Why would one desire to prevent homosexuals from marrying on the grounds that they can't procreate together...

Question

.....when so many are also unwilling to make procreation a legal requirement of marriage?

If we aren't willing to hold heterosexuals to this standard, why hold homosexuals to it? Honestly, why?

(P.S. This is being asked in the R&S section because I want responses to be from this particular crowd.)

juhsayngul, yes, many people ARE suggesting that we prevent homosexuals from marrying on the grounds that they cannot procreate together: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070412173916AAHU8dP

Answer 1

This is only justifiable by religious bigotry. They hate homosexuality and fight against equal treatment of gays in our democratic government.

Homosexuals can have children, just as many infertile heterosexual couples. Have you ever heard of sperm banks, adoption, or in-vitro fertilization?

Also notice that homosexual parents must plan for children. There are no chances of slip-ups, as with heterosexuals who do not use contraception. This implies that gays are more emotionally and financially prepared to bring a child into this world than the average heterosexual.

Furthermore, some conservatives don't believe homosexual parents make good parents, though the social research points elsewhere.

It's bigotry.

Answer 2

It's bigotry, it's an excuse...

However, fundamental Christians take the bible literally. Homosexuality is shunned in the Old and New Testaments. Some churches won't allow homosexuals to be members or even attend. That's not going to change. I don't know why they use the scenario about procreation. They believe homosexuality is sin, pure and simple. They should just be honest about it.

However, there are more liberal churches such as some Episcopalians, some Presbyterians (not all - I know of one Presby church where homosexual membership was struck down), the United Methodists, United Church in Christ (NOT Church of Christ) that bless and endorse homosexual marriages/unions. Also, the Reformed Synagogues embrace homosexuality with flair :)

Answer 3

There is no way that the governing bodies that are denying gay marriage would ever make procreation mandatory for hetero marriages. By requiring procreation, you start messing with the control of women's bodies which also leads into the arguement of abortion legality. I think that people are just afraid of what they don't know and what is new. The easiest excuse is just to hide behind the bible (or other religious texts) and continue to fear change. How much of the anti gay marriage arguement is being funded from the medical insurance field? By granting the rights of marriage, they must also grant all of the rights already given to hetero couples.

Personally I think that whoever wants to get married should be able to :)

Answer 4

It is wrong to prevent on the procreation issue. Homosexuality is abomination and will not be promoted by ministers and congregations that are following Gods Word. These days you can find those that will do marriages and such but that doesn't make it right. There is deliverance from this perversion! You can be free of your sin and be accepted by God and the true church. There was a young man in our assembly that was effeminate, long fem style hair, painted nails, lipstick, clothes, and so on. He met Jesus and is free! Delivered! No burden of his past life its covered by the New Covenant brought by Christ.

Answer 5

I love i'macatholic2. And I love YOU.

Why? Because they're ignorant monsters who believe anything that is right for them isn't right for those not like them. Because they're usually fundamentalist nutjobs. But mainly... mainly because their stupid mothers & fathers & preachers & teachers thought that way and forced it into their psyches. Time to wake up people! Yoo hoo! It's 2007!

Ugh. I DESPISE people that believe this. I want to eat them and their children so they can no longer procreate.

*Tonks* - That is absolutely not true. The laws set up to "protect" children do not have the stipulation that it must only be a child between a man and a woman. Period. What do you think happens to the children of sperm donors? The adopted children? The abused and abandoned ones? Are they able to receive help from the government? Crikey, of course they are! The laws suck and very few children are protected, however, as evidenced by the homophobic responses on here. Children are still being programmed to believe in this garbage. There should be a law against teaching a child ignorance and hatred. I think it falls quite neatly into the neglect category. Homophobes (and no, it rarely means "fear of" here, it's most often used for people with arguments like yours) are completely negligent in teaching their children anything about what is important in a person, as well as raising them to be responsible adults. Then, the MILLIONS of couples looking for adoption in America, which makes it almost IMPOSSIBLE, could adopt them and teach them about tolerance. Or the parents could be forced to take classes in tolerance before they get their children back. Seriously.

EDIT: Thanks, Tonks, but your response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There were no abandoned and abused children in the old times? There were no cases of people taking children in that were not their own? There were no single mothers? You do realize that by your response you are saying that the children of single or widowed or divorced parents weren't protected? Artificial insemination has nothing to do with it. I'll tell you, the olden times must be the 1980s, when laws protecting children actually came to any fruition. It is people with beliefs like the one you propose who stunt the growth of that protection. It is the children who suffer.

Oh, and James W - Why don't you answer the question? Why do you have to assert what YOU think on everyone? Ever hear of understanding that not everyone believes what you believe (and I mean other Christians as well)? What about the people that DO believe homosexual couples shouldn't get married because they cannot procreate? And what about the millions of abused children out there already? They don't deserve a good and loving home from two men or two women who love each other? That is ridiculous. Why deny someone the same rights you have because of their sex? I'll tell you, buddy, you would have made a GREAT slave-owner and a fiery advocate for it as well. They'd probably make you Grand Knight of the Klansmen. Oh, and I see you've changed your answer to something even more ignorant. Your views disgust me to no end.

*Red Glory* - Your words are an abomination. I hope you don't burn in that fiery pit for judging others. How can you say that you "don't hate" homosexuals but find them an abomination and wouldn't go near them? Your redefining of the word "hatred" is pretty unshakable, eh? It's OK. Maybe Santa will bring you a dictionary for Christmas.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!! *Shudders*. Zero! I go CRAZY!!!

Answer 6

Nobody really desires to prevent homosexuals from marrying on the grounds that they can't procreate together. They're saying that to hide their religious or other personal agenda.

Gay couples can adopt, get a egg or sperm donation, and they raise families just as good as if not better than straight couples.

Update: Like I said, they're hiding their agenda.

Answer 7

You see when you ask that question in a religious forum, opponents can freely vent their real reasons for condemning gay marriages.

Out in the "real" world, where passing laws to enshrine your religious prejudices is difficult (not to mention unconstitutional), they have to come up with something that sounds vaguely rational, without mentioning God or sin---and "ewwww" (their second most honest argument) doesn't carry a lot of weight.

Answer 8

Well I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I will try to play the devil's advocate here.

The laws of the U.S. are set up to protect the children first and the mother second so she can care for the children that come of a union between man and woman. That is why marriage is a civil arrangement as well as in some cases a religious one. There are laws to provide for the children such as ADC, etc. Basically this is why 2 people of the same sex can not be granted the same rights as a man and woman. As to the laws of God... in my church it doesn't matter. We do not do it officially, but I have known a priest to preform a 'marriage' between 2 homosexuals.

Now let me bring logic into this. If same sex people could marry in a civil wedding they would be subject to the same rights to insurance, etc as regular married couples. And that would put a strain on the system that the welfare, social security and insurance system could not handle. Why? Because I do not have insurance. I could "marry" my best friend and have her benefits and pension. No one has to know what goes on or doesn't go on in the bedroom. There would be a major abuse of an already overtaxed system.

Dear Me. You are cute. However I am referring to a child.. who when the laws were written was only possible to be born as a product of the union between an man and a women. There were not sperm banks back then. Many of the laws were made to protect children.

Answer 9

There is no reason other than making people miserable. By that standard infertile couples and people that decide not to have a baby should be denied marriage. Its insane.

Answer 10

I do not believe that it has to do with procreate. Receive it or not it has to do with biblical principles. Man should not lay with man and women should not lay with women. Now! that is the word of God.