Procreative Activity

Timothy Kincaid

October 27th, 2009

One of the chief arguments against same-sex marriage (especially that of Catholics) is that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that procreative activities occur within stable families best able to raise the resulting children. And when challenged about the elderly or the barren, the argument is that while some specific married persons cannot procreate, their activities are procreative in nature.

So it is with interest that we observe an amusing anecdote that has emerged from the Olson/Boies challenge to Proposition 8. (NYTimes)

The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.”

Judge Walker appeared puzzled. “The last marriage that I performed,” the judge said, “involved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?”

Mr. Cooper said no.

As Judge Walker is not willing to buy into religious presumptions, Mr. Cooper may find it difficult to articulate in this case just exactly why the voters can have excluded a subset of the populace from enjoying the rights afforded to other citizens for reasons other than animus. And if he is unable to do so, that may bode well for this lawsuit.


October 27th, 2009

Ooh he wants this televised. That would be fantastic to see all the hemming and hawing the liar will be doing as he squirms under the microscope of justice.


October 27th, 2009

I noticed in my feedreader that the ad at the bottom was for a yes on 1 from “stand for marriage maine” – I made sure to click on it to give you money and use up their money for ad revenue.


October 27th, 2009

We should all take a few minutes to go to every gay-friendly website that display these ads and get them clicked. Do it from multiple computers (with different IP addresses if available).

This is like mana from heaven! Christmas is coming early this year!

Lindoro Almaviva

October 27th, 2009

OK, let me explain something here. Yes, the Catholic church does believe that marriage is mainly for procreation. It is part of the vows that you take when you marry within the church. You are asked if you are willing to accept the children that God sends your way, and you better say yes or else. Furthermore, if a spouse can produce evidence that one of the partners actively sought avoiding having children, the church will find grounds for nullification of the marriage.

Now, that doesn’t stop the church will marry elderly people or someone who is medically incapable of having children; but if you have taken measures to ensure you never do, and say so during premarital counseling with the church you will not be married under any circumstance.

How many protestant churches will marry you even if they know that you had a mastectomy at 25, or had your tubes tide at 20 because you didn’t want children? At least in that aspect the catholic church is consistent.


October 27th, 2009

He can’t prove that legalizing same-sex marriage will diminish the number of opposite-sex marriages or the latter’s procreative potential for the simple reason that both notions are absurd on their face.

Christopher Waldrop

October 28th, 2009

What’s amazing to me is that the judge’s question took Cooper by surprise. Was he not expecting it? Was he not prepared to be questioned about whether marriage was intended solely “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions”?

His lack of preparedness makes me wonder if Mr. Cooper is trying to lose. And if he is, well, bully for him.


October 28th, 2009

“At least in that aspect the catholic church is consistent.”

Debatable but entirely irrelevant, which is exactly the point. Churches have the right to form their doctrines as they please but do not have the right to dictate public policy. This is about CIVIL marriage, not religious. The Catholic Church is free to ban same-sex couples, divorced persons, non-Catholics, etc. from the altars in their churches for whatever grounds it likes as much as it pleases. When it comes to CIVIL marriage that is a whole ‘nother matter entirely…


October 28th, 2009

@ Lindoro: Thank you for the insight for those of us who were never Catholic.

Thank you, Judge Walker! That was terrific.

Of course a minister of any faith has the right to refuse to marry any couple s/he wants. They can and do refuse to perform marriages that are perfectly legal under civil law for many reasons. The Catholic Church’s ability to refuse marriages to divorcees and childfree by choice people demonstrates that civil law does not, as so many of our opponents like to argue, impinge on anyone’s religious freedom. As I frequently argue, what we want is the right to choose to go to the courthouse (or other, more accepting venue), just like any mixed-sex couple who can’t get married in a given house of worship.

Regan DuCasse

October 28th, 2009

All of the points here expressed, are evidence of reality.
The other, more specious argument is fear of litigious reprisals for churches or other places of worship that refuse to marry SS couples.

Considering that OTHER couples who don’t meet the standards of faith services set forth don’t litigate, and there is no civil discrimination against them, how does it follow that gay couples will sue?
It’s almost laughable how specific a law has to be on this.

In my neighborhood, there is a church with a big sign that reads “We Support Marriage Equality”.
There are several in fact who have similar signage.

At least a place of worship should and COULD be specific and have a whole LIST of religious objections so that someone is informed beforehand on how to avoid a place that doesn’t welcome them.

But we all know the reason for that, however ugly and more truthful it would be.

Autopsy, blood and organ donation, contraceptive sex and…dancing.

How is it that all manner of religious people whose faith rejects and abhors these activities, manage to accept them all as part of the reasonable and important factor of FREEDOM for other members of humanity?

They may reject these things as individuals, but cannot force these objections on or opportunities FROM those who accept them?
Indeed, require them. Although with a few exceptions, these activities are part of modern living, and unimaginable in the ancient societies that created the religion in the first place.

Homosexuality is also a part of all humanity that preexisted religions, how ever differently they all manifested, homosexuality isn’t changed, neither has transgenderism.

So, what courts could possibly favor such selective religious objection in the face of the simple practicality AND positive aspects that equality represents and always has?

In herniating and torturing law to treat gay people differently for BEING different, equality also seems like the most reasonable thing to decide in a court decision, since so much else has failed and become unnecessarily complicated and convoluted.

Each and every basic argument from the opposition is non existent in law. So none of them, added altogether will make good law for a good reason.
At some point, it will insult every hetero in an equal social position and beg suspension of reasoned belief.

And no court should be in the position of deciding on or with either of these.
All that’s left IS animus as the driving force behind the discrimination.
And no court should favor that either.


November 2nd, 2009

The funny thing is that the proposition of Cooper’s argument doesn’t even establish his conclusion.

Cooper argues that the government has a legitimate interest in “channeling naturally procreative activity into enduring relationships”, and that this interest can be served by discriminating against same-sex couples in the realm of marriage. But same-sex activities do not constitute “naturally procreative activity” to begin with – i.e. GLBT folks don’t even engage in the behavior that Cooper claims needs to be “channeled”.

In other words, even if you buy that the government has a legitimate interest in “channeling” people’s sexuality (which I don’t), there is no connection between the purported government interest and the means being advanced to accomplish it. Thus, Cooper’s case for discriminating against SSM lacks the “tailoring” that, as a matter of constitutional law, is required in order to justify discriminatory state action.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.