reason against gay marriage, men cannot have children

[pstokely]

I've heard stuff like "marriage is for procreation, gays cannot have children but there are medical procedures for infertile couples"

would these people be for Gay marriage if there were medical procedures for men to have children? why is it legal for seniors to marry if they are too old to have kids? don't medical procedures go against the will of God like BC?

[Touchdown]

1. Answer to your topic header...

Ummm...NONE!

[mlawson]

2. Would WHO be for gay marriage?

I do not understand your question.

[Padraig18]

3. I don't care what term people use

I just want the same legal rights as straight people have.

[nostamj]

5. really!

only str8 people have special rights based on sexuality.

i get SO sick of this...

[Touchdown]

6. I don't agree.

Unless they can come up with a LEGITIMATE, and logical reason as to why the oppose gay marriage, which they haven't, then I see no reason why we should be, once again, the ones to compromise.

[Laughing Mirror]

19. thank you thank you thank you

your simple statement is exactly the words i always use

and as basic as the right to equal rights is, people just can't seem to grasp it

[Clete]

20. You want a contract.

Marriage is also a contract supposedly. There is no reason why you shouldn't have that right. And who says gays can't have families? Sure you can adopt, the obvious one, but there is also a chance a gay man could have a genetic child with a surrogate mother.

[Selwynn]

4. perverted, distorted, mis-represented, fanatical religious views....

those are the ONLY grounds for reasons against gay marriage.

[ulysses]

7. heh

My dad (a good liberal with some pretty hardcore generational blinders where gays are concerned) threw the "gays can't have children" thing out a few years back. I pointed out that I likely couldn't (can't, as it turned out later) father children because of past cancer treatment, and did that mean that I shouldn't have gotten married? He grumbled. :D

There is no reason whatsoever to fail to recognize gay unions no matter the name.

[DrWeird]

8. Bigotry.

The exact same reason interracial marraiges were against the law in many places forty years ago.

Here's to progress. Past and future.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Yeah. That.

It seems counter to societal desires that dictate monogomy and fidelity to one partner.

Isn't that what love is about, forgoing all others in a monogomous union?

Nope, doesn't make sense.

[mitchum]

10. There are none

[xchrom]

11. umm, i'm thinking

still thinking

still thinking

i got nothin... anybody else?

[elperromagico]

12. The argument that irritates me

is "Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage."

What sanctity?!? With a divorce rate of 40%, I would say the sanctity of marriage was destroyed a long time ago (if it ever existed at all).

Conservatives must be insecure or something. They need the Ten Commandments in their courthouse to keep them religious, they need an abortion ban to help them respect life, they need a gay marriage ban to help keep their marriages sacred, and they need the Supreme Court to decide elections they claim to have won. Can't they do anything without government assistance?

[mlawson]

13. They are all about symbols.

REAL issues and conditions rarely concern them. But if their symbols can be planted where the rest if us have to notice and respect them, then they think they have won, and have actually accomplished something.

[elperromagico]

14. Agreed

GOP: The Party of Jingoism and Meaningless Symbols

[arcane1]

17. and it makes for one hell of a devisive campaign issue!

crazy repubes...

[terrya]

15. What about heterosexual married couples who can't or won't have children

Are their marriages invalid...because they can't or won't procreate?

For instance, Pat and Shelly Buchanan. They don't have children.

Is their marriage invalid?

[elperromagico]

16. You're trying to use logic here

Nice try. Logic doesn't work on Republicans.

[Toucano]

18. That's true. (Warning...large image links)

So I think the people at http://www.whitehouse.org have the answer.

"Beloved American patriot Jerry Falwell recently announced that he will devote the remainder of his Godly life to advocating a Constitutional amendment banning marriage between people of the same gender. The United States Department of Faith supports Mr. Falwell's desire to impose Biblical edicts on Americans of all faiths by converting the Constitution from a document that restricts the power of government into one that limits the so-called freedoms of individuals. Nevertheless, the Department of Faith also recognizes that the Bible is replete with verses restricting marriage in many ways, not merely as relates to Mr. Falwell's infatuation with men licking each other. As such, the USDOF has delivered to the President and each member of the U.S. Congress the following proposal to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution:"

[onebigbadwulf]

21. Eternal hypocrisy

It's another fundamentalist christian hypocrisy.

Let me point out the christian hypocrisy for all of you who love to debate...

1. God said he would provide.

Fundamentalists argue that the earth has enough food and water production to provide everyone with enough food and water to live. It's up to us, however, to distribute it to everyone.

"We must distribute what God has provided." -Christians



2. Gay marriage is wrong because same-sex couples can't have kids.

Just like food and water, the earth has enough abandoned, homeless, and orphaned children to provide all same sex couples with a family.
BUT.....

"We MUST NOT distribute what God has provided!" -Christians


See how they interpret "God providing" when they want? And "god saying it's wrong" when it doesn't suit them?

[Rowdyboy]

22. "I want to bear him strong sons..."

That's the line my partner and I use with each other whenever we see a particularly attractive guy and wish to express our admiration....

(Sigh) In the figurative sense only....