Why do those against same-sex marriage fail to point out that you don't have to be religious or have kids to be married?

They believe life revolves around their religion, so they fight to force their religious views onto everyone. And when people protest, they think "wow, life revolves around my religion!"

What?? FACTS?? They don't like facts...

My dad remarried at 71 after my mom died.
His second marriage was not going to produce kids.

OH WAIT! Pesky facts, again!!!

===========================

Logan can hardly wait to order HIS Wedding Cake.
On top, it will have a penis and a vagina walking side-by-side.
Because THAT"S ALL THAT MATTERS in HIS marriage world!
It's not about the people, it's all about the GENITALIA!!

LMFAO!!

(I wonder how his boyfriend will react to THAT!)

People who have had cancer treatment often can’t have kids afterward.
By Christian logic cancer survivors should be banned from getting married.

What do you expect from uneducated morons? Many of these self righteous Christians are inbred, especially those freaks living in the bible belt.

Religious people come here to lie all day long everyday, that's just the way it is.

Religious people are somehow convinced that their particular religion somehow owns the concept and implementation of marriage and they and only they get to decide who is allowed to get married. Their opposition to same-sex marriage I believe has more to do with their deeply ingrained homophobia than their concern for the so-called "institution of marriage." That's just a smokescreen they hide behind to try to hide their bigotry.

I'm not sure why you're dragging this back up again, when it's decided law in the US, but...

You are certainly correct. The arguments against same sex marriage are failures, because marriage is not a religious rite, but rather is a secular contract of commitment.

Why should they? Why do those in favor of same sex marriage fail to point out that you cannot have children naturally without a man and a woman? The biological process of procreation sets certain limits. One can be against same sex marriage on religious grounds without having to go around pointing out that others don't agree with them. What is the point of this question?

By its original charter as presented by God to Adam and Eve, to "marry" referred to a man and woman - thereafter called "husband and wife" becoming one flesh through sexual reproduction. That definition held sway throughout scripture and well into the modern age. In the beginning though, there was no civil aspect. Adam called Eve his "wife" and scripture calls Adam Eve's "husband." God himself was the officiating officer that blessed their union.

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 ¶ And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
>>> Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

That's the original biblical definition of "to marry/marriage"

Gen 2:25 ¶ And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

It wasnt long though that certain conditions regarding marriage became known and commonplace. For example Jacob had to ask a father for his permission to "marry" (become one flesh with) his daughter. Its a long involved account but he gave Jacob his permission. But Jacob had to work 14 long years to "marry" the woman he dearly loved. There was a lot of drama during those years. His "wives" would become barren and he would seek permission to "marry" another. After it was all said and done, he had four "wives" - two sisters and their handmaidens - that formed the twelve sons of Jacob. But in each case, he MARRIED all four - i.e. became one flesh with each of them.

Of course various wedding ceremonies developed along the way. And now today, "marriage" is not exactly the same now as its beginnings. We have a legal aspect and a physical and spiritual aspect. Some "marriages" are legal only. Some are not - as with common law marriage. Some "marry" (become one flesh) without any other aspect. In our culture though they may cohabitate but they are not legally "married."

So from its original charter given by God, marriage referred to a male and female becoming "one flesh." And it should be obvious to all that two of the same sex cannot become one flesh - i.e. they cannot possibly "marry."

Hope that helps

Jesus speaking:

Mat 19:4 ¶ And Jesus answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

So God made Adam and Eve - male and female - to "marry"; and not Adam and Steve. Sodomy is not "marriage."

It's "against Christianity" and "they can't have biological kids" are two, separate, unrelated arguments.

The reason Christians are against marriage is because the western concept of marriage is based on over 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought - where marriage has always been defined as an exclusive covenant between a man and woman. That institution has earned, over thousands of years, an amount of social recognition (i.e. people generally see marriage as something more special than other agreements). But redefining marriage removes that institution and replaces it with something that has not earned any social recognition. So it takes away what makes marriage special (in religious terms, it "undermines the sanctity of marriage"). If same-sex couples want a similar institution for themselves, they should create their own covenant and let it earn its own social recognition; rather than trying to hijack the social recognition of an existing institution.

Children are an aspect of marriage recognized as beneficial to society, but irrelevant to the definition. Being "religious" or not is also irrelevant to the definition. But incorporating same-sex couplings is a fundamental redefinition of marriage.

Sick .

Marriage is and always has been a matter of civil law! Whilst churches are allowed to carry out the service it must be in complete compliance with that law and any deviation or omission would make the marriage null and void and probably involve criminal offenses!

There is a logic between marriage and children. Have you ever noticed that all humans were born from a male-female relationship? It is true that not all male-female relationships result in children, but that does not diminish the significance of the relationship.

The purpose of military soldiers is to fight and defend their country. Many do exactly that, but some soldiers spend their entire service without firing a gun. Are they still soldiers? Of course they are. They were loyal and they served their country, so they are still soldiers.

In the same way, all married couples belong to an institution that is associated with having children, and preparing the next generation to take the reins. Even if they had no children they were still part of the institution.

The question is then whether or not same-sex couples are part of the institution. The fact that all humans come from male-female unions and no one comes from same-sex unions, means that same-sex unions have a tough time claiming that their union is the same thing as the traditional marriage institution.