Lady Florida. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I've had sex (with fertile men!) a lot more times than I've had children. :lol: If I had known how difficult it would be for me to conceive, I might have had a lot more unprotected sex. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Could be. You seem to be in the minority in feeling that, though. Feel free to ignore me. Or did you want to contribute something to the conversation? You have some interesting things to say. I would prefer to read your posts rather than ignore you. But your argument is diluted when you add in "the other stuff." From reading what you have to say, it appears that you feel strongly about this topic. However, you are writing in such a way as to have the thread closed. Closing the thread will not allow you to communicate about this important issue. I wanted to point out that you are at odds with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Please get help. I honestly hope you aren't saying the things you are posting out loud. Help for what? I asked for the thread to be deleted because it is predicated upon irreconcilable differences of opinions and is a 100% political topic. Hardly a controversial position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Just saw this and had to share given the recent way this thread turned. Don't talk to me about religious persecution: http://consumerist.com/2013/03/27/is-the-usps-more-likely-to-lose-boxes-emblazoned-with-the-word-atheist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoObvious Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Thank you. I wasn't sure I could get away with saying all of that. Agreeing 100%. Ban away, board. Take a personal shot, expect a personal response. I am just utterly in shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I can assure you that many Gay couples also very much want to be parents, their heartache and anguish is every bit as strong as hetero couples in this regard, which is a big reason why legal marriage is so important, it would protect the right of more families to adopt and raise children in loving stable homes. Life is unfair, and we all have crosses to bear. All of us. No one gets out of life unscathed. There are other ways for them to obtain children, though it's not something I would encourage. And to say that is unfair, well, many who are infertile cannot adopt and so remain childless. LIfe is not fair, and we all bear pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 You have some interesting things to say. I would prefer to read your posts rather than ignore you. But your argument is diluted when you add in "the other stuff." From reading what you have to say, it appears that you feel strongly about this topic. However, you are writing in such a way as to have the thread closed. Closing the thread will not allow you to communicate about this important issue. I wanted to point out that you are at odds with yourself. Are you seriously pinning the closing of this thread on ME? Bwahahahahaha. Okay. Well. If you don't feel that the "other stuff" is worth reading, don't. Others do. And, frankly, I don't give a shit who does or doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I have you on ignore, but I clicked this, and will not further answer any more of your questions. Just say'n. I am not surprised. You seem to struggle to articulate a rational argument when challenged. Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true. People always throw that one in there without fully thinking it through. See? Case in point. You said: " They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce." There are couples who cannot, and will not ever, reproduce. There are also some who CHOOSE to never reproduce. You can claim you have me on ignore all you want, but the reality is you know you cannot provide a logical explanation for your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Right. I am one of those people. If we are going to outlaw gay marriage we should at least be consistent and outlaw divorce, which is extremely damaging in the majority of cases, and very commonplace. Sometimes staying in the marriage is more damaging than the divorce. So you don't want gays to marry, but no one can divorce either? That in itself would erode marriage, people would just live together instead, or suffer in silence, or kill themselves. I've seen all three happen because people were so afraid of leaving a bad marriage or having one in the first place. marriage as an institution was damaged long before the debate of same-sex marriage came on the horizon. (You - rhetorical) don't blame the gays, blame the heterosexuals who have been messing it up for hundreds of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Wow. The same description could be used to describe my husband and I. I have so many words for you right now and none of them are appropriate for this board. You need to do some deep soul searching on this one. You are so. Incredibly. Wrong. And hateful. And a bigot. And extremely out of line. WHOA. WHOA. You are so out of line to label her based on one or two sentences that you don't agree with. Good grief. Yes, this thread should be shut down. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ban away, board. Take a personal shot, expect a personal response. I am just utterly in shock. Right there with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Justice Kagan pointed that out yesterday too. Justice Kagan: It seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite -- opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct? MR. COOPER (defending prop 8): I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes. Anyone else think the phrase "essential thrust" is pretty funny, given the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Sometimes those labels apply. Sometimes they apply to non-religious people. Sometimes they don't apply to religious people. Sometimes they don't apply to non-religious people. So MAYBE those labels are not persecution, maybe they're just...accurate labels? And since you happen to be religious, you figure it's an attack against your religion? Indeed. We have words that exist to describe "X doesn't get the same civil rights as me because they are different than I am" for a reason. Presumably, gay people have the opportunity to remain single and celibate, or marry a person of the opposite sex in the same way some people of color could "pass" and live a lie with full rights of the white people in this country before we decided that was appalling. Deciding other groups of people are unworthy of civil rights, regardless of the genesis of that opinion, is bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Anyone else think the phrase "essential thrust" is pretty funny, given the topic? Bwahahahahhaha. I was just SEETHING here. And now I can't stop laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Life is unfair, and we all have crosses to bear. All of us. No one gets out of life unscathed. There are other ways for them to obtain children, though it's not something I would encourage. And to say that is unfair, well, many who are infertile cannot adopt and so remain childless. LIfe is not fair, and we all bear pain. Yes, life is hard, we all carry pain in our own journey. But as a nation founded on equal rights, separation of church and state, and the idea that the majority should not pass laws which restrict the rights of a minority, should not pass laws which restrict the civil liberties of others, and/or cause them more pain in their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true. Is your argument secular or religious? If religious, why should it apply to those not of your faith? If secular, could you rephrase in non-religious language? As for your last statement, DH and I chose to have children... we didn't marry for the purpose of having children. Had we chosen not to, we'd still be married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Anyone else think the phrase "essential thrust" is pretty funny, given the topic? I think the irony is what made him stumble at "our". :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Anyone else think the phrase "essential thrust" is pretty funny, given the topic? Did you just go there???? :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Anyone else think the phrase "essential thrust" is pretty funny, given the topic? Yes, I cannot deny that I chuckled to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 I personally think marriage is way overrated. And if it weren't so overrated, can you imagine how much more civil this type of discussion could be? "Imagine there's no countries . . . " Oh my goodness, I can't stand John Lennon, but seriously. I can't figure out what's so wonderful and sacred about marriage in our society today, that would cause people to get this inflamed about how it's defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yes, life is hard, we all carry pain in our own journey. But as a nation founded on equal rights, separation of church and state, and the idea that the majority should not pass laws which restrict the rights of a minority, should not pass laws which restrict the civil liberties of others, and/or cause them more pain in their life. Allowing the redefinition of marriage will easily change the laws, yes. However, the laws can be changed in other ways. I am an American, and I want equal rights for people, HOWEVER, they *are* a minority, and you accommodate the minority, you do not restructure the laws to redefine the majority. I fully think the estate laws should be changed --I think they're pretty shameful the way they stand. Redefining marriage will not make the estate laws any better, they still need to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I agree that the word "homophobe" is way overused to the point where it has no meaning. Same with the word "hate." So is "religious persecution". Especially when it pertains to a majority religion which holds substantial power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 KK, I don't think this thread will be shut down because of you. I find your posts interesting and like reading your POV. But I don't see how it's necessary to name call and attack, even in a heated conversation. I'm not sure what purpose that serves other than to insult and belittle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I personally think marriage is way overrated. And if it weren't so overrated, can you imagine how much more civil this type of discussion could be? "Imagine there's no countries . . . " Oh my goodness, I can't stand John Lennon, but seriously. I can't figure out what's so wonderful and sacred about marriage in our society today, that would cause people to get this inflamed about how it's defined. Oh so you're a Lennonphobe? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoObvious Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 WHOA. WHOA. You are so out of line to label her based on one or two sentences that you don't agree with. Good grief. Yes, this thread should be shut down. Unbelievable. Definition of a bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. So yes, labeling those who are unable to reproduce as different and unnatural and unequal, is being obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions an prejudices. So now it's not just gays that are unnatural, but the infertile. *That* is what that argument feels like to a lot of people. SO STOP USING IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Archbishop Cordlieone on USA Today. Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don't allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. The good Archboishop is a bit disingenuous here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0 "In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association." Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). ... They were not shut down. They lost contracts from the state which provided public funding for their family services because the state cannot legally fund discrimination. They were still free to operate as they wished on their own dime. Here the Archbishop isn't just disingenuous, he is an outright liar. Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. ... No, they are shut off from public funding. Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of "anti-discrimination" is trumping liberty and compassion. ... Nope. The government is no longer providing funds for his church to push their beliefs, which is something that should have been done long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Please, let's stop calling people bigots. It distracts from the kind of thoughtful discussion that actually encourages people to think through their positions on controversial issues. ...Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don't allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. The issue in the Ocean Grove case was that the church has specifically chosen a tax status for their property that put it into the "public accommodations" category, at a significantly lower tax rate, which meant that they had *chosen* to make it available to *anyone* who wanted to use it for marriage. The town was concerned about this choice, but the church insisted, *then* balked when they were held to that standard. They've now chosen to be in the other tax category, and can legally bar any marriage they want from their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Definition of a bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Sounds like a lot of people on this thread (both sides). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnIslandGirl Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you, your children, your friends and neighbors recite the Pledge of allegiance ..."with liberty and justice for all", then you are a hypocrite if you don't believe in the rights of each and every human being. I stand for justice for all, not just those who share my personal, religious or cultural beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 KK, I don't think this thread will be shut down because of you. I find your posts interesting and like reading your POV. But I don't see how it's necessary to name call and attack, even in a heated conversation. I'm not sure what purpose that serves other than to insult and belittle? Thanks. I didn't name call, though. LOL. I'm pretty sure that if I let loose with all of that, I'd melt the boards. I only tried to call out stupid as stupid. I'm hardly doing more than some others here who are just as vocal about the stupidity displayed. And, FWIW, I honestly think that some of the stupid isn't because someone *is* stupid. It's because they can't see past what someone else has told them (namely, a church). *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I personally think marriage is way overrated. So do I, but DH and I had no choice but to get married because the barriers to my gaining permanent residency by any other means so we could be together were too great. We are lucky to be an opposite sex couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoObvious Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Indeed. We have words that exist to describe "X doesn't get the same civil rights as me because they are different than I am" for a reason. Presumably, gay people have the opportunity to remain single and celibate, or marry a person of the opposite sex in the same way some people of color could "pass" and live a lie with full rights of the white people in this country before we decided that was appalling. Deciding other groups of people are unworthy of civil rights, regardless of the genesis of that opinion, is bigotry. Love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Are you seriously pinning the closing of this thread on ME? Bwahahahahaha. Okay. Well. If you don't feel that the "other stuff" is worth reading, don't. Others do. And, frankly, I don't give a shit who does or doesn't. This language does not help your case. Please keep this conversation clean, civil, and thoughtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm wondering if there are people unfamiliar with the very old, well-established philosophical concept called "natural law." Although I am not a Catholic, I instantly recognized that Justamouse used the term "natural law" in the Roman Catholic and academic senses. Some inapplicable conclusions then were drawn by some readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think it's kind of funny that this mess was started with totally innocent intent (on my part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Allowing the redefinition of marriage will easily change the laws, yes. However, the laws can be changed in other ways. I am an American, and I want equal rights for people, HOWEVER, they *are* a minority, and you accommodate the minority, you do not restructure the laws to redefine the majority. I fully think the estate laws should be changed --I think they're pretty shameful the way they stand. Redefining marriage will not make the estate laws any better, they still need to be changed. Separate but equal does not work, it just doesn't. I was with my husband for 5 years before we married, we lived together, parented together, called each other husband and wife. But we weren't married, it wasn't the same, and it left a place unfilled in my heart. So we made it official, we took that idea to the next step and in front of those we loved said vows that we fully meant. Marriage is important, it symbolizes a deep life long commitment to another person. Just because the institution is broken in our society, doesn't mean others who are different from ourselves don't also see the huge value in the tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoObvious Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Sigh. I knew I should have stayed away from this thread. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Definition of a bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. So yes, labeling those who are unable to reproduce as different and unnatural and unequal, is being obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions an prejudices. So now it's not just gays that are unnatural, but the infertile. *That* is what that argument feels like to a lot of people. SO STOP USING IT! You forgot the other part of the definition: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. I certainly don't see justamouse as the one in this conversation who is being hateful and intolerant. I'm pretty sure she came to my defense as the only other Catholic speaking up on this thread. It makes me sad to see her being so attacked and ridiculed. She's just sharing her opinion, if you don't agree with it, fine. This is potentially a good conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 This language does not help your case. Please keep this conversation clean, civil, and thoughtful. I don't have a case being addressed here. I'm letting someone know that I don't care if they put me on ignore or not. Same goes for you. Feel free to put me on ignore. I am being civil and thoughtful. I guess the word "shit" could be unclean? I don't know. I wasn't talking about "poop". Calling me out for wordy-dirties is ridiculous and does nothing for the conversation being held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm wondering if there are people unfamiliar with the very old, well-established philosophical concept called "natural law." Although I am not a Catholic, I instantly recognized that Justamouse used the term "natural law" in the Roman Catholic and academic senses. Some inapplicable conclusions then were drawn by some readers. The Roman Catholic definition of "natural law" has no place in determining what constitutes equal rights under the US Constitution. I am in full agreement that reproduction requires the union of a sperm cell and an egg. That little tidbit has no relevance in determining who should or should not have equal rights under the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So then there is no natural law that sex = children? OK. No there isn't. Sexuality and gender like everything else in biology is on a continuum and we can see many variations within the continuum. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you, your children, your friends and neighbors recite the Pledge of allegiance ..."with liberty and justice for all", then you are a hypocrite if you don't believe in the rights of each and every human being. I stand for justice for all, not just those who share my personal, religious or cultural beliefs. That's a simplistic view of people. People are much more complicated than that. Does that mean a severely handicapped person who is wheelchair bound and on a ventilator should be allowed to be an air force pilot? They may have dreams, but I'm certain they are more aware of their own limitations than we are. And, before you bash me for that analogy, I worked in a hospital for the severely handicapped and dying. They know their limitations. Me wishing more for them and pressing for them to attain unreachable goals only exacerbates their pain, not reduces it. And it also denies them their dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The Roman Catholic definition of "natural law" has no place in determining what constitutes equal rights under the US Constitution. I am in full agreement that reproduction requires the union of a sperm cell and an egg. That little tidbit has no relevance in determining who should or should not have equal rights under the law. Please don't make a "leap" that I did not make. Issue was taken with her reference to "natural law", and it appeared that some did not even understand where she (I think) was coming from. I intended nothing further than to observe that. Absolutely no extrapolations were intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't recite the pledge, but I do believe in justice and liberty for all anyway. I don't either. Because it is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't either. Because it is a lie. Same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I am not religious. Don't go to church. Here's my opinion in a nutshell. I think this should be an issue for each individual state to decide. The people in each state make the rule. Live in the state that has the rules you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That's a simplistic view of people. People are much more complicated than that. Does that mean a severely handicapped person who is wheelchair bound and on a ventilator should be allowed to be an air force pilot? They may have dreams, but I'm certain they are more aware of their own limitations than we are. Someone on a ventilator is not physically capable of being a pilot. A gay couple is physically capable of forming a loving union. Your analogy fails because it is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Umm, I have a gay couple that lives two doors down. We swap cookies during Christmas, we talk over the fence, we share garden plants. Calling people homophobes to validate your argument doesn't work. Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax codes, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved. I NEVER CALLED ANYONE A HOMOPHOBE. EVER. Look through my posts on here and read them and you will never find that word or one like it in my posts. Seriously, do a search. I haven't edited a single post on this thread and this is the only one about this topic I've posted to. So maybe before some people start getting overly offended that they are being called names, they should actually READ the posts. Whatever, I'm out. This thread is just turning rude and offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 No there isn't. Sexuality and gender like everything else in biology is on a continuum and we can see many variations within the continuum. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals as well. Ture, but yet, they have not naturally produced a child. And, we are higher than animals, we have the amazing God given ability to reason, which gives us dignity and raises us above animals. Some like to think that's a romantic argument, but I have no desire to go back to being an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 This whole infertile argument to marriage makes me laugh. Infertility for women can often be complicated because frankly, our parts are complex. But for some men, it's as simple as taking a pill. And yet, I've never seen ONE single advertisement put out by ANY church - even as far crazy right as Westboro is - arguing against Viagra. Not one. Ever. The worst that ever happened to men who need to get it up for intercourse is Bob Dole getting satired on SNL. So women and their complicated parts are a moral issue but men who just need a vaso dilation medication are just AOK with the Lord, thankyouvery much. I will never understand that argument. And I'll never get the argument that marriage is for procreation. Thanks goodness my DH didn't believe that or he'd have dumped me before we got married. I'm supposed to be infertile per THREE fertility doctors. We married for love. And after menopause, we're going to continue to have sexual relations just for the sheer fun of it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts