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.
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.