A lot of the negative commentary on gay marriages centers around the inability of same-sex couples to produce offspring. Well, I'm sterile due to cancer and have been married for 17 years. So, Christians, is my marriage valid? If so, why not other marriages that cannot produce children? If not, why aren't you complaining about the thousands of marriages that can never produce children entered into every month?
DougDoug_
Favorite Answer
I noticed a lot of people missing the point of the question.
Claiming that a same sex marraige is invalid because it cannot support a "proper" family is an excuse used by those who don't want to sound as if they are homophobic and have a "logical" reason to disapprove of gay marraige.
If they really did believe that, then they would have to concede that your marriage is invalid, as is the marraige of anyone who cannot have children or doesn't plan on conceiving.
Doc B
If you (generic "you", not you Doug) think we should ban gay marriage in the U.S. (sorry 'bout the bias, but that's where I live) because of your religious beliefs, then perhaps you should consider that in this country, each person has the freedom to believe your religion, or not to. We should not write laws that make sense only from a certain religious perspective.
But I’ve heard that there are lots of reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, not all of them religious.
If you think we should ban gay marriage because it’s “unnatural,” then...could you tell me what you mean by “unnatural?” Here are some things I might consider unnatural: nylon, space flight, currency, bungee jumping. I’m sure you could come up with several more items for this list of unnatural things or activities, which are nevertheless socially accepted. Besides, I’m not convinced that same-sex attraction is unnatural at all. Have I taken the word “unnatural” too literally? Let’s try this:
If you think we should ban gay marriage because you consider it disgusting, then perhaps you should consider that different people have different tastes. For instance, I enjoy sushi—many kinds of which contain assorted raw seafood, even tentacles. Some people find this revolting. (And, yes, some types of sushi violate certain religious restrictions.) But there’s no law against eating sushi. Why? Maybe because one person’s dinner doesn’t affect another person’s dinner: I can have sushi, you can have a steak. No problem. Is gay marriage different? Does gay marriage somehow impose on hetero marriage?
If you think we should ban gay marriage because it threatens the very institute of marriage, please help me understand: what could that possibly mean? If two men in Willits get married, does that increase the odds of a married man and woman in Janesville getting divorced? Is there a limit on how much marriage we can handle—and gay marriage would siphon some of that away from heterosexual couples? Just what kind of threat does gay marriage pose to heterosexual marriage? I have a thought about this--one idea of how same-sex marriage might take away from opposite-sex marriage. I know that some people marry the opposite sex, when they would rather be with their own. If same-sex marriage were an option, such people might choose it instead, and not contribute to the hetero marriage statistics. I have a hard time calling that a bad thing, even though it would reduce the number of opposite-sex weddings.
Well, I'm out of reasons to ban gay marriage. A little help?
Яɑɩɳɓɵw
Of course it is valid. Elizabeth was sterile, and she and her husband ( in the New Testament) did not have children until MUCH elder age. It was God's will for Elizabeth to have children.
Many women in the Old Testament were not able to have kids. True, they have their husbands make babies with other women, but I don't think God has a problem with two people being married without kids. Just, some people are sterile because it was not their will through God for them to have kids biologically speaking. But I believe that God still wants them to have a marriage.
So sorry to hear you had cancer!
spiritual137
Marriage did not originate in religion, but in law, to arrange the social and financial ties (through women as property) of men, an exchange of blood relatives, and the condition to bear sons added to meld the bloodlines of powerful families, without which legacies would die or be "impure" or "tainted."
So the question related to Christianity is mute.
Religion adapted the concept of marriage to give the families a "blessing" which has evolved into the whole romantic mess we see today.
That is why government has ANY SAY at all in something most view (inaccurately) as a religious ceremony.
Rico Toasterman JPA
I don't think the objections are really about fertility. It's about sanctity. You just have to have a quick look at the Vegas and Reno marriage industry to see what a sacred institution marriage is, and why it would be demeaned by homosexual weddings.
Ack, slippery slope, slippery slope, helllllp, I'm sliiiiiiding. Dang. Now I'm going to have attend my cousin's pet marriage.