Kentucky Just Made One Of The Most Asinine Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage Ever

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D)

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D)

I have some bad news for people who oppose same-sex marriage – you’re going to lose.  Nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t a question of if but when.  In state after state, even some of the more conservative ones, courts are finding that these bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Though it’s still quite humorous to hear these people who oppose same-sex marriage try to make an argument against it without basing their arguments from the Bible – which is clearly unconstitutional according to our First Amendment.  But it’s also obvious that’s where their opposition towards same-sex marriage is derived.

A common talking point I’ve heard ordinary conservatives use against same-sex marriage is that “homosexuals can’t procreate, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.”  But I really never thought I’d see lawyers actually use that argument in a court of law to defend their stance against gay marriage.

Well, that’s exactly what Kentucky is doing.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear filed an appeal last week in federal court that included the argument against same-sex marriage based on the belief that “man-man and woman-woman couples cannot procreate.”

Really?  That’s what they want to argue?

I hate to break it to these individuals, but that’s not an argument against same-sex marriage.  It’s actually an attempt to redefine the requirements for allowing any marriage.

If your argument is that two homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate, then what do you do with straight individuals who doctors have said can’t have children?  Are they then denied their right to marry because they can’t procreate?

What about older couples, especially women, whose bodies aren’t capable of having children any longer?  Are they also denied the right to marry because their body has naturally changed, preventing them from carrying children?

Hell, what about couples who simply don’t want kids?  Are we then going to make procreation a requirement before allowing any couple to marry?  Will these states start nullifying marriages if, after a certain amount of time, they have not had children?

Do you see how stupid this argument is?  Unless you’re going to ban all couples from marrying who either can’t, or won’t, have children, you cannot use that argument as a means to oppose same-sex marriage.  It’s absolutely idiotic.

Oh, and the state also made the ridiculous argument that procreation is necessary for its economic preservation, as healthy birth rates are needed to maintain a stable economy within Kentucky.

Are these people really arguing that legalizing same-sex marriage is going to cause the state’s population to fall?  Do these people not realize that homosexuals exist regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage is legal?

This is quite honestly one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard.  If the best “argument” you have for continuing a ban on same-sex marriage is the ludicrous claim that gay couples can’t naturally procreate, and gay marriage threatens your state’s economic salvation, you’re admitting that you have no legal grounds for supporting the marriage ban.  All you’re doing is grasping at straws.

But like I said earlier, those who oppose same-sex marriage need to just get over it already.  Because it’s not a matter of if same-sex marriage will become legal – but when.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    I swear, some of these people can’t see the forest for the trees! Do we just sink to the lowest intelligence wise to choose our leaders? We are doomed!

  • Proud_Pagan

    Oh, it gets better, Allen.

    Wouldn’t this mandate pre-marital, unprotected sex for kids as young as 16?

    Wouldn’t this place an undue burden on society and these young people, or not-so-young people, who are neither financially nor emotionally prepared to raise a child?

    Wouldn’t this requirement to “prove” fertility between the two people who make up the couple in question increase the population on public assistance by default?

    Aren’t these things considered social ills in these folks’ “Good Book”?

    Finally, aren’t the people who find themselves in this position (pregnant before financial or emotional readiness) labeled as ne’er-do-well leaches on productive members of society by the very same people who wish fertility to be the primary qualifier for marriage?

    I swear these idiots were beaten with the entire Stupid Tree, complete with root system. o.O

  • Suzan McQueen

    I’m certain that lesbians can still become pregnant and gay men can find a surrogate, or either type of couple can adopt children who have no family.

    • Mike Williams

      The simple solution is to pair men-men couple with women-women couples. Sure this would promote adultery, but at least the pesky problem of procreation is tackled without all that devil-made science and voodoo of artificial insemination. I guess they could work out who is the mommy and daddy later. he-she-she-he. As for the other problem of too much procreation vis-a-vis man-woman fertility try-outs; anyone getting pregnant could be restricted from being catholic excluding males of-course. Females could become Episcopalians.
      Lutherans could chose to take the spawn, but that is unlikely as the spawn would be kept in a warehouse until strong enough for the salt mines, say 3 or 4 years of age, As for anyone not getting pregnant or being the seed of the deed, should be required to try again. Not to exceed thrice. The non-fertile would be forced to become either Chinese or Muslim, depending of course on the current ambient temperature to be discussed later. Which brings us to those who refuse to procreate. We just shoot them. I predict an amazing increase in the number of people choosing procreating. As with any plan these measures are truly temporary until everyone is procreating with another, or at the very least, themselves.

      Thank you and have a wonderful moment.

      • JB

        I think I love you. 🙂

      • asconn

        Actually, you may be on to something: if we simply shoot those who cannot procreate, we will inadvertently reduce the number of unemployed people, reduce unemployment payments, open up new positions for all manner of people and in general, be able to blame all of our mistakes on the GOP in the process. Brilliant!

  • Rich Ottenstroer

    It’s hard not to think that Gov. Beshear is just allowing his people to go through the motions to keep the bigoted dim-bulbs among the state’s population mollified as things move to the forgone conclusion. You’d guess that they hate spending the money on such a masturbatory exercise, but sometimes you have to give the people what they want…

    • Gary Smith

      “Masturbatory exercise”? Heaven forfend! That’s a Biblically-proscribed crime in itself: the sin of Onan.

  • Alan Foxman

    The conservative wingnuts would have better luck arguing that it’s “icky” and they dont want to be forced to think about two guys “doing it”….I believe that’s known as the “Na nah nah…I cant hear you…nah nah nah” argument.

  • MyPaynus

    “If anyone’s gonna have sex with my sister, it’s gonna be me.” -Kentucky

  • Edward Krebbs

    Aren’t there kids in foster care needing parents ? Isn’t there a question about overpopulation ?

    And doesn’t it cost a lot of money to raise a child and educate them through college ? (Has to change the bottom line of the family’s finances).

  • Stephen Barlow

    And.. uhm… HOW does My neighbors business become MINE?

  • E.A. Blair

    How about requiring all women to divorce after menopause?

  • Josh Mullins

    Basing their arguments on the Bible is not unconstitutional in the Constitition it states that “Congress shall make no laws regarding Religion”( That is where people get the Seperation of Church and State bit from ) and this was put in the Constitution to primarily protect Christianity since that is the whole reason this country was founded in the first place, but since homosexuality is not a religion there can be a law against it no matter the reasoning even if it is relgious.

    • jonjstrine42

      “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – Treaty Of Tripoli, 1797.
      This was presented to the Senate by one of the Founding Fathers, then-President John Adams. So, no. You’re completely and utterly wrong about the First Amendment to the Constitution.
      Care to try again?

    • American Woman

      Absolutely not. You need to go read up on American history and turn FAUX NEWS off. That is not what the 1st Amendments says at all. The Founding Fathers of this country have said so themselves. Educate not regurgitate.

    • Cemetery Girl

      So, which denomination of Christianity were they trying to protect? Christianity covers a lot of different beliefs, which has caused a lot of conflict between denominations, so which one was being protected? Is the country pro- Catholic or Lutheran or maybe Pentecostal? Quakers, right? Maybe its always been Mormons but everyone forgot, which makes the whole religion moving to Utah thing a little awkward… I know, I know, it probably doesn’t really matter which denomination should be the basis of our laws because we need to focus on the fact that the English that came to this land because of religious conflict just couldn’t handle anymore of the heavy Jewish basis of life in England, or was that Muslim of Hindu… And of course it has always been an absolute fact that until after the establishment of our country only people of strong religious conviction, and all of the exact same religious views, came to this country. While an English colony we never had people of differing faiths here, and absolutely no one that came because of the opportunity to try to build a better life than would have been possible in Europe because of their class or likelihood to inherit family land. That’s the way history was, right, so that way it worked out that America was completely intended to be a nation based on Christianity (and lets everyone just assume it was based on your Christian denomination and not a different one.)

  • ELH

    How about a ban on ignorant people, like him, from marrying…so they CAN’T procreate? The would solve a lot…

  • sfwm.son

    Kentucky is a mystery—one of the better states for the ACA, yet they have the most bassakwards thinking on SO many issues.

  • Dylan Kynaston

    Wouldn’t a population drop actually benefit Kentucky’s economic situation? With all those poor people, the state can’t really handle much population growth, can it?