The procreation argument is frequently used in why gay marriages should be banned. However, not every heterosexual person has the capability to procreate either. So does this make the heterosexual who cannot have children by natural means against the laws of nature also? And if not, is it just a convienent form of discrimation against homosexual people to say that they are?
2006-11-19 03:18:43 · 8 answers · asked by genaddt 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The argument that "marriage is for procreation" is crazy. Lot's of people don't have kids by choice or by circumstance. My grandmother remarried when she was in her 70's. To say that they were supposed to procreate is nuts (though I suspect that they at least went through the motions, now and then).
Marriage is for family - all different kinds.
a
2006-11-19 03:22:22 · answer #1 · answered by Alan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You obviously are not a plumber or you would know the answer to your question...
Think biology and plumbing...ding (light bulb!)
Remember a kidney is not a lung, a lung is not a foot, and a finger is not an ear. A foot can not breath oxygen into the human system to sustain life. Faith and Science are not at odds on this one, regardless how much you contort the truth.
We are made in God's image each and every part.
2006-11-19 03:35:57 · answer #2 · answered by Lives7 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kissinger said on a Bilderberg group meeting in stockholm that the Agenda demanded a cut in the world population by 60%
the government wants to reduce humanity .not increase it ,and is secretely putting chemicals in the water and consumer goods,to make people sterile or gay by altering the PH level to combat procreation.
Gayness is accumilating all over the world ,the objecters will loose in the end
it will be a gay future for those who manage to get there
2006-11-19 03:25:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Apart from whether I support homosexuality or not, homosexuality can't be said as unnatural. Animals such as dogs and dolphins have been known to have homosexual behaviour and preferences. And if heterosexuals can't procreate by nature, then no, they're not defying nature.
2006-11-19 03:27:45 · answer #4 · answered by Hana 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, they are not against nature. You see here you proof that the bible is Right when it says The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. Since when a rectum give birth to a child? or naturally speaking not artificial since when a vagina gave birth to a child without male copulation?
2006-11-19 03:42:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Barbara, for a heterosexal married couple not being able to have children is the will of God, for what ever reason He may have. Many women in the bible has wombs that were closed to conception, and God openend them or decided not to open them according to what His will was.
1 Samuel 1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.
Isaiah 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
Sarah had her husband conceive a child with her handmaid Hagar, because she herself could not yet conceive a child with her husband.
Genesis 20:17 So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.
18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.
Genesis 21-1 And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.
visited 1st Sam 2:21
2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
God decides who conceives children and who does not between a man and his wife. Homoxesuals will never ever be able to concieve children, because God never intended them to be together in that sinful way.
God does not accept homosexual realationships no matter how a person tries to justify it. God is always right, and He always will have the fiinal word. Praise the Lord!! That still stands today.
2006-11-19 03:40:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmm, good point!
Also, "by nature" very unattractive people are not "natrually" appealing and thus shouldn't be allowed to procreate as well. I wonder what fundies think about that...?
2006-11-19 03:24:32 · answer #7 · answered by Black Parade Billie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no i dont agree. if they are straight but cant have children God didnt want them to. if they were gay and couldnt have children then it would be wrong.
2006-11-19 03:20:38 · answer #8 · answered by jimi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋