The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage - And Why It Fails

[MNBrewer]

From Slate.com

"In last week's arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the California same-sex marriage case, it was clear that the main secular argument for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is the "common procreation" rationale. The idea is that marriage is properly limited to opposite-sex couples because they, and only they, can engage in procreation within their union. The lawyers defending California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, did not fully elaborate the argument—the New York Times editorial page called it a "tired, and thoroughly specious, assertion."

<http://www.slate.com/id/2277781/>

[Bluenorthwest]

1. The only argument the President makes against equality

is about his theological purism. It is based wholly on belief, without logic or reason or real world evidence of any sort. His purist longings for a theocratic state in which his kind are superior to others is the only argument he makes. Dogma and purist delusions, that's it.

[MNBrewer]

2. that, or he's cynically abandoned his belief in marriage equality

for the sake of political expedience. Either view is damning.

[SheilaT]

3. If that's true, than

heterosexual couples who either have no intention to reproduce or who can't (woman past menopause, man had vasectomy, whatever) should likewise not be allowed to marry. Infertility discovered after marriage should result in obligatory dissolution of marriage.

[MNBrewer]

4. That's part of what the linked article discusses

It says that this argument against gay marriage also denigrates heterosexual marriages that can't procreate, or choose not to.

[sarge43]

5. If that is so, why then aren't all hetero couples required by law to show

proof of fertility before they are granted a marriage license? Has that ever been a requirement in any state? What's the legal basis, counselor or is this the Indiana Jones approach -- making it up as you go along?

And yeah that is an insult to every couple who, for whatever reason, have not reproduce within the married state.

[MNBrewer]

6. Or, if they haven't produced a pregnancy within a year

annul the marriage.

[sarge43]

7. Right

Reduce marriage to a breeding program. Those jerks have a talent for reductio ad absurdum.

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. There's been quite enough breeding. How about marriage concepts focusing upon love?

Are people's self-esteem so low that they're afraid of "others" having the same things they do? (Marriage rights, etc.)

[DirkGently]

9. The state doesn't have a compelling interest in increasing the population, for Pete's sake. (nt)

[MNBrewer]

10. two words

Cannon. Fodder.

[DirkGently]

15. Yikes.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

11. This argument is pure BS

I'm a hetero woman who is 63 years old. If Mr Wonderful comes along and I want to get married (again) am I not allowed to because I can't procreate ????

Marriage is purely an economic arrangement which the state should sanction for any 2 consenting adults not already encumbered and religions may choose to bless it or not.

[MNBrewer]

12. The hypocritical thing about their argument is

that they're not aiming at it at non-reproductive heterosexuals, only homosexuals. It's blatantly clear that it really is about the "ick factor" not reproduction at all!

[Deep13]

13. That's why hetero marriages automatically become invalid if no children are produced.

Right?

[qb]

14. The gist of their "Best Argument"? Gay sex is like tennis, hetero sex is like baseball.

Therefore heteros can get married but gays can't.

:crazy:

[MNBrewer]

16. Exactly!!

It's the sports analogies that make it so fun(ny).

So if the two people who based their relationship solely on tennis decided to play doubles with another couple, would that be polyamory?

[qb]

17. I'm not sure, but don't even think about playing frisbee with your dog.

:scared: