Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.

I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.
I think it's pretty apparent that one of, if not the only, primary reason for legal recognition of marriage was foster stable environments for the upbringing of children. Should that mean sterile people can't get married? No, the state never required that level of invasiveness for a legal union. To actively search out sterile marriages would be needlessly difficult and an invasion of privacy. I mean, if PVC wants to push for automatic dissolution of childless marriages, he can- but why? People in favor of same-sex marriage are free to argue that society will benefit from the stability that would bring- convince enough people and they'll get what they want.

But again, the entire point is that this is not a Constitutional issue. And it is not an issue that should be decided by the courts.