Comments on: “YOU! No Marriage for YOU!”

By: Rachel H

Rachel H — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:48:27 +0000

Good point, Hunter – that needs to be stressed. Nonetheless, I think it’s worth pointing out that focussing on the brute physical ability of a couple to procreate is to completely miss the point, even in the context of a discussion about raising children.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:31:49 +0000

Rachel: protecting certain relationships is not really about raising children. Married couples themselves contribute to social stability and the general welfare, in terms of physical and mental health, productivity, treatment of property, and a host of intangibles.

The whole “procreation” argument is another red herring.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:33:25 +0000

I’ve read people argue that, no, infertile couples are good because they possess the equipment necessary for procreation, even if they can’t procreate themselves.

Lovely self-refuting argument there: “the ability to procreate is fundamental to marriage except that it isn’t”.

It’s also really shallow. Does society have an interest in protecting certain relationships because of some conceptual ability the parties have to procreate or because it is good for kids to be raised in stable, loving environments?

By: Neon Genesis

Neon Genesis — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:42:03 +0000

A much shorter response is that gay couples can reproduce through the use of artificial fertilization, therefore this bigot is wrong. The end.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:17:01 +0000

This argument that same-sex marriage must be prevented because it’s the wrong model for kids is an extension of the argument that homosexual legality itself should be prevented. It’s the argument you’ll hear whenever the subject of curriculum content acknowledging gay people is broached.

It’s exactly the same reasoning behind the now repealed ‘clause 28′ in the UK or laws against the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ in Russia. I’ve no doubt people are hearing about it now in Uganda to justify the proposed additional criminal penalties.

It’s the argument for extinction. Our opponents will push for death, failing that, incarceration, failing that, silence, all depending on our present degree of social acceptance within the given society.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:13:10 +0000

Timothy, you have a more detailed description of what I was trying to say.

By: MattNYC

MattNYC — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:06:48 +0000

“Rush Limbaugh…he’s NEVER had children.”

And perhaps the ONLY fact that makes me believe in a higher power. Or at least to give thanks to that supposed power.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:04:51 +0000

In reality medical tests before marriage aren’t unheard of. They were introduced when the eugenics movement picked up a lot of steam in the 1910s and 1920s. Another reason was that the cause of some diseases became understood, so people could be tested for things like syphilis. In fact some states still require blood test. A requirement for a fertility test wouldn’t be too unrealistic. It’s pretty easy to do for men.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:59:27 +0000

Vogt’s elderly example-setting exception is more insidious than it appears on the surface. If may seem benign until you ask, “for whom is this example set?”

Limiting marriage to the fertile would adequately demonstrate to most children that marriage is the confine within which children are to be conceived. But the inclusion of the elderly as an example, has nothing to do with conception, it has to do with parameters.

In short, his argument is that allowing elderly man – elderly woman marriage does not provide an example of fertility, but it provides an example of man-woman marriage. Marriage has to be limited to man-woman so as to reinforce the notion of man-woman pairing. And the reason to exclude man-man marriage but include man-woman marriage is because only one reinforces the model he seeks.

Ultimately this argument boils down to non-fertile heterosexual marriage is allowed because its heterosexual.

But to return to the question of ‘whom’ – for whom is this modeling?

As I noted, most kids don’t need heterosexual reinforcement. They just are.

No, the only children who need the ‘elderly heterosexual marriage is okay because it’s heterosexual’ message are those for whom this is not a given.

The anti-gays are not lying when they say, ‘it’s about the children’. It’s definitely about the children. The ones very much like we used to be.

Vogt wants, supports, and defends non-fertile heterosexual marriage as an example to those children who are not inclined to heterosexuality. He opposes same-sex marriage precisely for the same reason: if same-sex marriage is sanctioned, then it sets an example for other same-sex attracted children to follow.

Vogt may claim that people are free to enter relationships of their choosing, but that is the opposite of his intent. He opposes anything that would in any way encourage the stable unions of same-sex couples.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:54:46 +0000

And Priya Lynn for the win!! That last point was the one I was going to make. If it’s a numbers game, and the numbers of older individuals is small, then the number of LGBT people getting married should, concievably be as small if not possibly smaller. As a population we are nubered anywhere between 3-10 percent of the total population. Take from that number, the number of LGBT people who actually get married, and the number is even smaler than that, probably a total of 30 percent of the 3-10 percent of the population. Every way they look at the argument, it’s a loss for their intelligence.