Homosexuals cannot procreate, right?

Question

This seems to be a major argument against same sex marriage. So, do you believe heterosexual couples who have no intentions of having children, or cannot have children, should be banned from marriage as well?

Answer 1

I am a married woman who just happens to be infertile. It is ludicrous to think that just because I can't procreate that I can't be in a loving fulfilling relationship. Marriage is not dependent on whether you can or choose to procreate so therefore marriage should be for anyone that desires it.

And as for a previous post that says we heterosexuals who choose not to have children or can't have children should be ok to marry but not have sexual relations is simply way too embedded in religious dogma. With thinking like that is it no wonder I left chrisitanity?

Answer 2

the people that bring that argument are the christians and catholics that believe the purpose of marriage is for procreation. if you are unable to procreate (physically, biologically, without the proper plumbing) then you shouldn't be married. That's besides the whole mortal sin thing. And you know what....I agree.

the separation between church and state is very important here. Do I feel strongly against gay marriage? YES!! Do I think its unconstitutional not to allow it? yes...

Maybe churches shouldn't allow gays to marry under God's law and with his blessing. therefore, gay marriage could be allowed by the state, but banned from church. You can't be both!! just a thought. the rules of the law, and the law of the church are very different on many topics.......that is why they are separate entities.

sorry for the rambling....controversial topics....its their nature.

Answer 3

What about heterosexual couples that have no intentions of having children or cannot have children? Should they be banned from marriage too?

Answer 4

No, If God ment for us all to have children he would have made us like worms. But, we are seperate for a reason. Some may not be able to accept that they was born with a defect called homosexuallity so, they decide to take out their frustrations on society bringing up issues for debate that should have never been allowed. I don't condem them for a sickness that they cannot help but, lets get the facts straight. God sent man and WOMAN forth to procreate and populate the earth, he did not give another man to Adam with 2 snaps and a twist.

Answer 5

This is why ultimately the anti-gay marriage campagn will fail:

The goverment does not MARRY people.

Guess what, morons, I'm MARRIED by my church in a priavte RELIGOUS ceremony but as far as the state is concerned, I have entered a CIVIL UNION with my "partner" who happens to be a woman (I'm a man in case you haven't guessed.)

Seperation of Church & State, a wonderful thing that protects the Church as much as it protects the State, forbids the goverment from offsciating a religous act ie. MARRIAGE!!!!!!!

What the state does for you is recognize that you now have a FINANCIAL arrangement with your spouse that involves tax benefits and responsiblities. NOT A MARRIAGE!!!!

In the end, you morons will have caused exactly what you wanted to prevent: the complete seperation of marriage from the state.

Asses.

Answer 6

I don't care who marries whom. It's none of my business. But if I had to guess why the government keeps saying no, it would be that the militant church lobbyists have made it clear that the money dries up if the law allows gay marriage. Also, it could harm the tax base, all those people who could take advantage of the tax breaks us married folks get. Just a couple of guesses, but there is money not morals in the answer.

Answer 7

I see your point. I thought about that myself. One of the major arguments against gay marriage is marriage is supposed to be about pro-creation and family, blah, blah, blah. If a heterosexual couple decides not to have children, should they be allowed to marry based on the argument that marriage is about pro-creation?

Answer 8

Not from marriage. But they should not be having sex. Since the Bible says sex was for procreation. If they are unable to have children, that is God's choice.

Answer 9

Love is love. No matter who the persons involved. Only people with little minds restrict themselves to the notion of same sex marriage. Believing the ridiculous claim that it takes away from thier own unions. Some people just don't get it.

Answer 10

The objection to gay "marriage" lies not in the behavior of gays, but in the way adoption of that terminology would distort and diminish the meaning of the word marriage, in a vain attempt by some to achieve moral parity. Gay couples CANNOT elevate their social status merely by changing the definition of a word. By diluting the meaning of the word marriage they will poison it, and it will NOT confer the moral equivalence that is desired. Ultimately, people will adopt new terms that distinguish between hetero and gay relationships, because the ability to pro-create is CENTRAL to the propagation of the species and society. The negative connotations they seek to escape are attached to their public behavior, not to any word. While it is true not all hetero couples produce children, it is also true that no other combination is capable of pro-creation.

Many examples of distorting the language are possible, but I will share one: Years ago people with physical defects were referred to as "crippled." That word was perfectly accurate and descriptive, but it eventually grew to carry a negative connotation, so we switched to the word "handicapped." (Remember the "Hire the Handicapped" campaign?) Now that word is out of favor, so we refer to the "disabled" or the "physically challenged." The problem lies not in the words, but in the instinctive and emotional reactions within the minds of the people who hear them.