and in those non 'fruitful' marriages there is the option for adoption. the bi-sex parental family can still exist. and why a bi-sex parental family? to provide two points of view in the raising of children. or jamiet, do you think that having only one point of view is superior?

"the purpose of marriage first and foremost is to have children"

Says who?

On what basis do you make this claim?

on thousands of years of practice in thousands of families over thousands of generations. you have only the current generation on your side

Brad is 100% correct as usual. More deconstruction and anti-science from the Cultural Marxist Left.

Why can't you just let people, who are doing you no harm whatsoever, organise their relationships the way that suits them, you interfering bigot?

i definitely didn't get married in order to have children.
and the only reason i had children is for the tax breaks.

*bigots

the only other purpose was for royal dynastic union but even that was for the purpose of producing heirs. and you should understand that jamiet, you live in a kingdom.

ishirkmywork you are ABOMINATION in the eyes of both GOD and SCIENCE.

it organize jamiet. and the state is involved in those relationships if they are 'legal'. your argument falls apart if you want state recognition of the union. if you just want to cohabitate that is your affair.

bigot? for supporting and institution that is older than any government in existence or even nationalities?

i have come to realize that anti abortion beliefs comes down to some combination of these things.....
1. anger at one's own inadequate sex life
2. hatred of women
3. fear of women
4. a weird belief some benevolent god is banishing millions of embryo souls to eternal torment in hell
5. cheap (and effective) political weapon that suckers in idiots

no my friend this generation has gone off the rails and is only continuing to erode the idea of marriage. to gain what you want, recognition of a 'union' you would destroy it.

shut up shirk
you are ABOMINATION in the eyes of both GOD and SCIENCE.

proudly culturally marxist, too.

For what it's worth, I happen to think that marriage (in whatever form) should have no legal status or recognition. Let people have whatever ceremonies they like to celebrate their love, but keep the law out of it.

oh and shirk, are you sure that they are 'your' children?

no legal status or recognition

that is cohabitation and i spoke on that above

@Jamiet,
Brad's position regarding marriage derives from the Bible, I think. In particular, Genesis 1:27-28 is very apt on this point.

Whether using the Bible as a reference point in this discussion is appropriate or not, I won't comment on one way or another, but I think that that is where his position is coming from.

Oh that's real classy Brad. Brad who cares about the morals of society, just casually insinuating that another person's spouse has cheated on them. I mean, that's low.

Sad!

"that is cohabitation and i spoke on that above"

Brad: I am aware that it is possible to live together and not marry. What I am saying is that it is my position that *no* forms of marriage whatsoever should have legal status.

i understood your position jamiet. that doesn't negate mine; and shirk claimed no marriage so it is not his spouse.

and you know all about class and status living in the United Kingdom right jamiet, you subject of the queen, you.

Capt Brad do you receive free healthcare from the VA?

@Brad,
There is obviously a very large difference between practicing your beliefs in your private capacity and imposing them upon others though. The two concepts are not the same and hence they must carry different standards upon which we measure them.

my wife had a miscarriage once, at 12 weeks. Just kinda fell out into the toilet one night, followed by a lot of blood. a little clump of tissue. probably alive at some point, but definitely not a person yet. 1 in 5 pregnancies (at least) end this way. is the god above a sick freak murdering babies right and left, or perhaps are we taking this life at conception thing a little too seriously? no one has been able to explain this contradiction to me adequately.

never been to one to find out brain. i have employer provided insurance. and given the inadequate level of care in the VA i am not about to go there to find out. free is not the same as good. do you have free healthcare from the government, brain?

@Brad: I care very little for the Queen. Having a royal as head of state is an anachronism and should be done away with.

civ, i am not imposing them; i am stating them. imposing presupposes a power to coerce. i hardly believe i am coercing jamiet