2016 Postmortem

LiberalFighter

(50,825 posts) Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:22 PM Mar 2013

The way I understand the codification of marriage was not for procreation purposes

It was to legitimize and protect the children in the marriage and the wives. Ralph Reed says it is for procreative purposes. Then why don't they require that marriages are not valid if there are no children from the marriage? It is a means of determining property rights.

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The way I understand the codification of marriage was not for procreation purposes (Original Post) LiberalFighter Mar 2013 OP

That's what we have done to marriage, not what it was intended for. dkf Mar 2013 #1

If you read marriage statutes, it is about the stuff and the kids if any. I do not know how so many uppityperson Mar 2013 #2

Some years back Stephanie Coontz wrote a book on the history of marriage. CBHagman Mar 2013 #3

She does excellent research. Her books Ilsa Mar 2013 #4

Hey Ralph, if a marriage isn't procreative is it "illegitimate"? Can it be annulled? JHB Mar 2013 #5

And what about marriage among the old? Maeve Mar 2013 #6

One man, one woman is actually a fairly recent development. yellowcanine Mar 2013 #7

Barrenness was a cause for annulment marshall Mar 2013 #8

dkf

(37,305 posts)

1. That's what we have done to marriage, not what it was intended for.

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:26 PM

Mar 2013

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)

2. If you read marriage statutes, it is about the stuff and the kids if any. I do not know how so many

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:28 PM

Mar 2013

got it so confused.

CBHagman

(16,984 posts)

3. Some years back Stephanie Coontz wrote a book on the history of marriage.

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:35 PM

Mar 2013

Quite interesting, and it gives a sense of the shifting views of marriage (and, for that matter, shifting attitudes towards personal freedom, family, and one's fellow human beings).

Ilsa

(61,690 posts)

4. She does excellent research. Her books

Reply to CBHagman (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 11:12 PM

Mar 2013

are not opinion pieces, but illustrations of history based on real documentation. She's my favorite Sociologist!

JHB

(37,158 posts)

5. Hey Ralph, if a marriage isn't procreative is it "illegitimate"? Can it be annulled?

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:19 AM

Mar 2013

Do Southern Baptists or Pentecostals have annulment? Or would they need to go to a Catholic priest to get one?

Say, doesn't sharia law have provisions for annulment? And Reed has been buddy-boys with Grover Norquist since their College Republican days! OMG, Pam Geller was right! They're infiltrating the conservative movement to enforce sharia law! AHHHHHHHH!
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/hair.fire-emoticon-583.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Maeve

(42,279 posts)

6. And what about marriage among the old?

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:17 AM

Mar 2013

Grandma was way past childbearing when she and Step-Grandpa got married---does that make it invalid? C'mon, Ralph! What have you got against Grandma???? Let 'em have their lives!

yellowcanine

(35,698 posts)

7. One man, one woman is actually a fairly recent development.

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:59 AM

Mar 2013

And it certainly is not the only Biblical model. Ralph Reed is full of roach poop.

marshall

(6,665 posts)

8. Barrenness was a cause for annulment

Reply to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:42 PM

Mar 2013

I believe one of the parties had to request it, presumably so they could find a more fruitful partner.

Reply to this discussion