To be honest, accidental pregnancies was part of the reason (Biblically) that marriage was invented to protect women and children. In other religions ‘marriage’ was a point so that men could have sons to carry on their name within tribes (bastards were not recognized), and fathers could get girls out from under their financial burden.

However, does this also give the court a right to ban traditional marriage where the male or female has proved barren? Or between a man and women beyond the age of bearing children at all?
I have tried to submit two urls covering this story and each has been blacklisted by the forum’s algorithms so I will try to just put the google search url covering this

“Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.

Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.

“Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State’s interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do,” attorneys who are seeking to uphold Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California in 2008, argued in their brief. The opponents to gay marriage also argue it’s possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

*gets out a new desk*

*beats head against desk*

While you were banging your head Robin, I had posted the question on Yahoo questions and answers too and here is the first answer:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhwTzSw9QHIVG0kHaRS8CmkazKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20130304083818AAHWDm0

Gay marriage is fruitless; it breaks down the basic moral values of the family, and opens the door wide for other dangerous issues like legalizing incest

I think I opened a can of worms indeed.  Now the beat of my ‘banging’ head is with yours.

(note that the url takes you to a ‘opps!’....so I guess Yahoo doesn’t like peeping toms?)  More head banging.

I fail to see how a couple of gay people getting married would affect a heterosexual couples marriage or deter them from getting married.  Unless the detractors are of an extremely religious persuasion who consider such things as gay marriage an extreme affront to their sensibilites it shouldn’t have any effect on people.  The whole issue seems to be more a matter of some people thinking that everyone in the country should think and act like they do.

Working in the aviation industry I’ve heard a lot about the stereotype of gay guys as flight attendants.  I admit its true in many cases.  However they are also some of the most dependable, hardest working people I know.  I’ve got nothing but respect for them and if they want to get married to each other I see no reason why they can’t.

Gray I had to change the question on Yahoo as well because people were getting ‘hung-up’ on the ‘gay’ idea and not reading what I was asking in the first place: 

From the debate: Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies—

[Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.

Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.]

Here’s the actual question:  The question then of legitimate marriage hinges on’ pregnancy’....period. Based on the marriage foundation being created specifically for the protection of accidental pregnancies, and providing for legally procreated offspring, does this argument also give the court a right to ban traditional marriage where the male or female has proved barren? Or between those who will not be producing babies by their own consent? Or between a man and women beyond the age of bearing children at all?

Don’t think in terms of being gay or not, think in terms of what was being used in the debate.

So, by their ‘logic’, knowingly marrying someone who is infertile should not be allowed? Or to flip it around, we should have lots and lots of sex, so more unplanned pregnancies and mroe children, yes?