🚀 go-pugleaf

"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0410160200.59c95299@posting.google.com...
> 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?
>
> I've asked that myself. I'm personally aware of one couple who simply
> cannot procreate. His problem, her problem? I don't know. But as long
> as they're together, they will never have children. They've been
> married for over 20 years. Is this marriage not valid?

As mentioned previously, our future is our children. And it is taking away a
little from the couple who has ensured or future what little pride and
fortune they believe they have to say , that is very ordinary?

I am not questioning the love for each other and the love they could give
children if so blessed. They started of as a fully operational unit using
the car analogy used previously, and it is bad luck if they cannot produce.

The gay couple never could produce more than half a car at most.
But even with cloning advancing enough so that they could produce a full car
wholly of their manufacture, it does not require the blood , sweat,  tears
and danger that the heterosexual will have have to experience. So as in this
case, unlike car manufacture, extra effort should be worth something, seeing
most gay couples will never have to expend that effort they should not be
joined under the same name? Because parenthood should have some value
commensurate with the effort .