I've posted here recently about some of the nonsense written by Theist at "The Secularist Critique" about materialism, homosexuality, and sexuality. One thing I have to acknowledge, however is that Theist does seem relatively consistent: it isn't just homosexuals who shouldn't be allowed to marry, but in fact anyone who can't or won't have children.

Theist writes:

Marriage is an institution given legal status, recognition, and benefits because of the recognition that the humane creation of stable families is a basic foundation of a healthy society. ... Homosexuals have no right to marriage for the simple reason that they can not contribute to the benefit of society the way a heterosexual couple can, therefore they are not entitled to the benefits given to the married.

For Theist here, "family" apparently only means parents with children - nothing else qualifies. Thus, the reason why homosexuals cannot "contribute to the benefit of society" is that they cannot create children. The common response to this is the situation with childless heterosexual couples - they also aren't "contributing," so why are they allowed to get married? Well...

But many heterosexual couples also get married without the slightest intention of having a family. They often marry for convenience, to obtain the benefits of combining their incomes, of using each other's bodies for pleasure, and any other benefits that come from being recognized as married by the state. ... These people also should have no right to marriage.

Theist cannot accept that heterosexuals might marry for love and without having children. Why? Theist seems to think that sex without the possibility of procreation cannot ever, under any circumstances, qualify as "making love." As I've demonstrated, the possibility of procreation cannot change the nature of sex because procreation does not inherently involve "love" - that particular quality exists because of the intentions and desires of those involved, whether procreation is possible or not.

Theist only specifically references those who have no intention of "having a family" (read: procreating), but the comments also apply to those who are unable to procreate as well. The question is, how would Theist enforce such a ban? Infertile people could theoretically be discovered through testing, so presumably all people wishing to marry would have to submit to fertility testing - if anything comes back negative, I guess Theist would have them denied their license.

What about those who simply don't intend to have children? They'll obviously have to sign some sort of agreement to procreate - but how would it be enforced? What if they lie, or just change their minds? Will the marriage be annulled? Will they be forcibly divorced by the state? All of these are crucial issues if marriage really is to be limited to no one aside from heterosexual couples who are not only able to procreate, but who actually will have children.

To redefine marriage to accommodate these people is to drag down marriage to the level of these morally inferior relationships. Equality in this case would mean that the relationship of the heterosexual couple committed to family is on the same level as all sorts of sexually sordid relationships, which is a lie.

Theist of course is assuming here that marriage is already defined to encompasses just those who have children and no one else. Not only is this an example of the fallacy of Begging the Question, it's also factually incorrect. Marriage has existed in a wide variety of forms through human history and across human cultures. Theist's definition of marriage might be the only one Theist will accept, and that's OK - I'm certainly not going to impose my conception on anyone else. It's unfortunate that Theist isn't willing to show others the same courtesy.

The claim that relationships without children are "morally inferior" is curious. Granted, once you have children it is morally correct to care for and love them, but that isn't the issue here. Is a couple who are infertile, perhaps because one or both were born that way, in a "morally inferior" relationship? Are people who are voluntarily celibate "morally inferior" to those who have kids? There's really no justification for such ideas.

Childless marriages, whether due to infertility or due to choice, are not morally inferior to marriages that do have children. Childless couples can be as committed to each other as much as a couple with children - having children is not a sign of morality, it's not a sign of commitment, and it's not a sign of love. Theist can spend lots of time claiming the opposite, but those claims don't constitute reality.