🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brissie" <brissie@zwallet.com> wrote in message
news:abq0n0p506pvfh83du735014muuid69tqh@4ax.com...
>
> >And although I agree that it is not a marriage because children will not
> >occur.
>
> So in relationships between men & women where 1 of them has a problem
> so that they cannot birth children. They shouldnt' be allowed to get
> married eithert?
>
Probably not? I mean in reading back the oldies used to say if you married
for children you were a peasant type, so sophiscated city slicker if you
married without the intention of children?

The difference is if a country who did not manufacture cars claimed to want
to join countries who did produce  cars by manufacture as the same they
would be told, you are not the same, you buy a lot of cars, you repair a lot
of cars, but you do not manufacture cars.
So although you might be accepted in all ways by these other countries,
there is one respect where you are not the same, you do not manufacture
cars?

In heterosexual marriage the problem is the same? Although you have the
means to manufacture or produce a baby, you do not, and if you buy one it is
still not fully manufactured by the couple as with the heterosexual couple?

So to say that buying a full or half baby belittles the act of motherhood? A
young couple struggles to achieve a position in life to have a baby, go
through all th terrore and tribulations of miscarriage, troublesome births,
and financial hardship to produce, and you want to say that a couple who
could choose when and where they have the baby, in eddect buy a model
without any of the trauma or effort that a heterosexual couple has to go
through? Not to menton reaching stages where they wonder if it's safe to
hang his trousers on theend of the bed in case she should have an unwanted
pregnancy?

And also all the complications to health that a women can have with
childbirth. Yes I do not think it is the same in a lot of ways.