Marriage is the union of a man and a women to procreate?

Question

i read this in someone's answer to a question, and i was wondering...since this is what someone thinks, obviously being against homosexuality, are they also against people getting married and not having kids? wouldn't that be just as bad according to this person?

Answer 1

My opinion is that anyone using this argument needs to agree that people that cannot have kids should ALSO not be allowed to marry.

Answer 2

I wonder that myself. I've heard it used several times before as an argument against homosexuality, too. It's such a riduculous argument.

My response has been this:
If your arguing that sex is only for pro-creation are you actually saying that everytime you have sex with your partner that you hope (you or your partner) gets pregnant? And, if that's the case - what do you do between pregnancies? Or do you just sublimate the hope that you'll get to do "it" more than once before it takes. And.... following the theory that it's "only" for pro-creation - do you only have sex when you know you're ovulating?

I was single into my 40s - and still don't want any kids of my own, but it's never deterred me from having sex! Nor, mind you has it stopped any one that I know how uses the 'pro-creation, not recreation' argument.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent a bit!

Answer 3

They tend to selectively ignore that situation. Maybe couples who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. If couples marry, after how many years without having children should their marriage be annulled?

Answer 4

Or the people who marry not knowing that they can't have kids?
Once again man acting as God.
Making marriage what they believe, I know people who procreate without marriage and because its hetro its o.k. with society. The bible says not.
Yet more spin!

Answer 5

Yes lets keep people from marrying if they are not going to have children. In fact you have to have a child in order to get married. The child can be of the union or adopted and the couple can be gay or straight
This way marriage is a contract for the benefit of the children

Answer 6

Nowhere in the United States is procreation or even fertility a requirement to either get married or remain married.
Ignore that guy, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Answer 7

I agree. Also, whenever I see that, I wonder what they think of people who are not physically able to convince. Are they not allowed to be married either?

Answer 8

Oh I am sure that person has a double standard that suits the situtation.

If they want to defend marriage so much why not start with marriages that mean something...the divorce rate is terrible.

Answer 9

Right. The fundamentalists' (very vapid) argument is that gay people shouldn't be married because marriage is for making kids, which of course 2 gay people can't do.

So if that's right, then he must think that sterile str8 couples who can't have babies should not be allowed to get married. Older women above the childbirth-capable age should never be allowed to get married. Men who go to war, get injuries that keep them from having babies should never be allowed to get married.

Obviously fundamentalists don't believe those people shouldn't be prevented from getting married, therefore this is just one more flimsy excuse they use to try to keep gay people down in society, to keep them from getting the equal rights they deserve.

Answer 10

You're doing allot of invalid assuming. Non Christians feel comfortable thinking that Christians don't have sex for pleasure, it's one of the imaginary things that you've chosen to accuse us of, to legitimize NOT wanting to be a Christian and thinking we're abnormal. How about getting some FACTS, and listening to what a MAJORITY say about SEX and pleasure as Christians, instead of thumbs downing someone that counters your silly claim. Get a grip on REALITY.