[Ace]

Originally posted by Mongoose
No, I don't want to outlaw either divorce or childless marriages.  What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence.  There are some things that shouldn't be legislated and some things that should.  As all of us know too well, the real trick is figuring out what falls under which category.

Now, I can understand wanting to reduce divorce but childless marriages?

I repeat:
Freedom to reproduce must include freedom to not reproduce if desired.

In fact, people should be encouraged to adopt as opposed to having their own children. If America/Austalia/Canada/Britain/France is so great, then why not bring a baby born into another country here for better opportunities?

Oh wait, that's because those babies must be sinful or somesuch because god didn't bless them with being born in a better country or some other similar bull****...

[aldo_14]

So it's wrong to have kids unless you have a little piece of paper from the registry office, in which case it's wrong not to have kids?

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Ace
Oh wait, that's because those babies must be sinful or somesuch because god didn't bless them with being born in a better country or some other similar bull****...

Where in the name of spam did that come from?

[aldo_14]

Ace was pre-emptively arguing that it's better to have couples adopting from less fortunate countries overseas, than to campaign against childless marriages on the basis of religion.

[vyper]

[q]What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence.[/q]

That's fine and dandy but... what if the happily married couples who don't have children currently, don't _want_ children? Who are you to say they're wrong?

[Mongoose]

What I'm saying is that one of the purposes of marriage, throughout human history, has been to create stable, nurturing environments to raise children in.  At least in my opinion, having children is a fundamental part of marriage.  I can't convince people who disagree with me otherwise, but maybe I can at least get them to consider the possibility.

aldo, if that's what Ace was trying to say, why didn't he just say it?  That's not at all what I got out of that message.

[Flipside]

The thing is that if Children is a fundamental part of marriage and marriage is a fundemental part of relationships, by placing this in law, you are creating a path that people, no matter what their own personal wishes or desires might be, have no choice but to follow and suffer upon.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So it's wrong to have kids unless you have a little piece of paper from the registry office, in which case it's wrong not to have kids?

Of course.  You must do your duty for the master race.  Have many children!  Women must be baby factories!

[vyper]

Hitler, lots of Popes.... Hitler, lots of Popes *balances scales*

Ach, we'll call it a draw.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
What I'm saying is that one of the purposes of marriage, throughout human history, has been to create stable, nurturing environments to raise children in.  At least in my opinion, having children is a fundamental part of marriage.  I can't convince people who disagree with me otherwise, but maybe I can at least get them to consider the possibility.

aldo, if that's what Ace was trying to say, why didn't he just say it?  That's not at all what I got out of that message.

I'd say that marriages were formed as a formalisation of existing parental bonds, rather than being required for them.  In any decent relationship, all a marriage is, is a simple piece of paper.  It doesn't make any difference on fidelity or faithfulness... in fact, it's main value would be for spousal rights.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by vyper
Hitler, lots of Popes.... Hitler, lots of Popes *balances scales*

Ach, we'll call it a draw.

And the religion-bashing resumes in force...