They provide important numbers for areas like work and war. For the church, it’s easier to breed Christians than convert them. Through their work, they provide extra income for both the government and the church.

They provide support to couples in their old age, relieving the burden on the state.

Conversely, a stable family will be more likely to produce more productive citizens who are likely to adopt the values of the state.

In many countries, mothers who have a lot of children are (or have been) seen as heroes who are benefiting their country. There’s the idea that families are central to a strong society. Within the family unit, children represented possibly the most tangible form of investment in the future, as they would be able to support their parents and continue working on any land or business that the parents had.

Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how much marriage has changed over the past decade or two in China. In my area at least, it is very common for families to arrange marriages for their child(ren). Many women will also demand that the man provide a new apartment and car if the deal is to go through. A number of my Chinese friends have either had weddings canceled because they couldn’t provide the required amounts, or they have had to borrow large amounts of money from relatives or ask them to co-sign for large mortgages. Ironically, people seem to think that owning an apartment, even under these conditions, will provide them with more financial security. While arranged marriages have always been common, this focus on property is seen as a new and alarming development by many.

Or was that the one where the guy got drunk and knocked up both his daughters?  I always get those confused.

Children are a side issue in that they do not improve the social aspects of marriage directly, but allow the continuation of family status through the generations and offer the potential to move socially through uniting of different families. Children are important, but the institution is far more focused on the rights conveyed rather than just simply child-rearing.

The religious conservatives would have you adopt their single-view of marriage, but you don’t need religion to need marriage- which is why it is outside of any religious definition of the act.

Shit happens like this everyday, you have to be unlucky to get bitten by Streisand.

What gets me is that many people claim that they support homosexuals in certain contexts, but this support never seems to be forthcoming. It’s always in another context – not for marriage, not for adopting children, not for any true acceptance into the community. Where is it OK? Outside of marriage? Not likely. In some civil ceremony? Civil ceremonies don’t involve the church, so that’s hardly ‘support’. A church blessing? I don’t see too many of those going on. There is a fairly broad spectrum of beliefs in the Protestant church, and I’m not trying to paint everyone with the same brush – just the people who claim “I’m not anti-gay, but this is attacking the sanctity of marriage”.

Therefore pot should not only be legal but mandatory – how else are we all going to get stoned?

Because it’s not really about raising children even from a Protestant angle.

Once you hear the unvarnished version of their objections, you can learn what they truly believe and understand why they balk at totally rational and reasonable solutions. You can’t get that version unless you listen to what to they say amongst themselves sadly. 

The format of the “Women of Grace” show alone is dripping with irony; the hosts of “Women” of Grace is a woman and her male superior… a priest who apparently tells her what is okay to say. If the beliefs and arguments put forward during these shows (and undoubtedly in congregations around the country/world) weren’t being adopted so fervently, the show would be absolutely comical. As they stand though unfortunately it shows breathtaking hostility to any semblance of a non-theocratic state and to people who they deem “evil.”

Funny thing is that gay people can and do have children all the time in the same way infertile couples do, which I believe is something they support… but apparently this is far beyond their ability to acknowledge.

Of course this little factoid is coming from the same program that has done shows about  Swedish Devil Rock, the evil organization known as The March of Dimes, and how Yoga is the tool of the devil. So there’s that too.

But, I only can speak for myself, so I dunno. However, just below, it does seem to have been a misunderstanding, so… all good.

(Somewhat less great is the fact that I have gotten academic papers from my university students that read exactly like this, right down to including phrases like, “Same-gender marriage is becoming more popular.” Let’s hope this kid’s education continues to foster the development of his self-expression skills between now and college.)

It’s just “marriage.”

Note that the kerfuffle in this context is over the principal’s decision, not the kid’s speech itself.

http://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/v3krv/though_he_wasnt_allowed_to_present_his_speech_in/