Given the news that the Attorney General of Maryland has issued a decision saying his state should recognize the same-sex marriages of other states and given the news that the District of Columbia has begun to take applications for marriage licenses for same-sex marriages, it is not surprising that some folk might be opposed to this.
A particular argument that opponents of same-sex marriage use is that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman to produce children.
“It [marriage] is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family” (link here)
“It [marriage] encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life” (link here)
“Homosexuality automatically excludes children in the name of ‘love'” (link here)
My follow-up question to advocates of that line of arguing is this:
Would you allow a marriage between one man and one woman if it was medically proven one of them was infertile (or sterile)?
(And, no, you cannot answer, “Yes, because they can adopt”, because same-sex couples can do that also)