Love is for the birds, marriage is for the pregnant

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

If gays and lesbians are allowed to get married, then next people can marry dogs, hurricanes will strike the country as a sign of God’s wrath, the institution of marriage will fail or the idea of family as we know it will cease to exist.

These are all arguments that have been thrown out by opponents of gay marriage at some point in the debate that the United States has been a part of for some time. Now it seems another ridiculous argument has been brought to the table.

As two cases that address gay marriage, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, head to the Supreme Court, it seems that a major argument against gay marriage this time around is that because only a man and a woman can accidently create a child, only men and women can be married.

Yes, marriage is now being defined as something that comes after forgetting birth control and letting biology take it’s course. I’ll let that sink in a moment.

Opponents of gay marriage have tried and failed to keep gay marriage from becoming a reality, as nine states and the District of Columbia have already legalized gay marriage. Now opponents are stooping to putting down the very institution of marriage they cried about upholding, with the hopes to win.

At the same time, they claim that marriage has to be man and woman because that encourages stable family units. I hate to break it to them, but that’s not the reality of anything.

Figures from the government  from 2012 paint a different picture. The percentage of first births to women that were unmarried to the father of their child increased from 12 percent in 2002 to around 22 percent in 2006, and for men it rose from 18 to 25 percent, according to USA Today.

Marriage is not a requirement for a family, nor should it be. Denying marriage to same-sex couples because they can’t slip up and impregnate someone is honestly stupid.

What about couples that get married with no accidental pregnancy, should they be banned from marriage? How about couples that intend never to have children? Clearly they are destroying this knocked-up tradition of marriage as well.

There was a time in the past where my own father would have been lynched for even looking at my mother, let alone even thinking of marrying her, just because their skin colors were different.

This is not a logical or valid argument against gay marriage. It’s outright bigotry towards people that happen to be attracted to the same sex.

It’s time for people to stop hiding behind their religion or invalid reasons and just accept and admit that they are just prejudice against gays. It’s not about saving marriage either.

Marriage has ‘survived’ through various iterations over time. Letting gays marry won’t destroy it. That’s the job of our celebrities.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email