- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,713
- Reaction score
- 35,491
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Except for one can not claim that procreation is the reason that the government has a vested interest in marriage. To do so one would need to have procreation being needed for marriage. It is not. Heterosexual couples that are have conditions making it impossible to create off spring can be married. Individuals who, if they have off spring, are far more likely to have physically or mentally damaged children are allowed or marry. Individuals with no desire to have kids and no plans to have kids can be married. Individuals who have had surgical procedures to keep themselves from having children can get married.
There are numerous and repeated instances in our society where individuals who can not or will not have children are given marriage benefits therefore stating that that is the reason to deny same sex marriages on the basis of marriage being for procreation falls flat as if that was true the government would need more protections against non-procreating marriages than simply disallowing SSM.
Indeed, two Same Sex individuals wishing to have a child are far more likely to produce said child than two individuals who do not wish to have a child and are not physically capable of carrying or creating one.
There are numerous and repeated instances in our society where individuals who can not or will not have children are given marriage benefits therefore stating that that is the reason to deny same sex marriages on the basis of marriage being for procreation falls flat as if that was true the government would need more protections against non-procreating marriages than simply disallowing SSM.
Indeed, two Same Sex individuals wishing to have a child are far more likely to produce said child than two individuals who do not wish to have a child and are not physically capable of carrying or creating one.