[ArGee]

But it doesn't if you accept the idea that marriage is about procreation, since homosexuals cannot procreate from within their relationship.

But men with vasectomies are allowed to marry. The issue is not even considered.

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

Vasectomies can be reversed, sperm can still be extracted and implanted.

I'm not saying that people cannot get married unless they swear to have children, I'm saying that marriage came about by society blessing the couple to have children for the sustainment of the tribe.

-PJ

[longtermmemmory]

no, it is not the actual having of children. It is about reinforcing the man/woman is a father/mother structure of society. Every man is a father, every woman is a mother. This is regardless of the actual existence of children. It is about how we as a society raise our future.

Homosexuals want to base the future solely on having sex with members of the same sex.

[Kevin Curry]

But men with vasectomies are allowed to marry. The issue is not even considered.

But men, vasectomies or not, are not allowed to marry other men.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is a male-female union, for only a male-female union can procreate and rear children. The fact that many male-female unions do not or cannot procreate does not render this fundamental complementary biological union irrelevant (although such sterile unions have diluted it).

There is enormous value to society, and to the men and women involved, in male-female unions that do procreate and remain faithful to provide a stable environment for children to flourish and to learn from example how to perpetuate that good through their own marriages and children.

All other human relationships fall far short of this ideal--which is a fully achieveable ideal.

Alost all of what gay activists are seeking is already available (e.g., hospitals allow visits from friends) or can be provided by private agreement. One way to view a "civil union" is to view it as a special form of business partnership that extends to the domestic realm. But if such partnerships are allowed, there is no practical way to limit them to male-male or female-female relationships. Neither can they be limited on the assumption that the partners will or desire to engage in intimate sexual behavior with one another. As a practial matter, any person (of legal age) would be allowed to enter such a partnership with any other person.

Gay activists are not happy with that. They desperately desire the approbation of society. They want the to be lied to and told they are what they can never be: the moral, legal, and biological equivalent of a male-female union.