100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Same Sex Marriage goes down in California ! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again, this is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy 
sorry lindyy, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gays have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answer is clearly NO. if In socrates time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted those people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe Winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please.  In the ancient world there was no homosexuality because most people(especially men) were bisexual. In the times of Socrates,people believed that true love was only between men.
 Mirror
Lindyy  Just telling the facts. Homosexuality wasnt considered abnormal until the Dark Ages. Before that,it wasn't considered anything at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmm...
didn't the Greeks also crush the heads of babies with rocks if they didnt meet the ideal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to what you said here: "i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered the norm in Socrates' time. In the time of Socrates,true love was something that only men engaged in with each other.
Ahhh...another person that has taken Philosophy in college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmm... didn't the Greeks also crush the heads of babies with rocks if they didnt meet the ideal? People in all times and cultures killed babies that were born with special needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmm... didn't the Greeks also crush the heads of babies with rocks if they didnt meet the ideal? I don't know about that. I was just replying to Tribo when he said, "he knows of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered normal in the days of Socrates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmm... didn't the Greeks also crush the heads of babies with rocks if they didnt meet the ideal? I don't know about that. I was just replying to Tribo when he said, "he knows of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered normal in the days of Socrates. It wasn't considered out of the ordinary until the Dark Ages.Most people in the world before the Dark Ages were basically (what we would consider)bisexual.It wasn't an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmm... didn't the Greeks also crush the heads of babies with rocks if they didnt meet the ideal? I don't know about that. I was just replying to Tribo when he said, "he knows of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered normal in the days of Socrates. It wasn't considered out of the ordinary until the Dark Ages.Most people in the world before the Dark Ages were basically (what we would consider)bisexual.It wasn't an issue.
Can't change history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people have spoken and decided same sex marriage can't happen in their state. Gays have taken to the streets in protest...if you were there, would you pick up a sign and protest with them...or tell them to "Shut up"...you should have got married when you had the chance ? I thought Cali was one of the more liberal states ... geesh that is scary commentary on the USA where the pursuit of happiness is your right ... unless, of course, you are gay or something else deemed unfashionable by the ...... this kinda stuff just aggravates me 
I am completely straight but you bet I would be carrying a sign with them ... equality for all 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sat 11/08/08 01:20 PM
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again, this is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindyy, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gays have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answer is clearly NO. if In socrates time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted those people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe Winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. In the ancient world there was no homosexuality because most people(especially men) were bisexual. In the times of Socrates,people believed that true love was only between men.
Mirror
Lindyy Just telling the facts. Homosexuality wasnt considered abnormal until the Dark Ages. Before that,it wasn't considered anything at all.
well your still missing the point - >>WHERE<< in ancient civilizations that you've read of was "MARRIAGE" ever concidered or ordained, or accepted as other than between a man and a woman???? what homocivilization existed - any? NO!!!! none!! to be "NORMAL" - it would have to have been the majority acceptence of the civilization at question. be it greek, roman, or otherwise. show me in any ancient text where this is the case? Marrige was, is, and always will be by definition - between a man and a woman!! call other unions what you will, let them be accepted as whatever, as long as it's not by definition - "MARRIAGE" The whole main purpose of marriage was for the act of pro-creation, to bring sons and daughters into being. heirs for the rich, and workers for the poor to help survive. Did the homosexuals have as much rights in greek times or earlier than other non married heterosexuals? - NO, neither should they now!!! - there rights are limited to [and rightfully so], to the same rights a non married heterosexual couple has - why should they be given above this? there is """nothing""" >>>>special<<<< about there relationship past that of heterosexuals, if you want ""equality"" then march for >>>>>ALL<<<<< sexual orientations and couples to have these rights!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sat 11/08/08 06:05 PM
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly  ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office  
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sat 11/08/08 06:29 PM
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. No matter how in love a homosexual may be, no matter what "rights" you think they should have [above or beyond - in love heterosexuals]- the fact remains they are not entitled to marriage benifits or rights no matter what those rights consist of - neither do heterosexual couples!! The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. They are no more unique to me or less unique than anyone else, so where does this earn them [except in their own mind and desires] a special privilege here above any-other couples? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. God made them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. God made them. see my amended post my lady, and i'm not talking of anything religious, just facts. god doesnot enter the picture as to rights that we have here as to mans laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly.
No matter how in love a homosexual may be, no matter what "rights" you think they should have [above or beyond - in love heterosexuals]- the fact remains they are not entitled to marriage benifits or rights no matter what those rights consist of - neither do heterosexual couples!! The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. They are no more unique to me or less unique than anyone else, so where does this earn them [except in their own mind and desires] a special privilege here above any-other couples? Edited by tribo on Sat 11/08/08 06:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. God made them. see my amended post my lady, and i'm not talking of anything religious, just facts. god doesnot enter the picture as to rights that we have here as to mans laws. You said that the only reason that you see them existing along with us is because the desire is there to do so. I said, "God made them." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. God made them. see my amended post my lady, and i'm not talking of anything religious, just facts. god doesnot enter the picture as to rights that we have here as to mans laws. You said that the only reason that you see them existing along with us is because the desire is there to do so. I said, "God made them." if you believe in the biblical god or any god then i would agree that god made them, that though is not in question, whether we were mfg.'d, or created, or arose from scum, the point is that it remains a personal decision as to one's sexual preference. I don't see this a a them VS. us scenario, i see it as rights issue. I'm referring to the sexual desire when i talk, not of who may have them. I could give a flip less who does what, as to sexual preference, my aim is/was to point out they have no rights to be treated differently as to laws then a heterosexual couple living together has. This to me is true of any minority in any situation be it any right, One cannot within a society that is founded on ""EQUAL"" rights expect to have their rights be more than another's - just as their rights should not be less than others.In asking for privileges due to the common laws that have existed from time immemorial that they should be "allowed" to >>MARRY<< is asking for a privledge denied other's who would not be afforded the same privledges. Instead of trying to pick out one line you have a problem with dear, comment on the whole of whats said, make your thuoghts known in whole instead of being nitpicky, thnx. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 11/08/08 08:45 PM
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exsist? It reminds me of the quakers that didnot believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. Well it does beg the question of how far is too far? The sexual revolution brought things like infidelity, S & M, orgies, twosomes, threesomes etc etc... All these things contribute to the decline of the Family...with a mom & dad. So when I hear people say these things don't harm anyone I say, Oh YES it did! and does!!! It is against the law & falls under sodomy laws. That may have been changed by the politically correct but nonetheless, it's against the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As marriage is only useful for the tax implications and the inheritance rights, I can see why they are upset.
After spending your life with someone and then when they die to be denied the right to their belongings as you are not their "next of kin", is outrageous - just because you are of the same sex. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
It seems that you want what you can get, but then you deny others the rights to it as well ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So when I hear people say these things don't harm anyone I say, Oh YES it did! and does!!! It is against the law & falls under sodomy laws. That may have been changed by the politically correct but nonetheless, it's against the law. So is stealing and you advocate that. "two-faced" I think is the phrase. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
your question was """what purpose or good does homosexuality do?""" and that is what i answered note the quote no where do you ask a question about marriage between same sex people in your post maybe you should run for public office
the other question you asked """If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? """ if it were meant for people to fly would they not have wings if it were meant for people to go fast would they not have faster running ability or fast flapping wings if it was meant for people to swim would they not have webbed feet and fins "IF it was meant for people to to have children by marrying the same sex, would we then not have just one sex??" again show me how you and i or anyone could have ever been born if there was only a one sex society? life for man would have been real short - he would have been a anomaly. No matter how in love a homosexual may be, no matter what "rights" you think they should have [above or beyond - in love heterosexuals]- the fact remains they are not entitled to marriage benifits or rights no matter what those rights consist of - neither do heterosexual couples!! The only reason i see homosexuality existing along with other sexual orientations is because a desire is there for a number of people to do so. They are no more unique to me or less unique than anyone else, so where does this earn them [except in their own mind and desires] a special privilege here above any-other couples? that is issue the certain public wants a one sex society they want only hetrosexual sex if same gender sex is not normal why is it so prevalent in other members of the mammal species they want special treatment i think not they want equal treatment for sure there are many male female marriages that do not bear fruit does that mean they are no longer married i think not -- but because you know ahead of time that these two same gender people are not going to bear fruit you do not allow them to be together if not how long of a time frame do thy have before the marriage is dissolved for the lack of bearing fruit and if the bearing fruit is the issue at hand in the marriage argument only as a tool to ban something then should not the use of said argument be used to stop the killing of the fruit that need to be bore to permit marriage also if it is known that one can not bear fruit then they to should be barred from any marriage as well should they not why is it permitted for a man and a woman who can not bear fruit be treated any differently than any other couple that can not bear fruit pppphhhhhhheeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 
|
|
|
|
|
