TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
The procreation angle as an argument against same sex marriage is a pathetic loser as is anyone who tries to use it. It was kicked out of court so many times that I lost count. It is nothing but hateful horseshit. I have more respect for people who are honest and just admit that they hate homosexuals, or use some religious idiocy, than someone like you who tries to foist this sort of dishonest garbage on us, claiming that you are concerned about the species.
Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?
Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent.
Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.
I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did So how is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not .reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits of marriage because they cannot reproduce - does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children. The premis itself is flawed and argument as a whole is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/
