When ever I talk to someone about gay marriages they always say that gay marriage would be pointless because the couple could not have children. I dont see why that matters. When people get married (if they are getting married for the right reasons) it is because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Not everyone who gets marry has kids.

Having kids is not what worries most people, though. Remember, the bible says its wrong so automatically, those people who take the bible seriously think its wrong.

__________________
Save the environment! Plant a Bush back in Texas.
The last time people listened to a bush, they ended up wandering around the desert for 40 years.

Not every coupple wants to have kids, true. But some do and whats wrong with gays having kids? Are they afraid that (god no) they might turn out to be gay?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Well, in backing a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage, the President seemed to imply that THE primary function of marriage is childrearing. "The" is the key word here. I would argue that there could be several primary functions of a marriage, but many single this out as the most important, something I'm personally troubled by.

I suffer from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). In its most severe form, it is the number one genetic killer of children under the age of 2. By the grace of God, I just missed having this form (there are 3, 1 being fatal, and 3 being the least severe. Many say I'm a type 1 1/2- 1 3/4.), and am approaching my 21st birthday. As a result, I use a motorized wheelchair to get around, and eventually more, have a tracheostomy tube, and undergo about 2 hrs. of breathing treatments in the morning and evening.

Well, RT, what does this have to do with gay marriage? I'm glad you asked.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that, due to my medical needs (OK, and the fact that I'm a complete nerd ), it will probably be awhile before I get involved in a romantic relationship. BUT I obviously don't rule out in the future, and remember that science may be able someday to improve my condition.

That said, should I become involved with someone and perhaps go on to marry this person, having children would, unless my condition improves substantially, or is totally cured, having children would be impossible and/or unreasonable.

The same is true for thousands of Americans with a disability. Not to mention the fact that, although rare, there are some perfectly healthy couples who choose not to have children.

Are such marriages somehow less important, less valid? I think not. No, I think THE primary function of marriage is two people (at this point, a man and a woman) committing themselves to one another. If that committment should expand to having children, then I think that's , but it should NOT be considered a requirement for a valid, loving marriage.

There will be plenty of arguments bantered about on gay marriage, and I'm not totally sure where I stand myself, but the childrearing argument is, to me at least, not valid.

Argue state interest. What is the state's interest for having two people love and take care of each other?

__________________
Any man who can render himself unconscious with a pretzel isn't smart enough to lead the free world.

I'm glad you asked.. You see there are these things called Taxes, they pay for the government, and married folk, well, they get bonuses on their taxes in some ways cause it's been tradition that a married couple is really only one individual paying taxes (a view steadily being thrown out the window in terms of tax law).. Now the politicians are afraid that the gay members of society will get married, get a tax break, and cause a deficit.. Therefore, the state is very interested in the results of the Gay Marriage issue.

A ponderance.. If you're a healthy political engine, which way do you vote?

The child bearing argument doesn't pass the straight face test. A lot of gay couples do have kids. Aside from AI (artificial insemination) and adoption, there are very often kids from prior hetero relationships. The fact that people don't know this simply means they don't know any gay people.

This entire issue boils down to one fundamental; those that don't know any gay couples are perfectly willing to decide what rights they should enjoy and dictate how they will live. Rtruth is right, whether it's disabled people or gay people, what difference does it make to anyone else? In another 20yrs the entire gay rights issue will be history, and folks in their teens and twenties won't even understand what it was about.

While US society is farther up the social curve than repressed societies where simple partial nudity would be cause for an entire family to feel shame for a generation, it is not yet sufficiently far advanced to stop looking for groups of people to single out and persecute for no other reason that being human.

oc