Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Seawytch]

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.



The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.



The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?



Hint: look up fundamental rights

Marriage of any person to any other person is not a fundamental right. You have to be



1. Of age



2. Not related by blood too closely



3. Only two people and



4. A man and a woman.



Once you meet all four of those qualifications, you may marry. It's set up that way for good and concrete reasons. Utah's appeal addresses # 4 quite nicely. #1 exists so that stupid kids don't enter a situation in immature haste. #2 exists so that inbred children aren't causing a burden to the country. #3 exists because it was a requirement of Utah to enter statehood and the populace decided a woman with six husbands or a man with 15 wives isn't the best situation for the children who are so numerous often in the second situation that they cannot get good individual attention...grappling from the wives, husbands etc. for favoritism from the "one" of the dominant gender in the situation.

17 states and District of Columbia.

I AM married.

 

[Pop23]

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?



Hint: look up fundamental rights

Seems odd. Same sex couples can't procreate, does that mean a fundamental right is being abridged?

Yes we can. Nothing is or does stop us from procreating just fine.

Census & LGBT Demographic Studies | Williams Institute

Nope, impossible. Procreation within a couple would require a male component and a female component. You can go outside of the "couple" to procreate, but not within the couple. The offspring will never share the genetics of the couple in question.

 

[Seawytch]

Seems odd. Same sex couples can't procreate, does that mean a fundamental right is being abridged?

Yes we can. Nothing is or does stop us from procreating just fine.



Census & LGBT Demographic Studies | Williams Institute

Nope, impossible. Procreation within a couple would require a male component and a female component. You can go outside of the "couple" to procreate, but not within the couple. The offspring will never share the genetics of the couple in question.

No, it's not "impossible". We create our families EXACTLY like millions of sterile couples do.

Oh, and never say never. Google egg splicing.

 

[Pop23]

Sterile couples? They are disabled

But you MUST go outside the couple to procreate. And your fertility level is NEVER an issue while having sex with you partner.

Most heterosexuals carry a burden of fertility when having sex with their partners.

Difference between night and day.

Totally different dynamics.

 

[RKMBrown]

Seems odd. Same sex couples can't procreate, does that mean a fundamental right is being abridged?

Yes we can. Nothing is or does stop us from procreating just fine.

Census & LGBT Demographic Studies | Williams Institute

Nope, impossible. Procreation within a couple would require a male component and a female component. You can go outside of the "couple" to procreate, but not within the couple. The offspring will never share the genetics of the couple in question.

So if the mother or father of a hetero couple uses a surrogate neither of them can be a parent or part of the procreation. That's a new one on me.

 

[Pop23]

Yes we can. Nothing is or does stop us from procreating just fine.

Census & LGBT Demographic Studies | Williams Institute

Nope, impossible. Procreation within a couple would require a male component and a female component. You can go outside of the "couple" to procreate, but not within the couple. The offspring will never share the genetics of the couple in question.

So if the mother or father of a hetero couple uses a surrogate neither of them can be a parent or part of the procreation. That's a new one on me.

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

 

[Foxfyre]

In your opinion, right?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

I am not entirely sure that a person like Zack Wahls would agree with you, but I certainly respect your opinion.

I'm sure he wouldn't just as single parents, gay parents, and others in non-traditional-home situations very much want to believe their children have it just as good as do kids with a loving mom and dad in the home. And they have commissioned studies, mostly with pro-gay rights groups, that will show just that conclusion. But as yet the evidence is simply not there:

To wit:

Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

In an interview with BU Today, Siegel acknowledges the limits of all this research: none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents. The report cites estimates that gay couples and single parents are raising almost two million American children
Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones | BU Today | Boston University

And again, I emphasize that I strongly believe there are many terrific single parents and gay couples who are raising great kids.

But I've read too many prestigious studies that simply show that, on average, children from traditional two-parent homes generally have it better than kids of single parents. On average they are far less likely to be economically disadvantaged, they make better grades, have higher graduation rates, are less likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs or get into trouble with the law, have fewer problems and better success in relationships and personally overall. This is true whether the children are male or female, gay or straight.

And though the studies re children raised by gay couples are from too small samples to be conclusive, it only stands to reason that a same sex couple cannot provide the same role modeling and dynamics of the male and female parenting influence of a traditional home.

And I say this as a battered child raised in a two-parent home that was so tragically dysfunctional and emotionally damaging that I would have been far better off raised in some other healthier arrangement.

 

[Seawytch]

Sterile couples? They are disabled

But you MUST go outside the couple to procreate. And your fertility level is NEVER an issue while having sex with you partner.

Most heterosexuals carry a burden of fertility when having sex with their partners.

Difference between night and day.

Totally different dynamics.

No, they're sterile. Unable to procreate without assistance...just like gays.

It doesn't matter what "burden" most straights carry, procreation isn't a requirement for ANYTHING.

 

[Seawytch]

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

I am not entirely sure that a person like Zack Wahls would agree with you, but I certainly respect your opinion.

I'm sure he wouldn't just as single parents, gay parents, and others in non-traditional-home situations very much want to believe their children have it just as good as do kids with a loving mom and dad in the home. And they have commissioned studies, mostly with pro-gay rights groups, that will show just that conclusion. But as yet the evidence is simply not there:

To wit:

Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

In an interview with BU Today, Siegel acknowledges the limits of all this research: none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents. The report cites estimates that gay couples and single parents are raising almost two million American children
Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones | BU Today | Boston University

And again, I emphasize that I strongly believe there are many terrific single parents and gay couples who are raising great kids.

But I've read too many prestigious studies that simply show that, on average, children from traditional two-parent homes generally have it better than kids of single parents. On average they are far less likely to be economically disadvantaged, they make better grades, have higher graduation rates, are less likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs or get into trouble with the law, have fewer problems and better success in relationships and personally overall. This is true whether the children are male or female, gay or straight.

And though the studies re children raised by gay couples are from too small samples to be conclusive, it only stands to reason that a same sex couple cannot provide the same role modeling and dynamics of the male and female parenting influence of a traditional home.

And I say this as a battered child raised in a two-parent home that was so tragically dysfunctional and emotionally damaging that I would have been far better off raised in some other healthier arrangement.

And, oddly, you didn't actually cite these "prestigious" studies.

Probably because the actual peer reviewed studies show our children at no disadvantage to the children of heterosexuals.

 

[GISMYS]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope, impossible. Procreation within a couple would require a male component and a female component. You can go outside of the "couple" to procreate, but not within the couple. The offspring will never share the genetics of the couple in question.

So if the mother or father of a hetero couple uses a surrogate neither of them can be a parent or part of the procreation. That's a new one on me.

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

 

[Pop23]

So if the mother or father of a hetero couple uses a surrogate neither of them can be a parent or part of the procreation. That's a new one on me.

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

Find a single religious argument I have made. The problem you are having is that you must modify each example to fit your argument. Trying to create a small subset from a large demographic. To you somehow the argument that some can't is equal to none can. An odd argument to say the least

More later

 

[Pop23]

Sterile couples? They are disabled

But you MUST go outside the couple to procreate. And your fertility level is NEVER an issue while having sex with you partner.

Most heterosexuals carry a burden of fertility when having sex with their partners.

Difference between night and day.

Totally different dynamics.

No, they're sterile. Unable to procreate without assistance...just like gays.

It doesn't matter what "burden" most straights carry, procreation isn't a requirement for ANYTHING.

Some vs All.

Best argument seems to be that a same sex couple is the same as a disabled person, an elderly person or a person using BIRTH CONTROL to counter his/her fertility?

Do I have this correct?

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

Find a single religious argument I have made. The problem you are having is that you must modify each example to fit your argument. Trying to create a small subset from a large demographic. To you somehow the argument that some can't is equal to none can. An odd argument to say the least

More later

Well said. Solid and effective use of logic.

Like, like, like.

 

[Pop23]

So if the mother or father of a hetero couple uses a surrogate neither of them can be a parent or part of the procreation. That's a new one on me.

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

Let's look at the statement that heterosexual couples don't have to have kids. Very true, but, in order not to, excluding those that are disabled or elderly they can only accomplish that (and still have sexual pleasure with their partner) at a financial burden.

Their options:

Surgery

Condoms for many years, knowing they have a failure rate

Pills, and the complications that exist, including increased risk of heart attack among others and still they have to worry about failure

Other female birth control methods, each with their own complications and failure rates

Abortion: expensive, morally unacceptable to many and complications can and do occur.

For the homosexual couple to insure against an unplanned pregnancy, they need do nothing, while completely enjoying each other's sexual company

Is this still simply that the two cars are different colors?

In the above, it would seem there is great economic benefit to being in gay relationships.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not entirely sure that a person like Zack Wahls would agree with you, but I certainly respect your opinion.

I'm sure he wouldn't just as single parents, gay parents, and others in non-traditional-home situations very much want to believe their children have it just as good as do kids with a loving mom and dad in the home. And they have commissioned studies, mostly with pro-gay rights groups, that will show just that conclusion. But as yet the evidence is simply not there:

To wit:

And again, I emphasize that I strongly believe there are many terrific single parents and gay couples who are raising great kids.

But I've read too many prestigious studies that simply show that, on average, children from traditional two-parent homes generally have it better than kids of single parents. On average they are far less likely to be economically disadvantaged, they make better grades, have higher graduation rates, are less likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs or get into trouble with the law, have fewer problems and better success in relationships and personally overall. This is true whether the children are male or female, gay or straight.

And though the studies re children raised by gay couples are from too small samples to be conclusive, it only stands to reason that a same sex couple cannot provide the same role modeling and dynamics of the male and female parenting influence of a traditional home.

And I say this as a battered child raised in a two-parent home that was so tragically dysfunctional and emotionally damaging that I would have been far better off raised in some other healthier arrangement.

And, oddly, you didn't actually cite these "prestigious" studies.

Probably because the actual peer reviewed studies show our children at no disadvantage to the children of heterosexuals.

I didn't cite them because anybody can google them quite easily and I didn't want to bore everybody silly and they were related to single parents vs kids who have a mom & dad and do not include gay parents. As for your 'peer reviewed' studies, if you will read what I did link, even one of your guys who has reviewed them admits they are too small and too limited to be authoritative or really useful in a comprehensive analysis.

I am NOT bashing single parents or gay parents, here Seawytch. I am making my best reasoned argument in defense of the traditional family and the advantages to children who are blessed with a loving mother and father in the home. I don't know why some seem so gung ho to discredit that advantage.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's a dandy distraction from the question. Heterosexuals will SOMETIMES have to go outside the coupling to complete procreation. Homosexual couples ALWAYS have too. The dynamics of the sexualities does not change because a few on either side do this.

Night compared to day

Oh, and if the Hetero mother has an egg implanted that was fertilized by the Hetero father, guess what is shared by the offspring? Correct, the genes of both

Can the homosexual couple claim the same?

So Is the difference just the color of the car, or is there something here greater than superficial?

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

Let's look at the statement that heterosexual couples don't have to have kids. Very true, but, in order not to, excluding those that are disabled or elderly they can only accomplish that (and still have sexual pleasure with their partner) at a financial burden.

Their options:

Surgery

Condoms for many years, knowing they have a failure rate

Pills, and the complications that exist, including increased risk of heart attack among others and still they have to worry about failure

Other female birth control methods, each with their own complications and failure rates

Abortion: expensive, morally unacceptable to many and complications can and do occur.

For the homosexual couple to insure against an unplanned pregnancy, they need do nothing, while completely enjoying each other's sexual company

Is this still simply that the two cars are different colors?

In the above, it would seem there is great economic benefit to being in gay relationships.

Yes still two cars two different colors.

You are absolutely wrong with most of your statements. For example, "excluding those that are disabled or elderly they can only accomplish that (and still have sexual pleasure with their partner) at a financial burden" I can practice early withdrawl and not get her pregnant, does not work for everyone but it has for me, don't withdraw and the kid shows up in 9months every time. Thus no financial burden by choice. Does that make me "disabled or elderly?" Does it violate my marriage license?

Just because two gay people are married does not mean one of both won't get pregnant and/or won't need insurance to cover costs of a pregnancy.

Again you are transfixed, nay you have a single minded focus on the act of coitus between one man and one woman as "the purpose" of marriage. When in fact it frigging does not matter at all if you are married or not, if you have insurance or not, if it was planned or not, if you are gay or not, if you are blue or green or colorless,... Sex is an act. The birth of a child is another act. The marriage of two adults is yet another act.

 

[Pop23]

Pregnancies can start in a car, boat, or train. It does not matter where and it most certainly does not matter what he color of the vehicle is.

People that get pregnant, can be single, married, or gay. It does not matter what their marriage status is or what their sexual preference is.

People that are married do not have to have kids. It does not matter whether the married couple can procreate or choose not to procreate. We don't have laws forcing married people to have kids.

Again you are trying to "invent" some scientific basis for your moral religious view that gays should not be allowed to marry, and are falling miserably.

Let's look at the statement that heterosexual couples don't have to have kids. Very true, but, in order not to, excluding those that are disabled or elderly they can only accomplish that (and still have sexual pleasure with their partner) at a financial burden.

Their options:

Surgery

Condoms for many years, knowing they have a failure rate

Pills, and the complications that exist, including increased risk of heart attack among others and still they have to worry about failure

Other female birth control methods, each with their own complications and failure rates

Abortion: expensive, morally unacceptable to many and complications can and do occur.

For the homosexual couple to insure against an unplanned pregnancy, they need do nothing, while completely enjoying each other's sexual company

Is this still simply that the two cars are different colors?

In the above, it would seem there is great economic benefit to being in gay relationships.

Yes still two cars two different colors. You are absolutely wrong. Just because two gay people are married does not mean one of both won't get pregnant and/or won't need insurance to cover costs of a pregnancy.

Again you are transfixed, nay you have a single minded focus on the act of coitus between one man and one woman as "the purpose" of marriage. When in fact it frigging does not matter at all if you are married or not, if you have insurance or not, if it was planned or not, if you are gay or not, if you are blue or green or colorless,... Sex is an act. The birth of a child is another act. The marriage of two adults is yet another act.

Why do you not see that you are trying to make two associations the same, when physically and economically they clearly are not.

Sex is an act, only one of the two demographic group will that act ever result in childbirth. Only one.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's look at the statement that heterosexual couples don't have to have kids. Very true, but, in order not to, excluding those that are disabled or elderly they can only accomplish that (and still have sexual pleasure with their partner) at a financial burden.

Their options:

Surgery

Condoms for many years, knowing they have a failure rate

Pills, and the complications that exist, including increased risk of heart attack among others and still they have to worry about failure

Other female birth control methods, each with their own complications and failure rates

Abortion: expensive, morally unacceptable to many and complications can and do occur.

For the homosexual couple to insure against an unplanned pregnancy, they need do nothing, while completely enjoying each other's sexual company

Is this still simply that the two cars are different colors?

In the above, it would seem there is great economic benefit to being in gay relationships.

Yes still two cars two different colors. You are absolutely wrong. Just because two gay people are married does not mean one of both won't get pregnant and/or won't need insurance to cover costs of a pregnancy.

Again you are transfixed, nay you have a single minded focus on the act of coitus between one man and one woman as "the purpose" of marriage. When in fact it frigging does not matter at all if you are married or not, if you have insurance or not, if it was planned or not, if you are gay or not, if you are blue or green or colorless,... Sex is an act. The birth of a child is another act. The marriage of two adults is yet another act.

Why do you not see that you are trying to make two associations the same, when physically and economically they clearly are not.

Sex is an act, only one of the two demographic group will that act ever result in childbirth. Only one.

What I said was no two marriages are alike. I have no frigging clue how you went from my statement that no two marriages are alike to I'm trying to make different associations the same. Clearly if there are two associations they are not the same. As to your accusations explaining how they are physically and economically different, I call bull carp. The only thing forcing a physical difference between male / male marriage licenses and male / female marriage licenses is the law disallowing male/male marriage licenses thus making impossible the physical ability of the two citizens of the former group to get a marriage license.

Again, I'm not sure how this is confusing you. Just because two people are married and they can't get pregnant together does not preclude them from getting pregnant.

The only difference between a gay married couple and a hetero married couple is whether or not the pair has opposite chromosome types. One car has a male plug the other car has a female plug. By the laws of nature that makes the male and female more compatible for "plugging in together." But that has nothing to do with marriage, other than the sex part.

Which is the point... hetero's have said natural advantage and are in the majority. However, majority and nature benefit does not give us the right to exploit our advantage to the exclusion of the rights of other citizens who don't see our natural advantage as something they wish to imbue into their marriage license.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes still two cars two different colors. You are absolutely wrong. Just because two gay people are married does not mean one of both won't get pregnant and/or won't need insurance to cover costs of a pregnancy.

Again you are transfixed, nay you have a single minded focus on the act of coitus between one man and one woman as "the purpose" of marriage. When in fact it frigging does not matter at all if you are married or not, if you have insurance or not, if it was planned or not, if you are gay or not, if you are blue or green or colorless,... Sex is an act. The birth of a child is another act. The marriage of two adults is yet another act.

Why do you not see that you are trying to make two associations the same, when physically and economically they clearly are not.

Sex is an act, only one of the two demographic group will that act ever result in childbirth. Only one.

What I said was no two marriages are alike. I have no frigging clue how you went from my statement that no two marriages are alike to I'm trying to make different associations the same. Clearly if there are two associations they are not the same. As to your accusations explaining how they are physically and economically different, I call bull carp. The only thing forcing a physical difference between male / male marriage licenses and male / female marriage licenses is the law disallowing male/male marriage licenses thus making impossible the physical ability of the two citizens of the former group to get a marriage license.

Again, I'm not sure how this is confusing you. Just because two people are married and they can't get pregnant together does not preclude them from getting pregnant.

The only difference between a gay married couple and a hetero married couple is whether or not the pair has opposite chromosome types.

The argument that Utah is making is that marriage in addition to other things, is a system of incentives/rewards to encourage the two natural parents of children to bond together for life. They argue this from the science and statistics and common sense that the blood kin of a two people will receive the best shot at protection, propping and nurturing.

We see it all the time in lower herd animals. Occasionally an orphan baby will be "allowed" to graft onto another mother. But as a rule the mother will reject it in favor of her own blood. It applies to every species there is. And don't ask me how but the stud animals running with the mother will always know whether or not that get is his. If it isn't, we've seen them instinctively brutalize the youngster or even kill it if he's irritated about something it did. The blood/kin instinct is very very deep in mammals. Homo sapiens are mammals.

In addition, Utah wants to also incentivize an increase in their population or at least not a decrease. The State argues that if they encourage homosexual "marriages", the birth rate will predictably drop and this will harm the state's overall interests over time.

Utah doesn't just disqualify homosexuals from marriage. They also disqualify polygamists and minors. So the oft-heard argument that these various state laws across the US are "singling out gays" is completely bogus. Plus, 2/3rds of Utah's consensus on marriage said to keep it exclusive to 1 adult man and 1 adult woman. So, that's the last word.