Yes :) So was Catherine of Aragon (anulled), but saying "anulled" instead of "divorced" doesn't have that nice ring and flow to it. I like my history to have a nice ring to it. 

Quoting HeathersForever:

Hey now! Anne of Cleves 4 was annulled. When he met her they say he thought she was so ugly but he married her because he had agreed to, and could never get it up for ole horse face.















Quoting krysstizzle:

Best way to remember his wives: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, died survived. In that order :)

Quoting HeathersForever:

They had a whole series on it, which is on Netflix I believe that was great, it was called "The Tudors" the entire time I watched it I was googling every episode to check historical accuracy. They stayed pretty close, at least on the major things.

Quoting joyfullem:

Damn what a guy

Quoting HeathersForever:

That is not exactly how it happened.

He got a divorce from his first wife.

He had his second wife killed because he thought she was having affairs, and he his interests had turned elsewhere. He tried her for treason. She was not having affairs.

His third wife died in childbirth, and gave him...a SON!

His fourth wife the marriage was never consumated because he thought she was ugly so he had it annulled.

His fifth wife WAS having affairs and was far too young for him so he had her tried for treason and killed.

And his sixth wife outlived him.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:

 I do not know about that Op but I do beleive there may be a law still in some books that allows for the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds that the partner was /is infertile and unable to procreate.









Wasn't it Henry VIII who killed his wives becasue his wives did not birth a son? 






Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM
1 mom liked this
http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/426856180/there-is-no-secular-case-against-gay-marriage

THERE IS NO SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
Adam Kolasinski, an MIT Doctoral student in financial economics, has written an article, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.” (linked to robot-heart-politics, who generally has very good comments, and this guy, who generally doesn’t.)Unfortunately, Adam Kolasinski doesn’t make a very good case. (I thought his impressive academic pedigree would at least produce an insightful argument. I thought wrong.) He begins:
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. […] Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
Talking about what is and is not a “universal right” is a bit of a red herring. Do we have a “universal right” to free speech? To bear arms? Are there any rights without exceptions? Of course not. And we could debate all day about whether certain rights are self-evident, where such rights came from, and how far they extend. And at the end of the day we wouldn’t agree on any of it. The claim that there is a “right” to same sex marriage need not be more radical than there being a right to relatively equal treatment by the law—and that any exceptions to that rule need to have a compelling government interest. Discussions of abstract rights frequently distract from the immediate and personal nature of injustice. This can be convenient—if you’re on the side pushing the injustice. When we talk about rights, make sure we don’t forget that that my friends in same-sex relationship may end up dying without the person they love most because of hospital visitation policies. And we should also keep in mind that another friend is gathering all kinds of benefits as her gay friend’s “domestic partner” because his actual domestic partner is ineligible.
So let’s not talk about “universal rights.” Instead, let’s talk about rights generally extended to most people in most circumstances that shouldn’t be denied from others without a damn good reason. And let’s talk about why there isn’t a good reason to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
[…] When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
This would almost be persuasive—if it were remotely true. I suppose if you spend enough time doing financial economics you actually accept absurd statements like “the primary purpose for the state to recognize marriage is to incentivize childbirth within wedlock.” In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage—and it simply makes sense to acknowledge how people generally structure their lives. But we ought not let a bit of reality get in the way of this freight train of poor logic.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Right. We like marriage because we like stable families to have children. And same-sex parents with adopted children or donated sperm or eggs apparently don’t count.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
-
No. Denying a right to certain people taht other enjoy is a dickish move. The burden is on opponents of same-sex marriage to explain why this dickishness is somehow okay.
Marriage in our society is not primarily about procreation. We’re not running out of people. Remember how we’re trying to restrict immigration because we think we have too many people? Recognition of marriage is about … recognition of marriage. People get married. They decide to spend their lives monogamously together. They raise families together. They want eachother close if they are hospitalized. They want their homes to pass to their spouses when they die. And, in most cases, the state recognizes these desires.
[Some discussion of not-so-credible theories on children needing parental role models of both genders]
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
I just want to interject for a second and point out that this obsession with fertility is ridiculous. Has any proposal ever begun, “I find you sexually attractive and since your loins seem particularly fertile, we really should take advantage of some tax benefits”? (What’s that Mr. Kolasinski? You mean you tried it? How did it go for you? Oh. I hope it works out with her and that other guy.)
[More stuff about the importance of procreation]
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

This slippery slope stuff is pretty ridiculous. Is there anything wrong with the marriage of two men and three woman? If so, that’s your basis for denying marital recognition. If not, then there’s no harm done. The same goes for the more incestuous examples.
But in all seriousness, if you think that marriage is about nothing other than sexual love and children, you either aren’t married or you probably shouldn’t be married. There’s an element of stability. Of finality. There’s a comfort in knowing that should something happen to you, somebody else will take care for you. In sickness and in health. In good times and bad. And there’s a warmth in knowing that you would do the same for somebody else. The marital bond, while voluntary, is a family bond.
Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. 
Yes. Marital chaos. Like in Iowa. It’s that secret sort of marital chaos that only manifests itself as Midwestern practicality.


I'd just like to add that I posted this on my mobile. Unlike Kolasinski, I ROCK!


Quoting futureshock:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM
1 mom liked this

I will back you up :)

Henry had no spanish blood.. at all. So, there was no way they were related, except by marriage. If Arthur and her had consumated the marriage, they would have been siblings.. (which is how he brought up the incest) He used a hear say quote from his brother " Willoughby, bring me a cup of ale, for I have been this night in the midst of Spain."


Quoting HeathersForever:

Hilarious I went to catholic most of my life, but I learned about history through reading for fun. Don't take offense at my correction being accurate

Quoting colins_mom:

Ah.





Public schooling at its finest right here.




Quoting HeathersForever:

No she wasn't. He tried to argue she had "knowledge" of his brother which would make it semi incestous and void their marriage if she had sex with his brother who was her first husband but they were only married a few days before he died thus resulting in the rushed marriage to Catherine. The Pope found for Catherine basically saying that if Henry had wished to raise his objection which he held no proof of he should have done it many years earlier.





Quoting colins_mom:

He used incest as his clause. Im pretty sure she was his cousin






SNIPPIES
Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:43 PM

and yes.. of course. I also think that the method of raising said children should also be looked into  (sarcasm)

katy_kay08
by on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM

If these ever come up in your next game of Trivial Pursuit you will be set, beyond that this knowledge and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee.  

Quoting HeathersForever:

Nope you just decided to supply misinfo then tried to put me down to make your own mistake look bright, charming

Quoting colins_mom:

Don't worry i didn't :)



Quoting HeathersForever:

Hilarious I went to catholic most of my life, but I learned about history through reading for fun. Don't take offense at my correction being accurate





Quoting colins_mom:

Ah.











Public schooling at its finest right here.








Quoting HeathersForever:

No she wasn't. He tried to argue she had "knowledge" of his brother which would make it semi incestous and void their marriage if she had sex with his brother who was her first husband but they were only married a few days before he died thus resulting in the rushed marriage to Catherine. The Pope found for Catherine basically saying that if Henry had wished to raise his objection which he held no proof of he should have done it many years earlier.









Quoting colins_mom:

He used incest as his clause. Im pretty sure she was his cousin











Quoting HeathersForever:

Lol the first one is debatable because everyone knew he boned her. So it was basically a divorce so matter what he said. I say if he didn't touch number 4 he gets an escape clause. Lol













Quoting krysstizzle:

Yes :) So was Catherine of Aragon (anulled), but saying "anulled" instead of "divorced" doesn't have that nice ring and flow to it. I like my history to have a nice ring to it. 

Quoting HeathersForever:

Hey now! Anne of Cleves 4 was annulled. When he met her they say he thought she was so ugly but he married her because he had agreed to, and could never get it up for ole horse face.















Quoting krysstizzle:

Best way to remember his wives: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, died survived. In that order :)

Quoting HeathersForever:

They had a whole series on it, which is on Netflix I believe that was great, it was called "The Tudors" the entire time I watched it I was googling every episode to check historical accuracy. They stayed pretty close, at least on the major things.

Quoting joyfullem:

Damn what a guy

Quoting HeathersForever:

That is not exactly how it happened.

He got a divorce from his first wife.

He had his second wife killed because he thought she was having affairs, and he his interests had turned elsewhere. He tried her for treason. She was not having affairs.

His third wife died in childbirth, and gave him...a SON!

His fourth wife the marriage was never consumated because he thought she was ugly so he had it annulled.

His fifth wife WAS having affairs and was far too young for him so he had her tried for treason and killed.

And his sixth wife outlived him.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:

 I do not know about that Op but I do beleive there may be a law still in some books that allows for the dissolution of a marriage on the grounds that the partner was /is infertile and unable to procreate.









Wasn't it Henry VIII who killed his wives becasue his wives did not birth a son? 







toomanypoodles
by Ruby Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 8:45 PM

 Good grief. 

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Do you agree with this article? It doesn't seem like your cup of tea? It seems very appropriate on my S/O thread about non-religious reasons against SSM. Did you read the well written blog post against it with which I responded earlier?


Quoting futureshock:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN