Personally, I see this as a plus. The world is dangerously overcrowded. Anybody else think that maybe God is just trying to thin out the herd? This is a far more pleasant approach than say, a major Earthquake, Tsunami or Hurricane.

You say that like it's a bad thing...
The countries in which gay marriage is actually legalized could do with a few fewer people around...

And some straight couples shouldn't.

So? What is wrong with someone adopting? I know several straight couples who can't have their own kids and adopted, and that seems to workm just fine. I don't see this as that big an issue.

Right. They can only recruit. And most of the time by force through violation of minors and threat of repercussions if the crime is reported.

And horses can't walk down stairs, so what.  Straight couples can't agree on decorating or what TV programs to watch together.  It's about as relevant.

Sure they can...just not with you.

And this is a bad thing?

Because six billion people just isn't enough.

The merits of this argument (i.e. gay couples can't procreate) depends on the answer to an important question, namely why does society encourage and financially subsidize marriage. Assuming that society shouldn't care about whom others love (emotionally and physically) save of minors, etc, the answer is most likely to encourage the birth of children and their healthy growth. If this is the crux of the public support and since gay couples cannot procreate without the help of others or future science, they should not have the same rights and entitlements as those couples who can procreate on their own or with the help of existing science. (This, of course, assumes that such rights and entitlements should be granted to anyone, an open question in my book.) As noted in most of the prior comments, many counter with barren heterosexuals. The problem with this is that the law establishes bright lines for convenience, and this is the case currently with marriage. For example the fertile octogenarian rule presumes that anyone can continue to have children until death. All of this suggests five stars as an argument against gay marriages; however, allowing gay couples to adopt, surrogate birth mothers, and artificial insemination are all modern avenues for gay couples to acquire children (hence the four stars). Nevertheless, even with these alternatives, I'm speculating that gay couples are still far less likely to have and/or raise children than straight couples, and certainly society can draw the line where they want to place it's financial bets. Where that line is to be drawn is subjective, but the fact that gay couples can't procreate does give legitimate ammo to gay marriage opponents. (Release the hounds and let the unhelpfuls begin!)

This is where Rawlsian liberals find an inability to understand the conservative point of view whatsoever. Because they view freedom as the unencumbered ability to act on human desire and view discourse through the same lense they will inevitably squawk incongruent comments about non-procreative heterosexual relationships in defense of gay marriage. Nothing encapsulates the weakness of their position more than their even weaker defenses of it. If rights are nothing more than protections of the human will neutered of any underlying moral virtue or supportive cultural institution then who is decide what those rights are? The people?

If, at the drafting of the original will of the people gay marriage was not mentioned, and to this day no state legislature has enacted gay marriage legislation without being forced to by a judicial branch (or liberal junta), how is gay marriage the will of the people? How can one argue that there is a moral dimension to its defense when the argument is merely a matter of will- one which the people don't wish to protect? What liberals are really saying is a small class of "enlightened" few (read: liberal elitists) should decide for the masses against their will. Why? Because they have a despotic vision of government at the very core. A vision that is at odds with the true concept of individual rights and self government. A conservative conceptualization of freedom is quite different.

True human freedom is acheived through public virtue- not human choice because all choices don't elevate the essence of man. Liberals argue there are no difference between choices. Choices allow man to acheive his true identity- his true self through a series of personal decisions the "mystery of life" will illuminate ones being. (See: Anthony Kennedy's decision in Lawrence v Texas or Webster v Pennsylvania) The psychological oppression, they argue, one feels through stigma is what needs to be eliminated within society for man to achieve his true self. Unfortunately man, and human civilization is more than a composite of choices. Mankind exists as part of a process and deducible from that process are functional realities and natural vitures which are the foundation of society. Marriage is more than just a choice, it represents a natural institution for the formation of what Aristotle called his first level of human association. We cannot chose an institution such as marriage away no matter what five judicial despots wish to impose on us. This does not however mean that deviations of the institution prove that it shouldn't exist. Or that our laws should not support such an institution. Quite the contray. i

It proves all the more that the institution should play an essential role in cultivating public virtue. It is no secret that heterosexual married couples who stay together raise the most well rounded and emotionally sound children. That's simply a fact.

Children from solid two parent families are less likely to use drugs, have promiscuous sex, commit crimes, and produce fracture families themselves than children from fractured families. As cultured civilization will be founded on a natural institution that cultivates a societies highest virtues. These virtues are culminated in long standing traditional institutions for a reason. To explicitly destroy those institutions by judicial fiat upon some limited concept of human "freedom" is consistent with the failures of every tryanical state this world has ever seen.

It has been said the road to destruction was paved with good intentions and nothing could be more apt than liberal utopianism in the face of thousands of years of tradition with regards to marriage.

Will the government ban older couples from getting married?

How about fertility tests for younger couples before they tie the knot?

Should the government also make sure married couples are attempting to have at least one child-so they can actually carry out what marriage is "supposed to do"?

I don't remember who said this, but an (old school) conservative political scholar said that the biggest expansion of government power will always be advocated in the name of God.

So, kissmeback, let me see - based on your definition of marriage then infertile straight people would also be banned from taking marriage vows. And, where does that leave the post-menopausal set? I won't argue the biology or the mechanics but, I really do think marriage is for more than "birthin' babies" - as wonderful as that aspect might be. Nope, I'm afraid that this argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

marriage is for reproduction,gay marriage is just not right.why because
no procreation can take place.no way no time no place can two man produce a babby,nor two woman.we are made to pair up man woman to produce a babby,to continue the human race.

More pointless garbage. My wife and I decided not to have children before we married 22 years ago and it's not something we regret. Heterosexuals that have children and mistreat them are criminals. Homosexual couples who would offer love and a good, stable environment for children should be able to adopt them.

It's true, but I don't see how it can lead to a compelling argument against homosexual marriage. If this be good enough reason, than shouldn't people w/medical conditions (which prevent them from reproducing) or those who choose not to reproduce, not be allowed to marry? I mean, if you're going to go that way, you might as well go all the way; Or do you like your double-standards as they stand?

Too many straights are having children out of wedlock...what about that? Marriage or any union is about loving the other.

Thats a bad thing? The world population is exploding and if it continues to grow the way it is now, mankind is in some deep trouble. Gay couples can adopt children who need a home, isn't that a good thing? Perhaps gay behavior is a natural form of population control that becomes active during such population explosions. Just a guess, a speculation.

My wife can't hold a pregnancy to term. Guess she should have been barred from marrying as well?

UPDATE:To butyubchubstub: What a lovely sentiment...how archaic of you. People who can't conceive a child don't deserve the benefits of society and marriage? What planet are you from? **TB 303, marriage is a committment between two people who want to share their lives. You don't get married just to have children. The world is overpopulated, anyway. This should be a great solution. **It doesn't matter if it's natural or unnatural. Is a pacemaker natural? Are eyeglasses natural? How about fertility clinics who help barren couples have children...is that natural? Natural should not be an issue.** PBeavr, ya lost me at the apes...kidding. Does that mean that old people shouldn't get married? Marriage is not about procreation; it's about love. It's about pledging your life and love to a person without whom you cannot life. To jakemr33, not having children does not suddenly 'enlighten' someone that they shouldn't get married. Everybody thinks that gay people are just out to have sex. Well, gay people have feelings, too. Sexuality, I agree, isn't something that should be public; but when a basic right is denied to someone just because they don't meet the society norm, action must be taken. It's a shame, though, that those who are brave enough to fight for these BASIC RIGHTS are sneered at and labeled as activists. (Forgive my spelling)

On the contrary, this is a very valid argument. If you ask ANY heterosexual couple, they not only married to show love and commitment, but to bring into this life children to raise. Whether you accept the fact or not, it IS biologically impossible for gays to concieve a child without the bringing in of a 3rd party. Many said that there are sterile couples that are still married; the government strongly dislikes this. It is impossible for the government to go through every single couple and prove if they are sterile or not; its just the fact that there are so little of them its a waste of time. Children are greatly beneficial to society, seeing as gays cannot creat a child, they do not deserve the benefits of society and marrige itself. Besides this, you have to think about something beyond just procreation. Men and women's differences go far beyond just anatomy. For a child to be raised properly in a society of both sexes, they need a male and female parent.

That is not a very strong argument because there are some men or women who can't procreate (men who have a low sperm count or women who are barren). That certainly doesn't lessen the serious love and strong unity of their marriage.

This is just a "red herring" argument. The simple fact is that not one...let me say that again, NOT ONE...jurisdiction in this country requires that a married couple demontrate either the ability or the intention to procreate as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license. So, unless you are prepared to begin testing for fertility, and denying the right to marry to ALL couples who are not capable of producing children, then you might as well abandon this line altogether. percivale

That's a good thing. More heterosexuals should choose not to procreate. And so what, anyway? Who said reproduction is the end all and be all of getting married? Hundreds of thousands of straight couples in this country don't have children. Does anyone reading this feel Bob and Elizabeth Dole should not have been married because they didn't crank out a rugrat? Jeeeez, get serious.

Neither can I.

Their are straight couples who can't procreate so I don't see this as a good argument but I guess if the population of the earth was rapidly reducing it might be a concern.

A stupid premise. Think about it: a sterile couple can't procreate either. So should they be denied marriage also? Marriage is not solely about procreation. It is a lifelong commitment to another person. And I say that if two gay people love each other and want to commit to each other for a lifetime, who are we to stop them?

This is a problem that shall solve itself. As our society changes from a First World to a Third World society because of immigration, the impact of this statement shall become clear. The Third World is much less tolerant of homosexual activity than is the First World.

I'm not against gays at all. I have friends that are gay that even thought this was a simple and only reason that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage is by root theory a lisense to procreate. Even if there is some medical problem causing a couple not to be able to have children the fact remains that by the theories of nature they still have the proper tools to do so and nature dictates male female relationships for child bearing. Species would survive without this obvious mating schematic.

Terrible argument for the premise. In our modern world, procreation is not the objective of many, including many straight couples. Plus there are too many other arguments, such as adoption, which come into play.

So many far fetched and ridiculous arguments here that do not hold water. But If anyone compares this type of behavior to other forms of deviance, its called ridiculous or ignorant. "they can raise Children", "what about masterbators?", "Straight couples who cant have kids"..as usual, theres a lot of reaching going on here. "Do we build laws around nature"? Sure as hell do. Laws governing social behavior which are all about nature are made and argued every day. Statutory rape, Laws that outline what age is adult, Laws protecting the environment and wildlife...shall I go on? Arent all these laws originating from our interpretation of nature and how we deal with it? They are all there as a result of someone deciding what is morally right or wrong when dealing with natural circumstances. So that crap is right out the window. Futhermore the more we ignore nature or Im sorry to say "Gods plan" (yeah you all made me go there when I usually dont)the more we are going straight down the tubes in this world.

This could happen between a man and a woman .. but it CERTAINLY happens between a man and another man .. well, i consider this an opinion and its quite critical if u ask me

So what? They can bear and raise children, and that by itself should support an argument that they should be permitted to marry. To all of you out pro-lifers out there - think of how many more couples there would be available to adopt children that might otherwise be aborted. And if you, for a second, thought that it might be better for the child to be aborted then to be raised by a gay couple, you are probably going to hell.

Neither can compulsive masturbators, but that isn't illegal (not yet anyway; give it time). I guess if those who practice bestiality could procreate, it would be legal.

A senseless argument. Many straight couples are unable to procreate, but are still allowed to marry as well as adopt children.

There are straight people that cannot procreate. Want to ban them as well? Then again, the Taliban would agree with you. . .

One variation of this argument I've heard goes something like this: we recognize marriage between a man and a woman so that society can help accomodate new families. I think there's actually a good point lurking in here. Tax deductions for children is a good example of assistance for families that have already gotten started, but what about newlyweds who are trying to save up before buying a home and having their first kid? Back when marriage was soon followed by kids, and when most people got married only once, this would be a good legal status for granting certain benefits. However, this correlation is much weaker than it once was. My conclusion: if you don't want gays to receive benefits intended for families, just becaus they're married, find different vehicles to use than the umbrella of marriage. Like some sort of tax-exempt savings accounts that can be used for home purchases or childrens' educations or something. This deals not only with diverting resources intended for families from childless gay couples, but also childless heterosexual couples.

A man who is sterile can get married, and a woman that can't get pregnant can still get married. As far as what's natural, what about heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, or oral sex for that matter? What about heterosexual couples that are into bondage? Is all that natural?

Good.The planet is way overpopulated anyhow.....What about sterile straight folks-should they have to take a fertility test before being allowed to tie the knot? By the way-there's nothing miraculous or holy about reproduction- vermin,insects and serial killers reproduce just as well as anything else.

Ive been reading the comments over and over on this forum and I have only one question: What does procreation have to do with marriage??

I will have to disagree with PBeavr on this one; the point that many straight couples cannot conceive is VERY relevant in this argument. Arguing this point suggests that a condition of marriage must include the generation of offspring. An infertile individual cannot produce offspring by natural means; I would have to say that the scientific methods developed to help those who cannot conceive, though not bad by any means, is certainly very unnatural. If marriage required the natural ability to procreate, infertile couples would have to be banned from getting married. Thankfully for many, the ability to procreate has nothing to do with marriage, thus the condition of procreation is a poor argument against any two individuals who choose to get married, no matter who those two individuals may happen to be. UPDATE: Again, PBeav, I will have to disagree with you. If the argument in your eyes is based on what is intended by nature, that is a different argument: The general argument is whether or not couples of the same sex should LEGALLY have the ability to be seen as a married couple under the law. Laws are not made based on what is considered natural or otherwise. I also disagree with the statement gays' sex is unnatural; if sex is designed only for procreational purposes, maybe this would be the case. Sex, however, is more than just a means of making babies; it is an act which brings pleasure for many loving couples, and it is also an act to express love for many couples. Many examples of homosexuality are found in the animal kingdom (and certainly without humans influencing them), and this is considered natural. Therefore, the argument that it is an unnatural act does not work in the case against the legalization of gay marriage. UPDATE: Anyone who argues such really needs to read a few biology books . . . heh, Indeed, funny that you mention that, I DO indeed read books on biology, SPECIFICALLY that of sexual biology (yes, so I'm a nerd, but animal behavior is interesting); the biology of sex is certainly far more complex than tab A goes into slot B to make babies. The fact that sex has multiple benefits outside of procreation, IN NATURE, is indeed relevant. You may feel that you oppose legalization because it is unnatural; that's fine. Question is, Do we make laws based on Nature? Absolutely not. UPDATE: (sorry to continue adding to the conversation, but) I will concede that equal rights laws have some backing from biological definitions, but its main argument is about morality; it is not based on nature. The debate on cloning is largely an issue of morality. The governing of food additives is mostly a health issue.

True...gay couples can't procreate. But they can, and many of them do make great parents for children who otherwise would not have parents or guardians. The foster care system in many jurisdictions is turning to gay couples, because heterosexual couples do not often want to adopt older children.

You would think this would be one issue that would help homosexuals realize their behavioral choice is wrong.

TO ESCHEW: eeeewwww!

Try as they might.

What are we now, cavemen? Just because they can't procreate doesn't make a valid argument either. There are straight couples who cannot procreate. Marriage is not about making babies, it is about the love that two people have for each other.

Irrelevant, obviously. Procreation is not a requirement for straight couples to get married, why should this additional hurdle be imposed on gay people?