Procreation and marriage

I keep hearing the claim that the reason marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples is because they are the only couples who can procreate, and increasing the population is a legitimate government interest.

I would say yes, that IS a government interest but this argument is an oversimplification of the facts. Whilst the state must ensure adequate population increase in order to ensure the survival of society, this is not currently a front-burner concern. We are not underpopulated; generally speaking the opposite is true. So claiming that marriage is a tool to encourage procreation growth is ignoring the reality of the world today. It is an archaic view that would only have relevancy if the human race began to decline through war or disaster for example.

Today the government's interests have shifted from mere biological reproduction to creating the best society possible for EVERYONE; every child. Of course the bigger your society the bigger the problems get. In today's world it is absurd to claim that the government should be more interested in increasing numbers than ensuring the adequate care and rearing of children who live in undesirable conditions, such as adoption homes and abusive families. Sterile heterosexual couples can and do adopt these kids provide them with good homes and a stable, loving upbringing. And they are "rewarded" with the rights and privileges of marriage (even though they are not even technically required to do this, marriage is still an option to opposite sex couples who cannot procreate). Yet in the majority of states same-sex couples who adopt cannot have these rights.

The point being that the real legitimate government interest is the care of the children who are alive and not increasing a population which no longer needs encouragement to grow. Gay couples can do this and do this well, as studies have shown. Gay couples also do sometimes INCREASE the population when they employ the use of surrogates. (*)

With all that in mind, and even if you believe marriage should be there to encourage procreation.. Whether between same sex couples or opposite sex couples, it does. It also would enable government protection for ALL families, not just "nuclear" ones. It is NOT a government interest to punish the families of same-sex couples..

 

By the way, I'm aware there's a similarly-titled topic, I just felt like I had to present this as its own post. The argument seems so ridiculous to me..

 

Gays have nothing to do with marriage, why you dragged in gays in this very important topic.
You can suggest how to change marriage laws, or how to improve child care, but gays here are totally irrelevant.

 

Wrong.

Wrong again. (Earth to kreo... earth to kreo!)

 

Seeing as gays can and do marry in the US, I would have to say your wrong in this case.

 

Yea, sure if corrupt government or brainwashed people want special rights for homosexuals, there is nothing I can do.

 

how do homosexuals have special rights?

 

What's corrupt about a legislative chamber using its democratically elected powers to give rights to gay people?

Equal rights because heterosexuals can marry who they love, and in most states gay people cannot

 

The above is ridiculous. LOL!!

 

It has happened after four corrupt lawyers in Massachusetts have invented special right for homosexuals.

 

Throwing around a word like "corrupt" without giving any proof or explanation doesn't help whatever point you're trying to make. Just so you know.

FYI the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided that denying Same-Sex marriage was against the Constitution, not the lawyers...

And you're forgetting all the democratically-elected state legislators who voted for SSM in NY and California and other states. How are they corrupt??

 

Your opinion here is 'riding' on "religion"... isn't it?

 

I am not religious person, quite opposite, I work in science. And according to recent studies homosexual couple cannot give birth to a child naturally.
Apparently four lawyers in Massachusetts did not know that, so they have issued an executive order to ignore biology and think differently.
I guess after that great success of changing laws of nature, they might issue some other orders cancelling physics and math altogether if it serves homosexual agenda.

 

......

Lawyers don't issue executive orders!

And a man of science would also know that homosexuality occurs in nature, and would never invoke the "it's unnatural"... Er, argument? I wouldn't even call it that.

You've basically just spouted a bunch of incorrect "points" that have absolutely no relevancy to the topic at hand.

 

That is absolutely correct, however homosexual people have no relevance to marriage.

 

Marriage as a legal institution is relevant to whomever it is defined to include by lawmakers. Unless you intend to invoke the religion argument that "marriage" has some "greater" meaning, then there is ABSOLUTELY no definition which cannot be changed.

Marriage is relevant to gay people in 10 countries, 6 US states + DC and its equivalents (civil partnerships/unions) are legal in many, many more places around the globe... It's entirely relevant there. There is no "supreme" law.

 

Yea, sure if people in those countries and 6 US states want special rights for homosexuals, there is nothing I can do.

 

Well, you could fight to rescind it like they did in Maine, California and now New Hampshire. But expect a push back. Referendums are only useful to your cause when the majority are anti-SSM. And right now, it's not looking good in the aforementioned states. Polls show majority support for SSM, regionally and nationally.

Obviously those majorities don't appear to agree with you that it's "special rights", anymore than heterosexual marriage is a "special right".

 

Like I have said, if people are brainwashed there is nothing I can do.
The reality is that it is unconstitutional to reward people with benefits because they perform certain sexual acts.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution even remotely like that.

 

Nothing like starting off with a strawman. Nobody is arguing that the intent of marriage is "increasing procreation" Your constant dashes for refuge in a strawman only demonstrate your inability to deal with the arguments made

 

Well, you designed it to be ridiculous so it would be easier to knock down. Wouldnt be much point in you crafting strawmen you cant knock down.

 

Homosexual behavior exists in nature. Homosexuality is purely a human invention.

 

We "invent" lots of terms/definitions for things that are 'natural'.