How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[Zet]

We have had it here for like 7 years, nobody has died, and even the religious Conservatives have silently dropped the "kill homosexual marriage" line from their political manifesto. So I don't see why it should be banned anywhere.

brb moving to Madrid.

I'm completely fine with same-sex marriage, though as do why homosexuals are frowned upon then they used to be thousands of years ago is a mystery. I guess more people are just stupid and are scared of what they don't know.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

Holy crap.. just when I thought this thread couldn't get any damn worse.
First it was parrot style, which is long for "Yeah, why not?" now it is some arguing which I don't even understand how we got to it.
Personally I think another thread should be sent to hell. You 'oughta make a collection, Livewire.

As for the topic itself.. I think the bottom line is "Yeah, why not". Personally I'm homophobe but I have to be objective so I can't let that get in my way.
It's also the bottom line of this thread, if we didn't go to US act 347382947298 line 45735348 word 587348957349 here.

Also people stop treating gay marriage like it's the end of the world, we survived Hitler, we should survive this too. Otherwise you remind of me a Jewish rabbi who said that "earthquakes are caused because of homosexual relationship".. something like that. And if we do name it something else, what changed? I know little C#, so I can make some crap application that you press enter and it's closed. I create two of them, and they use both the same coding. One is named marriage (what a creative name!) and the other homosexual marriage. C wut I did here? Same thing, just a different name. So don't get too dramatic, because there is no reason for it at all.

 

[Dawn]

I do support the concept, I suppose. I have concerns as to how cleanly it would integrate though.

I question how equal the types of relationships should be treated. After all, ignoring anything but ridiculously small differences just causes problems and bumps, and hetero relationships being reproductive and homo relationships not being reproductive sounds like a potentially problem causing difference to me. I mean, are there any laws/benefits where the reproductive capability of a relationship could cause awkwardness or unwarranted actions? I'm concerned that there may be.

I also question whether it is right to attempt to force this against the will of the majority of a religion that seemingly has a foundation in it. (inb4 separation of church and state) That just seems like a /giant/ problem with no obvious solution if I understand the relationship religion and marriage share correctly.

My most prominent observation, however, is that I find it shameful that people have the gall to propose that we bypass the vote and force such a thing into acceptance. Right and wrong should not be the deciding factor in what changes the law. The majority vote should be the deciding factor, and I find it in terribly poor taste that we cannot accept loss because of our own personal disposition. Right and wrong are tools to be used to show others where they should stand, and nothing more. LGBT supporters have forced the government to bypass the vote before, and now people suddenly think that's okay... but it's wrong. My opinion of the movement would only sink even further if we took such steps. I would honestly hate that, because I desperately wish I didn't find some of the methods the LGBT movement uses to get what they want despicable or even abhorrent. Someone spare me the agony of having to watch the democratic process fall under the pressure of "self-"righteous zealots again.

It is our job to show others right and wrong, not expect them to know and slap them if they do not accept it when they are told.

And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.

Oh, whoops, I was too late. Seperation of church and state is not something we currently practice or are supposed to practice according to any section of the law. If you think we should, that's your opinion. Recognize however, that using a controversial opinion as a point is pretty void.

 

[Steven]

I question how equal the types of relationships should be treated. After all, ignoring anything but ridiculously small differences just causes problems and bumps, and hetero relationships being reproductive and homo relationships not being reproductive sounds like a potentially problem causing difference to me. I mean, are there any laws/benefits where the reproductive capability of a relationship could cause awkwardness or unwarranted actions? I'm concerned that there may be.

Infertile couples and old couples say hi.

I also question whether it is right to attempt to force this against the will of the majority of a religion that seemingly has a foundation in it. (inb4 separation of church and state) That just seems like a /giant/ problem with no obvious solution if I understand the relationship religion and marriage share correctly.

1. Christianity did not invent marriage. In fact, no religion did. Religions just adopted the idea.
2. I think the government should pass a equal marriage law saying that religious institutions have the right to deny marriage to any couple they want, be them gay or not, but courts can't. You can get married in a court.

My most prominent observation, however, is that I find it shameful that people have the gall to propose that we bypass the vote and force such a thing into acceptance.

Time and time again throughout American history the government had to force social change because the population didn't want it. The people do not always do the right thing collectively, and that is what the government is here for. We don't have a direct democracy, because they don't work. The tyranny of the people, anyone?

It is our job to show others right and wrong, not expect them to know and slap them if they do not accept it when they are told.

Are you saying that the U.S.'s job is to be the moral authority for the entire planet..? Nationalist comments and actions like that were the cause of both World Wars. ;)

Oh, whoops, I was too late. Seperation of church and state is not something we currently practice or are supposed to practice according to any section of the law. If you think we should, that's your opinion. Recognize however, that using a controversial opinion as a point is pretty void.

That's bullcrap. Let me quote the first amendment for you, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We are a secular country, that's what made us thrive. Let's try and keep it that way.

While multiple Supreme Court cases such as Sherbert v. Vemer have furthered it.

 

[The Trotsky]

1) The Supremacy Clause was meant to be balanced with the 10th Amendment. It is big government advocates that want to abuse the Supremacy Clause to trample on the 10th Amendment. Almost everything the Founding Fathers did was a compromise. They didn't intend for the federal government to run rampant under the guise of the Supremacy Clause.

False. The 10th Amendment is pretty much an understood right the states have that if the federal government does not cover something, they can take up that burden. That's it. However, if a federal government passes a law that is in contradiction with a law one of the states have, the federal government's law wins. Simply put. And considering the federal government, specifically Congress, has the right to do anything "necessary and proper", the federal government always matters more. Every time.

So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously. This in the same vein as states being able to control racial access of public goods before the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Joaopac]

Here in Portugal, the marriage between people of the same sex is allowed. But they can't adopt children's yet. I think the marriage is only a contract between to persons, don't see the problem in two men or two women get married. Many of them live together for years, I think they should be allowed to marry. But unfortunately many countries are a bit conservative in many subjects.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

False. The 10th Amendment is pretty much an understood right the states have that if the federal government does not cover something, they can take up that burden. That's it. However, if a federal government passes a law that is in contradiction with a law one of the states have, the federal government's law wins. Simply put. And considering the federal government, specifically Congress, has the right to do anything "necessary and proper", the federal government always matters more. Every time.

So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously. This in the same vein as states being able to control racial access of public goods before the Civil Rights Act.

The federal government only has those powers that the Constitution gives it specifically. All other powers are the domain of the states. Only when a power is within the 10th Amendment does the Supremacy Clause take effect Constitutionally. The federal government began getting involved in race relations via a series of post Civil War Constitutional Amendments, so the federal government has the authority to ensure racial equality under the law because it is undeniable that the legislative intent of those Amendments was to incorporate newly freed African-American slaves into society as citizens. Sexual orientation is not a protected suspect class, but race is, for that reason.

"So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously."

Under your approach, we might as well abolish our federal system of government if states governments have nothing more than symbolic powers.

 

[Livewire]

Seperation of church and state is not something we currently practice or are supposed to practice according to any section of the law.

You do know what the Constitution is, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not only that, but we have Jefferson's letters to The Danbury Baptists in 1802, so we clearly know what the founding fathers intent was.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

And more from the Founding fathers:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[25]

 

[Bela]

The federal government only has those powers that the Constitution gives it specifically. All other powers are the domain of the states. Only when a power is within the 10th Amendment does the Supremacy Clause take effect Constitutionally. The federal government began getting involved in race relations via a series of post Civil War Constitutional Amendments, so the federal government has the authority to ensure racial equality under the law because it is undeniable that the legislative intent of those Amendments was to incorporate newly freed African-American slaves into society as citizens. Sexual orientation is not a protected suspect class, but race is, for that reason.

"So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously."

Under your approach, we might as well abolish our federal system of government if states governments have nothing more than symbolic powers.

It is a very stubborn view to deny individuals equality, under the guise of upholding a federal system. Blind to the implications that such support for "state's rights" has, I might add. I believe it was also a fronted argument that "state's rights" was the real contention of the Civil War, not slavery.

I wonder if you would front the state's rights argument if it were your own rights on the line. Would you still argue that the 10th Amendment is being trampled on, with the passage of the 19th Amendment? It's a federal mandate for women to vote! No longer will the people of the states get to vote on whether or not women get to vote!

If you really did support not allowing women the right to vote, you would be anti-feminist at worst or blinded by this state-federal dichotomy at best.

But that's right, this is "the gays" we're talking about. They're different. Those gaaaaaaays.

It's been stated here that there was significant compromise made between the Founding Fathers, and it still applies to today in these battles between the states and the federal government. And this is true of gay marriage.

If the states want to receive the protection and money and support of the federal government, they will have to let Adam and Steve be able to marry. And if they don't like that, well, they can try secession again. :)

By your logic, same-sex marriage would become legal all across the United States in due time. Just as legalized racism has passed on, legalized homophobia will too.

Do you want to know what "legalized racism" or "legalized homophobia" truly is?

A system that allows its citizens to vote on the rights of others, based purely on who they are. Proposition 8 would be a great example of this.

I fear the day that the federal government grows to such a monsterous size that it can take away rights from the states in utter disregard of the 10th Amendment. If this what you are proposing, we might as well have all marriages performed by the federal government and open up more federal courts to death with the litigation that would create.

I like the hyperbole. Because there are homophobes out there who wish to deny gay couples the right to marry in their states under the pretensions of "state's rights," you then jump to the fear that the federal government will grow to a monstrous size that it will take away rights from the states (nevermind the issue being that of giving rights to gay couples to marry), "trampling" on the 10th Amendment?

All because of gay marriage?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It is a very stubborn view to deny individuals equality, under the guise of upholding a federal system. Blind to the implications that such support for "state's rights" has, I might add. I believe it was also a fronted argument that "state's rights" was the real contention of the Civil War, not slavery.

I wonder if you would front the state's rights argument if it were your own rights on the line. Would you still argue that the 10th Amendment is being trampled on, with the passage of the 19th Amendment? It's a federal mandate for women to vote! No longer will the people of the states get to vote on whether or not women get to vote!

If you really did support not allowing women the right to vote, you would be anti-feminist at worst or blinded by this state-federal dichotomy at best.

But that's right, this is "the gays" we're talking about. They're different. Those gaaaaaaays.

It's been stated here that there was significant compromise made between the Founding Fathers, and it still applies to today in these battles between the states and the federal government. And this is true of gay marriage.

If the states want to receive the protection and money and support of the federal government, they will have to let Adam and Steve be able to marry. And if they don't like that, well, they can try secession again. :)


Do you want to know what "legalized racism" or "legalized homophobia" truly is?

A system that allows its citizens to vote on the rights of others, based purely on who they are. Proposition 8 would be a great example of this.


I like the hyperbole. Because there are homophobes out there who wish to deny gay couples the right to marry in their states under the pretensions of "state's rights," you then jump to the fear that the federal government will grow to a monstrous size that it will take away rights from the states (nevermind the issue being that of giving rights to gay couples to marry), "trampling" on the 10th Amendment?

All because of gay marriage?

Get "Freak"ing real lol

I like the ignorance of constitutional law. The 19th Amendment is an Amendment. This means that 3/4 of the state's legislatures ratified it. It does nothing to trample on state's rights since a supermajority of the states approved it.

 

[Bela]

Apparently for all the studying of constitutional law that you've done, you still arrive at conclusions that would deny people rights.

States can try to deny gay people the equal benefits of marriage, but it will be some day in the future that such acts will prove futile. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Apparently for all the studying of constitutional law that you've done, you still arrive at conclusions that would deny people rights.

States can try to deny gay people the equal benefits of marriage, but it will be some day in the future that such acts will prove futile. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice!

I agree. We move towards social equality naturally without compromising the federal system of our government. This is all the more reason to respect state's rights and let history run its course.

 

[Dawn]

Infertile couples and old couples say hi.

1. Christianity did not invent marriage. In fact, no religion did. Religions just adopted the idea.

You avoided directly answering either question, so... yeah. I consider this void in the context of my questions.

Time and time again throughout American history the government had to force social change because the population didn't want it. The people do not always do the right thing collectively, and that is what the government is here for. We don't have a direct democracy, because they don't work. The tyranny of the people, anyone?

Oh, so they're allowed to control everyone's lives because you agree with them? That's pretty convenient. The problem is evident.

I'm pretty sure the constitution is the only fair way of overturning a vote, and so far I don't see the government agreeing that the constitution requires such changes. Second of all, I'm talking about minorities forcing the government to make changes through aggressive behavior, what are you talking about? Because we're clearly not talking about the same thing.

You do know what the Constitution is, right?

Yeah, and it isn't in there. "Separation of church and state" is a reference to some /letter/ that has no real legal precedence, despite being written by Thomas Jefferson.

The closest thing we have is something that does not at all indicate a complete separation of church and state, so yeah. Go look below where I provide /real/ evidence~

Are you saying that the U.S.'s job is to be the moral authority for the entire planet..? Nationalist comments and actions like that were the cause of both World Wars. ;)

I never mentioned the USA. I was talking about people as individuals, across the whole world. Wonder where in the world you got /that/ idea from? =|

That's bullcrap. Let me quote the first amendment for you, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We are a secular country, that's what made us thrive. Let's try and keep it that way.

That part of the constitution does not at all imply such.
https://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html

The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 314, that was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 465 U. S. 672-673.

https://supreme.justia.com/us/413/756/case.html

James Madison, in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, [Footnote 1] admonished that a "prudent jealousy" for religious freedoms required that they never become "entangled . . . in precedents." [Footnote 2] His strongly held convictions, coupled with those of Thomas Jefferson and others among the Founders, are reflected in the first Clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [Footnote 3] Yet, despite Madison's admonition and the "sweep of the absolute prohibitions" of the Clauses, [Footnote 4] this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation, and as a consequence cases arising under these Clauses have presented some of the most perplexing questions to come before this Court. Those cases have occasioned thorough and
Page 413 U. S. 761
thoughtful scholarship by several of this Court's most respected former Justices, including Justices Black, Frankfurter, Harlan, Jackson, Rutledge, and Chief Justice Warren.
As a result of these decisions and opinions, it may no longer be said that the Religion Clauses are free of "entangling" precedents. Neither, however, may it be said that Jefferson's metaphoric "wall of separation" between Church and State has become "as winding as the famous serpentine wall" he designed for the University of Virginia.

https://supreme.justia.com/us/343/306/case.html

The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

https://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html

Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 374 U. S. 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.

Soooo yeah. I feel pretty justified for being concerned.

 

[Legobricks]

It should be a protected right mandated by the federal government. Individual states should not be allowed to prohibit what ought to be a basic human right.

Why ought marriage be a right?

 

[Margot]

You avoided directly answering either question, so... yeah. I consider this void in the context of my questions.

They did a pretty good job of simply summarizing the flaw in your arguement to me. You say that there is a potential for a problem because heterosexual couples can have children while homosexual couples cannot. So are you implying that marriage is about having children? In that case, their response to you was pretty spot on. What about the hetero couples that can't reproduce? Is their marriage suddenly void just because they can't have kids? And what about elderly couples who no longer can have kids? Do they need to get a divorce since they can no longer reproduce?

Lets not forget about all these radical new age people who are getting married because of love, not because they want kids. Heck, I know plenty of people who don't ever want children. Should they be not allowed to marry either? In my opinion, bringing kids into a debate about marriage is pointless since a lot of people see having kids as an option. Not a lot of people are marrying today because they want kids, they marry because they love the person they choose to marry.

 

[Bela]

I agree. We move towards social equality naturally without compromising the federal system of our government. This is all the more reason to respect state's rights and let history run its course.

This is where I disagree with you. We have the opportunity to make history and not let our intolerances and prejudices get in the way of allowing gay couples to be seen as equal under the law to straight couples.

There is really not much of a debate to be had on the matter. People will drag out their personal laundry lists of why they don't like gay people or gay marriage and will conclude that we shouldn't have gay marriage. These prejudices cannot dictate how we treat our citizens. Otherwise, we still would not have given the rights of voting to women or African Americans. There are still a lot of misogynists and racists out there, after all.

But I can't find myself agreeing that States really have an argument here. If it were something more mundane, I could understand, but we're talking about the equality of our citizens here. We can look towards the past for how these struggles unfold, and we can use the wisdom of the results of those struggles and apply them to the present. Is the federal government truly prohibited to mandate same-sex marriage nationwide? Absolutely not. And what should stand in the way of it, but the pride of the states that wish to decide to stand in opposition of the federal government?

That sounds to me like pretty much what's taking place. I just wish to see this change enacted, and I see no reasonable objection to it. I do not hold it reasonable that the states would oppose the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[The Trotsky]

The federal government only has those powers that the Constitution gives it specifically. All other powers are the domain of the states. Only when a power is within the 10th Amendment does the Supremacy Clause take effect Constitutionally. The federal government began getting involved in race relations via a series of post Civil War Constitutional Amendments, so the federal government has the authority to ensure racial equality under the law because it is undeniable that the legislative intent of those Amendments was to incorporate newly freed African-American slaves into society as citizens. Sexual orientation is not a protected suspect class, but race is, for that reason.

"So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously."

Under your approach, we might as well abolish our federal system of government if states governments have nothing more than symbolic powers.

"The Congress shall have Power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

And the powers of the state government are not symbolic, simply less than that of the federal government for obvious reasons. The states were individually supreme under the Articles of Confederation, and look how utterly weak and useless the "nation" (and I use that term loosely for that time period) was at that point in time. There are reasons states don't have significant, far-reaching powers, like the ability to coin money, etc., and that is because we are a nation of Americans, not a nation of Pennsylvanians, Floridians, etc. working together by mere happenstance. States have the duty to provide for the simpler, day-to-day necessities of the nation, such as roads and the like.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

"The Congress shall have Power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

And the powers of the state government are not symbolic, simply less than that of the federal government for obvious reasons. The states were individually supreme under the Articles of Confederation, and look how utterly weak and useless the "nation" (and I use that term loosely for that time period) was at that point in time. There are reasons states don't have significant, far-reaching powers, like the ability to coin money, etc., and that is because we are a nation of Americans, not a nation of Pennsylvanians, Floridians, etc. working together by mere happenstance. States have the duty to provide for the simpler, day-to-day necessities of the nation, such as roads and the like.

You just said that Congress shall have the power to enforce those powers already vested in it by the Constitution. This is in agreement with the 10th Amendment, that says that the federal government only has certain, delegated powers and that the rest of the powers of government lie with the states.

 

[The Trotsky]

No, the Constitution said that Congress shall have the power to make any law which is necessary and properto carry out their duties, which are (along with the judiciary and executive branches) to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. So essentially, anything. The Congress has the power to do anything that is ruled by constitutional by the Supreme Court in order to more effectively run the nation

I can use bold text to back up my points too, except using actual Constitutional evidence :)

 

[Oryx]

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question. If you thought I was implying I knew the answer to my question, sorry, I don't. Surprising, but I actually intended to learn something here. However, I want to /learn/, not be mislead by statements that /sound/ logical. As far as I know, there is more to it than these clever sounding comparisons suggest. I'm not at all saying there /are/ problems, I'm saying I'm /concerned/ that there /might/ be.

They were informing you that there would not be a problem, because of those reasons. If you want to learn something, and then ignore something because it "sounds logical", what are you trying to learn? Would you like statistics on how many infertile couples are married or something similar? You said "hetero relationships being reproductive and homo relationships not being reproductive sounds like a potentially problem causing difference to me". They gave examples of hetero couples that aren't reproductive, proving that it's not a problem-causing difference because it exists right now and you're not hearing all over the news how there are so many problems when infertile/old couples marry. You asked if there were laws where the reproductive capability is taken into account. The fact that those couples would be discriminated against, and while it's okay to discriminate against homosexual marriage, it's not okay to discriminate against types of heterosexual marriage. Therefore, those laws don't exist.

They answered your question, and you're ignoring them because...why?