TruckOSaurus said:
HappySqurriel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
HappySqurriel said:
The "Traditional" definition of marriage more or less relates to a man and a woman entering into a partnership in order to raise children with legitimate paternity. This is the predominant view of marriage throughout the world, and has been the predominant view of marriage throughout history, and a relationship that can not generate children does not make sense under this definition ... A man declaring he is menstrating makes as much sense as two men declaring they're married under this definition.
|
So a guy married to a barren woman should divorce her because his marriage makes no sense if you use the "traditional" definition of marriage?
|
Are you really unaware of the fact that that used to happen? I think you need to read more history, I think you should start by reading about Henry VIII of England.
|
Catherine of Aragon was not barren, she had many pregnancies but a lot of stillborn babies. She had a girl (Mary) and a boy who only lived a month or two.
|
... and her inability to produce a male heir was the reason she was considered to be an unfit wife.
A large portion of what we now understand about reproduction demonstrate that the "Traditional" definition of marriage may be obsolete, but the "Romantic" definition of marriage is also far from ideal. Personally, I'm for the elimination of a legal definition of marriage because most of the rights and responsibilities that come from marriage no longer require a marriage and people generally define their relationship on their own terms anyways.
