Do you believe that marriages involving infertile people are valid?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

Mark 10:4 unless you decide to leave! There is No Comparison in the First part of Your Question...husbands and wives are helpers to each other and Has nothing to do with fertility Genesis 2:22-24. Enough Said...

God has children out there meant for YOU to parent.You have chosen to be bitter and just sit.I can't "have" any either. But there are other ways of "Be fruitul and multiply".Every infertile married couple has a valid marriage. Besides, there are people who really shouldn't have kids.I can't speak for you, ask God.Homosexuality is a sin.That is biblically the problem.

I say your marriage is valid.

We no longer are agricultural societies, where having lots of kids actually was helpful to the running of the farm and the infant mortality rate was so high you needed to be pregnant almost non stop in order to ensure enough survived ot care for you in your old age.

I know several marriages that are childless - either because they cannot have children or because they have made a choice to never have chldren.

All of these marriages are valid.

Marriage is now a union of love and companionship- so sexual orientation means nothing - the commitment does.

As an infertile woman who suffered for years with infertility I found your question insulting.

For whatever reason my body would not create life. Then our beautiful daughter entered our life. We fought for over seven years to adopt and keep her from being sent to live with her convicted rapist father.

Three months after the adoption I am now pregnant.....Imagine that. God had a plan for us and my infertility was a blessing. And yes I did believed that years before we conceived. We came to terms to our inability to have children before we decided to adopt. My marriage is not suddenly validated because I can now procreate. The sacrament of marriage was always there.

In our case the inability to conceive was due to either my thyroid problem or my insulin resistance.....my body betrayed me. For homosexuals it is different because their bodies could NEVER conceive a child.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Blondie, what you just did was judging, so you committed a sin according to your religion. I'm a gay guy who WILL, against your wishes, get MARRIED to a GUY and love and cherish him for the rest of my life whether you, the "mature" person, find it "gross" or not.