I'm not even sure how I got on their mailing list, but Minnesota for Marriage, an anti-gay Christian conservative hate group, just sent me one of their "Marriage Minutes." In it, they attempt to answer the following question:

“If marriage is really about procreation, then why do we allow infertile couples, senior citizens and others who cannot conceive enter into marriage but not same sex couples?”

And here is the response:

"It does not matter if spouses do not intend to have children or even if factors like infertility might prevent conception from occurring. Marriage is primarily about channeling the sexual passion of men and women, with its inherent potential for creating children, into a stable family unit that provides the best opportunity for children born of that union to be cared for by her mother and father."

The utter hypocrisy of this drives me crazy. If the purpose of marriage is truly about procreation for these people, then isn't allowing couples who cannot or do not intend to have children to marry a bit like a paraplegic owning a motorcycle? This is a perfect example of moving the goalposts, but no doubt we're going to be hearing more about this in the coming months, depending on who gets the GOP presidential nomination.

Views: 144

Replies to This Discussion

The intellectual vacuity of their answer to the question they posit is so glaringly obvious, I hope they circulate that one widely.  Anyone who thinks for himself can see that they skirted the question quite artfully and never answered it.

I fail to see how, within the context of their answer, where there is really any difference between an infertile couple and a gay couple.  Both are equally capable of providing a loving, nurturing environment to children, and in the end, that's what counts.  

The wording of that question leads me to wonder if it came from my own essay on gay marriage, which posits - and answers - that very objection.  The fact that they could not come up with a more coherent answer to it suggests that they have no meaningful answer to that question.

There isn't a meaningful answer to that question outside of religious bigotry and homophobia because there functionally isn't any difference between an infertile couple and a gay one. That was the telling thing about the Proposition 8 trials: That the proponents of the measure couldn't come up with a solid shred of evidence outside of the bible for why there should be separate laws for homosexuals. It ultimately comes down to, "God says so." And last time I checked, we aren't living in a theocracy.

Oh, it makes me mad!!

(I posted a link to your essay on Twitter this afternoon, btw. Really good stuff!)

Nattering nabobs of negativity. To put it kindly, idiots. Look, marriage isn't about kids. You might talk about having kids before you're married, I know we did, but it wasn't the reason we got married. As shocking as it sounds, we were in love. We connected, really deeply. Could not get pregnant, took seven years. Because of certain problems my wife was having there was talk of a hystrectomy. Then we got pregnant. She had to have that hysto after the baby. So, I guess we should have gotten divorced afterwards, as we could no longer procreate. Bullshit. It is important, children. Don't get me wrong. But it is about the love, the connection. And that is a condition every man, woman, and child can relate to. And true, deep, abiding love is inclusive, not exclusive.

That horrid Kalley Yanta's "Marriage Minutes" make me want to gnaw my arm off.  Be sure to have someone handcuff you and tie pillows around you before watching, to reduce risk of self harm.  She's like some sort of hand puppet for the bishops.  Surprises me that she's not trying to abuse altar boys.

She also did one that said birth control made her promiscuous, and she killed countless babies who she would have to apologize to in heaven after she dies.


It's true, if marriage was only about procreation, and all procreation requires marriage, then all of society would be different from what it is.  So a pair of 80 year old's has an inherent potential for creating children, but two women do not?  Someone who has no uterus, or a man with no sperm production due to having Kleinfelter's, can be made pregnant because the have an inherent potential for creating children?  What total disingenuous bullshit.  Because god only does miracles for heterosexuals I guess.

I actually know several gay men who have donated sperm to lesbian couples who then raised the child together. How awesome is that!? That's more a beautiful picture of intentional community and responsible reproduction than two Christian breeders going at it willy-nilly in their supposed duty to populate an already over-populated earth.

Very awesome!  Maybe it's time to make a marriage minute to counter creepy Kalley Yanta's Marriage minutes.  Double-awesome!  No blonde wig tho - just be you.

These people don't know what they're talking about. I've written Michele Bachmann several times now questioning her about why she doesn't agree with gay marriage. I've never gotten a reply. I never get a reply when I question her about giving the green light on bullying gay teens because of "religious beliefs'' either.

    When it comes down to it, how can you justify indirectly stating a same sex couple would not be able to nurture children in an acceptable manner? I've learned two things about homophobics: They are all religious, and none can justify their reason for hating gays. It's a circular argument with no end justification.  



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service