Replies

I am by no means an apologist for so-called same sex marriages. Rather, I'm just the opposite. If the author is saying that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, I believe that's a false premise. Older folks past the age of fertility - marry. Young couples with physical constraints or limitations that prevent them from having children - marry. There are some couple, who although capable of producing children, chose not to do so. So we have here examples of men and women marrying who despite not having children are truly married.

The natural order (nature) tells us that homosexuality is a perversion. Romans 1 tells us that homosexuality is an abominable sin.

Homosexuals who claim they are Christians pervert God's word, which is no surprise, since their heart and mind is perverted.

License is not love. There's a vast difference between admitting I have trouble with a sin or weakness and need Christ's help vs I take pride in and flaunt my sin. Christians are called to repent (turn) from sin and turn to Christ and His mercy. When we call good evil and evil good - we are truly in trouble.

“If the author is saying that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, I believe that’s a false premise.”

The author isn’t saying that. He said, “Marriage concerns the association in which children are (or MAY BE- words and emphasis mine) conceived in the stable, loving union of their parents. This is a unique relationship, crucial for the continuance of society, and we need a name for it so we know what we are talking about.”

In homosexual “marriage”, children cannot be conceived from the union of the two married people, ever. Thus, their relationship is not marriage.

If the author is saying that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, I believe that’s a false premise. Older folks past the age of fertility - marry. Young couples with physical constraints or limitations that prevent them from having children - marry. There are some couple, who although capable of producing children, chose not to do so. So we have here examples of men and women marrying who despite not having children are truly married.

“Pre-requisite” is not the right word. Procreation is at the core of and is the purpose for marriage. That we also allow some expansion at the fringes does not make that false, and does not mean the expansion must be unbounded.

Further, there is a difference between religious marriage, and government’s purpose in recognizing marriage. For the government’s cause, the benefits and rights granted are towards creating an environment in which to raise children and to recover afterwards, and those who never procreate are indeed gaming the system. The challenge here is to differentiate between that are not going to procreate, and those who just haven’t yet - so the governments largely haven’t where it is at least superficially feasible to procreate.

Again, while the line can be drawn at different places, it is a bounded range and the courts have no place in either expanding that range beyond the core criteria nor curtailing it. It also does not mean that some of those rights granted cannot be separately given to others under different auspices such as interpersonal contracts.