Fertility and Same Sex Marriage

[CriticalThought]

How about if a person were bisexual? In your view the only difference would be the ability to procreate?

True. That is the only difference. As long as they would be just as happy with a male or female partner.

Let me guess, you believe, "if all things were equal" as you say, that a bisexual person would choose an opposite sex person simply for the ability to procreate?

Contrary to popular opinion, not every person is hyped up about perpetuating their genes. I for one, would prefer to adopt than to have kids and add to the world's growing population problems.

 

[jambalaya]

Certainly in the modern practice of marriage where fertility can be determined the question can be raised. When marriage was first created fertility wasn't questioned because it couldn't be known. You couldn't deny someone marriage off a possiblity they could be infertile. Maybe as knowlege evolved, the definition of marriage probably should have evolved too. But then again who would know it could become a crucial issue in the definition of marriage. Who could have thought such a fine point needed to be considered. Its kind of unfair to consider it a major factor for the gay marriage argument but hard to ignore. Once again, give marriage back to the people and create something else for the sake having legal unions for all.

 

[Emze]

If arguments about same-sex marriage lead with the simple fact that a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, what is to be said about women who know they cannot have children? A number of my close female friends and family are unable to bear children of their own, but they chose to marry their husbands and adopt. The idea is not to crack down on women who cannot have children, but that we CANNOT discriminate who facts apply to simply because we dislike the group they are aimed towards. Using fertility to discriminate against same-sex couples inevitably discriminates against infertile women as well, even if that was not the intention.

 

[jambalaya]

If arguments about same-sex marriage lead with the simple fact that a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, what is to be said about women who know they cannot have children? A number of my close female friends and family are unable to bear children of their own, but they chose to marry their husbands and adopt. The idea is not to crack down on women who cannot have children, but that we CANNOT discriminate who facts apply to simply because we dislike the group they are aimed towards. Using fertility to discriminate against same-sex couples inevitably discriminates against infertile women as well, even if that was not the intention.

I don't know if you are addressing anyone in particular but yes you are right. We would have to start descriminating against infertile couples technically if we want to more tightly define marriage now. But I have to repeat, when marriage was created it wasn't necessary to put such a fine point on it.

 

[Hicup]

If arguments about same-sex marriage lead with the simple fact that a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, what is to be said about women who know they cannot have children? A number of my close female friends and family are unable to bear children of their own, but they chose to marry their husbands and adopt. The idea is not to crack down on women who cannot have children, but that we CANNOT discriminate who facts apply to simply because we dislike the group they are aimed towards. Using fertility to discriminate against same-sex couples inevitably discriminates against infertile women as well, even if that was not the intention.

The issue is very complex isn't it? I honestly have no idea how the SCOTUS is going to rule on this, and it may come down to a strict ideological battle, with Kennedy being the swing vote, and each justice inventing a rationale for their position? I dunno how I feel, but I do think that keeping marriage as it is, is probably the best solution, and then allowing civil unions for those that do not qualify, and that includes couples that are incapable, or unwilling to reproduce "naturally". The truth is that, the issue is very divisive, and neither side is backing down, so ultimately one side is not going to be happy with whatever the SCOTUS decides. Maybe the Gov should get out of mariage altogether, and only recognize civil unions that reproduce with incentives or some such?

I honestly don;t know..


Tim-

 

[Emze]

Maybe the Gov should get out of mariage altogether, and only recognize civil unions that reproduce with incentives or some such?

I am not positive what you imply by this, but I agree the governor should get out of marriage. It is their personal choice to be gay or lesbian, and it should be their personal choice to be bound to the one they love, whether or not they can reproduce. Not being married doesn't stop couples from reproducing(accidents happen), and I believe we shouldn't deny marriage to couples who won't reproduce. We also need to think of what the consequences are to gays and lesbians marrying. The world will not end, our values will remain in tact. Gays marrying does not mean we as well have to marry as a gay or lesbian. Being gay is their lifestyle choice, not their cult. They aren't trying to turn us into gays as well, but to be legally bound to the one they love. Disagree if you will, I just do not understand why people are doing everything they can to keep gays and lesbians from being happy. They aren't about to switch "teams" to reproduce, so why do we deny them from helping support the marriage industry?

 

[roguenuke]

Here's the problem with this question. It presumes that the state has no interest in fertility with opposite sex marriage, when it could be argued that it does have an interest, it simply does not have the means to determine fertility in opposite sex marriages because to do so would be a violation of privacy rights.

Whereas, with SSM, there is no doubt at all regarding to the infertility of the coupling. With any OSM, there is some doubt.

Because of that, my opinion is that SSM proponents would be well-served by showing that adoption and alternative means for having children will ultimately occur if SSM is legalized.

The problem is that the state does not endorse marriage for the benefit of children solely. In fact, there are marriages that the federal government endorses in which the couple are prevented from procreating by law. They are given the same federal benefits of marriage for the sole reason that they are a man and woman together, and not two women or two men.

 

[roguenuke]

I am not positive what you imply by this, but I agree the governor should get out of marriage. It is their personal choice to be gay or lesbian, and it should be their personal choice to be bound to the one they love, whether or not they can reproduce. Not being married doesn't stop couples from reproducing(accidents happen), and I believe we shouldn't deny marriage to couples who won't reproduce. We also need to think of what the consequences are to gays and lesbians marrying. The world will not end, our values will remain in tact. Gays marrying does not mean we as well have to marry as a gay or lesbian. Being gay is their lifestyle choice, not their cult. They aren't trying to turn us into gays as well, but to be legally bound to the one they love. Disagree if you will, I just do not understand why people are doing everything they can to keep gays and lesbians from being happy. They aren't about to switch "teams" to reproduce, so why do we deny them from helping support the marriage industry?

I don't agree with the government being totally out of marriage. There are certain important protections that should come from marriage. I wouldn't complain about the loss of tax benefits (not too much anyway), but the legal protections that come from marriage are very important, including being able to make important legal and medical decisions for your spouse and vice versa. Being able to actually have your spouse recognized as family and their family recognized as part of your family. These are things that are best taken care of with one legal contract, the marriage contract.

 

[Tucker Case]

In fact, there are marriages that the federal government endorses in which the couple are prevented from procreating by law.

I've never heard of anyone being barred from procreating while being allowed to be married.

 

[roguenuke]

I've never heard of anyone being barred from procreating while being allowed to be married.

In Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin, first cousins can only marry if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children. Maine also says this, but offers an exception if the couple gets genetic counseling.

Cousin Marriage Laws in the United States -- Legal Status of Marriages of Cousins

This is obviously a small group of people, but these couples are still recognized by the federal government and given federal marriage benefits. This shows that the federal government does not actually endorse marriage for the potential of procreation, because if it were true, they would refuse to recognize these marriages as legal.

 

[Tucker Case]

In Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin, first cousins can only marry if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children. Maine also says this, but offers an exception if the couple gets genetic counseling.

Cousin Marriage Laws in the United States -- Legal Status of Marriages of Cousins

This is obviously a small group of people, but these couples are still recognized by the federal government and given federal marriage benefits. This shows that the federal government does not actually endorse marriage for the potential of procreation, because if it were true, they would refuse to recognize these marriages as legal.

I never knew that. Thanks for the info.

But if it is a state-by-state issue, how does it relate to the federal government?

 

[roguenuke]

I never knew that. Thanks for the info.

But if it is a state-by-state issue, how does it relate to the federal government?

The federal government still recognizes these marriages. The vast majority of benefits, protections, and marriage rights are federal, not state.

DOMA is the only federal act to limit marriage. DOMA only covers same sex marriages, and has two parts. The first part of DOMA is the federal government's recognition of marriage, the second concerns other states' recognition of SSM. Now there have been federal rulings that say that states do not have to recognize marriages that violate laws of those states, so not all states have to recognize marriages between first cousins, just like not all states have to recognize marriages between people where sexual activity of the married couple would violate that state's statutory rape laws. The federal government however must recognize all these marriages.

I would actually like to see the federal government take control of marriage overall. And it should be kept simple, any two people who are not otherwise closely related (I think I would limit it to immediate family) and are 18 or older should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract. An exception can be made for emancipated minors. It would be acceptable (with me anyway) if the federal government wanted to remove the tax breaks for being married (although honestly, I don't see it happening), but this would ensure that all couples have the benefits and legal protections of marriage. This provides a legal record that the couple wants each other to be their closest legal relative, with one document.

 

[joe six-pack]

This is not a thread to debate about polygamy. This thread is in reference to the issue of fertility in regard to same sex marriage. The only discernible difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples is the ability to procreate and thus it is the crux of the same sex marriage debate.

From Walker's ruling of Prop 8.

Most traditional marriage people argue that marriage must be preserved as an institution of procreation, but our law does not reflect that reality. Opposite sex couples are not required to provide proof of fertility in order to get married. As such, opposite sex couples who are infertile, elderly, or who choose not to have children are not denied the right to marry. Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as opposite sex couples and have the same options as infertile opposite sex couples, such as adoption or using a surrogate or sperm donor.

Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? How is that not discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation?

It absolutely is discrimination by the State. But what's more, same-sex couples do have the ability to procreate, just not necessarily without outside help. Like an opposite-sex couple, who has one partner unable to provide healthy genetic material, same-sex couples can use a donor or surrogate to produce children. In fact, they do. Therefore, same-sex couples do add to the population, in the sense that children are produced from their marriage.

But that fact aside, the State has no business dictating who is valuable enough to take part in a legal union, based on the sex organs of the people involved. It's a violation of privacy, equal protection and the due process clause. In essence, it's unconstitutional, and morally wrong, to ban same-sex marriage.