If the argument for marriage is for procreation, should people who cannot procreate be married?

Question

The argument against gay marriage is that 2 people of the same sex cannot procreate. Therefore, they should not be allowed to be married. So, I ask: should two people of opposite sex be allowed to be married if they are unable to procreate? (say, if one of them is sterile)

What's the difference (non-religious) between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple being married if neither is going to procreate?

Marriage gives 2 people, who love each other, legal rights that non-marriage couples do not have. It also gives them more rights, under the law, than couples in a civil union. If my neighbors are gay and married, it does not have any affect on the validation of my heterosexual marriage. My husband I cannot have children, but value the legal benefits allowed under our marriage and believe that others deserve the same legal rights.

Why do people have a problem with this when there is a seperation of church and state?

"a church is required to establish a marriage"

This is not true. Two people can be married by a justice of the peace and that marriage is perfectly legal.

I'm looking for answers which are not based on religious views. There is a seperation of church and state which, unfortunately, many are unable to deal with. They are unable to seperate their religious views when making a legal decision that could affect another human being's life.

Descrimination is not love. Descrimination against another is pure hate.

Answer 1

Agree with you 100%.

I think if ppl sat down and really ask themselves what about a gay union troubled them, they would realize that for some reason they feel threatened. That is the part I don't get at all.

How does a union between two gay ppl threaten anybody else's marriage. Either they have a good marriage or not. That's not based on what other ppl are doing.

Answer 2

Your point about sterile people is an interesting one. But, from my point of view, it's irrelevant. I don't think we should be asking, "Why can't homosexuals get married." I think the proper question is, "What business is it of the government's?" You say, correctly, that 2 married people have more rights than 2 unmarried people. Why should they? If we take the government out of the whole thing, the problem is solved. If the Catholic Church condones a marriage, then they do. If the Church of Bob (yes, it's real) condones a marriage, then they do. I don't see how it matters if the 2 churches agree with each other, or not. And I couldn't care less what the government thinks of it.

Answer 3

IF the argument for what society considers marriage was based only on procreation, your argument would be correct.

For many generations people have viewed a marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman. It takes a little time for people to abandon the thinking that they, their parents, their grandparents, have all held.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with it.

Answer 4

But that is not the argument...

at least not the church's..

a church is required to establish a marriage, but disagrees with homosexuality according to 2nd Corinithians and a couple other places.

if the state is over-riding the church's doctrine beliefs, that is a much stronger form of oppression that a church refusing to wed a couple.

it destroys the seperation you mentioned.

that's why Civil Unions are a necessity. No American citizen should be excluded from tax bennefits and if a couple doesn't practice a christian faith, why wouldthey want to get married in the church in the first place?

There needs to be another way.

Answer 5

Married people, even those where one of the partners is sterile may very well be called upon to raise children in their family. This is better done with a married couple. The death of a child for example can leave one or both grandparents with the responsibility. Absent a will from a sibling or some other unusual circumstance families rarely call on the gays in the family to take on the family responsibility of raising children

Answer 6

First of all the argument that queers can not procreate falls short for a reason not to condone queers. The fact is that marriage is not for those who can procreate it is between a man and a woman. Is it so hard to figure that out. Now if anyone of the same sex cohabits is fine with me. But remember sex is not love so if a man loves a man that does not mean they should be able to have sex. Sex is for two reasons to have children and for pleasure. Now if two people can maintain celibacy in their relationship than more power to them But for merely health reason alone they should not have sex.

Answer 7

People believe that justifing love with marriage can lead to other forms of marriage like underage marriage, marriage to animals, inaminte objects, dead peopl (oh you'll be suprised), etc. Statistics show that countries that actually marry for love actually have higher divorce rates, just like the U.S etc. And marriage is actually a both religious/ cultural custom that was adopted by all civilzations. Its just that the secular world also kept it and used it in their own ways(marriage, gay marriage., etc).

Oh yeah and dont blame American conservatives and christains for the fact that gays can not marry. THeir not the only ones fighting against gay marriage in this country. Believe me Islam, Buddahism, asian, african, South American (etc) culture does not accept gay marriages either. The only difference is that down here people have freedom of speech.

Answer 8

That'd put a lot of conservative buttheads in their place, wouldn't it! =)

Honestly, I think that if gay people or strait people or anyone wants to get married, they should be allowed to. Marriage is a bond between two people, not just a religous ceremony.