Quote Originally Posted by Zantetsuken View Post
A fine answer...

And it underlines why many people strongly against calling gay-unions 'Marriages'

Marriage (traditionally understood) has long been an institution in which two people agree to sexual excusivity. This can be for romantic reasons, or for the purpose of providing the ideal structure for the propitiation of the species, or both. It creates offspring via the sexual activity of its partners, who are biologically inclined to care for the children more than any others. It also harnesses the complementary attributes of both sexes to create the best and most balanced environment for their offspring to grow and thrive in. The couple's lives are largely dedicated the raising to their offspring. [*all other factors being equal]


Same-Sex Marriage is an agreement of sexual and romantic exclusivity between two people of the same gender. Barring any extra-marital sources of pregnancy, as long as the sexual activity (of any sort) is exclusive between the two partners, there is no chance for offspring. The couple lives are largely focused on each-other. [*all other factors being equal]

Now when an authoritative body declares that same-sex unions believe that a man-man or woman-woman union are "marriages", and therefore EQUAL in all manner to that of a traditional marriage, they have simultaneously also declared that the biological bond between parent and child, the value of procreation, and the complementary nature of the sexes effectively meaningless in the eyes of the law, which means that schools will teach it as such, and religious organizations, businesses are often penalized, fined, or sued if they do not comply with legislation that requires them to act in a certain way in regards to married people.

Even though most people wouldn't be able to describe it this way to you if you asked, intuitively they know it and it calls for gay 'marriage' is a severe affront to them.

Of course, many straight people fail to live up to the ideal, and we all know of cases of abuse, divorce, infidelity, etc.. but gay relationships experience those things just as much - so it's a wash there.

The wider social implications of calling gay unions 'marriages' is the key to the opposition.

You may not agree, but the issue is a very serious one with many people.
This is not valid. You want to know why? A man and woman can get married legally even if one or both of them is infertile or otherwise incapable of having children. The law does not see marriage as a contract, or even an obligation, to breed.

If this is truly the argument against same-sex marriage then all marriages in which no children are produced, or in which the children are no longer living at home or being raised, should be recinded immediately until such time that children are once again being brought forth from the couple. One child a year, no exceptions.

And what about gay people that adopt or have children that came from a former straight marriage or otherwise? They are rearing children but still being denied the right to marry the partner who is also rearing those children. Flawed argument is flawed.

But just to put this back into XIV territory, no children are possible here no matter what genders we are talking about so whatever other ridiculous arguments people are going to come up with here against marriage equality should have a firm basis in the game.