A straight couple that cannot (or I suppose does not want to) have kids is not normal. Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry?
Welcome to FR
Go away...
As Hildy pointed out, she wants comments against same-sex marriage, not in favor of them.
You err in using an anomaly as your example. All children come from the union of one man and one woman. None come for homosexual "unions." The fact that some in the first group suffer either from a physcial abnormality or the lack of will to have children in no way changes the fact that the 2nd group CAN NEVER EVER have children.
First, define "can't." If you can look at two people and see the parts don't fit, then that's a pretty simple test. People that are "sterile" have kids from time to time even when supposedly neither is capable. What kinds of tests are to be required to deny benefits? We set the standards pretty low, but it is a huge leap from "barren" to mechanically incompatible.
Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry?
Yes.
D'oh!
They can change their minds and have the complementary equipment to reproduce.
Perverts will never.
I suspect that a heterosexual couple who can't bear children has a medical problem that quite possibly can be fixed.
Homosexuals inability to reproduce isn't medical and it can't be fixed.
A straight couple that cannot (or I suppose does not want to) have kids is not normal. Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry?
I'll bite, Mr. Troll-Sols! (I've noticed your other post--both are pro-gay.)
Reproduction within marriage is optimal, and desired, because it benefits the continued existence of humanity. Homosexuality produces nothing--and ties up two individuals who could have done society a favor by procreatin'.
Where reproduction is not possible, then man + woman relationships are still the optimal (nothing has changed) simply because physically--from a HEALTH point of view, and from a biological point of view, whether you think we evolved or were created--penetration of the anus ain't optimal, isn't even normal, and it spreads disease. We weren't designed for it. CLEAR ENOUGH?
And it gets deeper than that. (Pun intended!) There's more to relationships than mere sex. And again, stable relationships benefit society--not the hundreds of sex partners, all anonymous, to be found in bath houses.
(God, I hope I don't get zotted. Moderators--Hey, I'm merely stating the facts, eh? Keep that in mind. Facts are my defense, here.)
From a spiritual/psychological point of view, the personalities of man + woman are mutually complementary. That's the other reason. Imageo Dei, and all that, if you're a Christian, and just call it "nature's evolution" if you're not. We've got a lock on the facts of this argument either way you go.
Man, I just hate it when people (like you) feign ignorance that any difference is substantial, and that anything should be allowed, and try to "innocently" spark some discussion...with a secret agenda in mind.
THERE. I've thrown some fat into the fire. Flame away!
(Let's not beat around the bush, and show some candor, and get right to the point, or this thread will just go one endlessly and resolve nothing. To be honest, I just resolved it righer here. NEXT THREAD!)
SAURON