If humans reproduced asexually, would you still be opposed to gay marriage?

Question

This goes against biology a bit, but it's a philosophical question: if it did not take opposite genders to reproduce, and children didn't require decades of care to raise, and marriage were truly just about companionship, would you still be opposed to gay marriage? Why or why not?

Answer 1

I'm impressed with your question. It brings up the question of "is the only thing wrong with same sex marriage the sex?".

I'd like to ask this question in front of the polititcians that pass the laws and see how they respond.

I think the answer is most would not / could not be opposed to same sex marriage if this was the case. Sad but true.

Answer 2

That question makes no sense whatsoever. If humans reproduced asexually, then marriage as we know it would not exist. Also, seperate genders wouldn't really exist either. It would be a completely seperate issue. There might be permanent relationships formed for companionship, but it wouldn't be anything near today's form of marriage. Marriage (at least starting out) was about a man and a woman coming together to spend their lives together and reproduce. If there's no reason for 2 people to come together to reproduce, then one of the main reasons for marriage is taken away.

Answer 3

I'm not agaisnt gay marriage; I think, the "for or against" debate doesn't have to do with sex/procreation, but has to do more with attitudes and ideology, with a dollop of religious dogma. If you say that marriage is ONLY about having children - what about couples who get married but choose not to have kids? Or those who are infertile? Should they be prevented from marriage, too? I think, while marriage still remains largely an institution of procreation, it is about so many more things than just having children. It doesn't make sense to me to be opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds of procreation alone.

Answer 4

I don't think the argument is one of sex or reproduction, after all, some married man and women do so pretty strnge things to one another.
I think that a lot of people have a problem with man loving man.

Oh, ans sex (gender) has only been around for about 500 million years, before that we were all ladies (well lady type things)

Answer 5

My biggest problem is that gay couples can have kids either from a previous marriage or from adoption - I believe this in unfair on the kids as it is very likely they will get bullied at school etc.

So I spose I would probably be more tolerant.

Answer 6

I still think a romantic companionship should be between a man and a woman. It's just the way I was tought.

Answer 7

Marriage and reproduction are two entirely different matters. Therefore your question is entirely out of context with the whole issue of gay marriage.

Answer 8

If humans reproduced asexually there probably wouldn't be male and female humans, and therefore no hetero or homo sexuality, and we wouldn't even have to ask ourselves this question. Great Q by the way!!

Answer 9

Gay marriage is wrong, period. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Calling it marriage cheapens the whole institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
Our politically correct society makes me sad. GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. If allowed it will eventually be part of our great county's downfall.

Answer 10

gender is so much a part of every person that i would venture to say if gender and reproduction weren't linked, our philosophies would be totally different from the start. that was an awesome question and it's on my watchlist because i'm very interested in what other people have to say about it, too.