I thought we called it “fucking”?
It’s been pointed out that plenty of married couples aren’t capable of procreation, but the opposite is also true: plenty of couples have procreated without being married.
No we didn’t. When my 50y/o Aunt married her husband after she’d already had medically sterilzed, there was no possibility of procreation. We still called it marriage.
Personally I don’t make it my business what type of sex married people are having. The possibility of them having children does not weight into how I define thier marriage.
Let me try to phrase this correctly. You are mistaken.
Infertile men are able to have a relationship with a woman and we call it marriage.
Men and women who are over 70 years old are able to have a relationship and we call it marriage.
An infertile man is able to have a relationship with a woman and have a child through artificial insemination and we call it marriage.
A woman is able to have a relationship with a woman and have a child through artificial insemination and we call it marriage.
Is there anything about this that you are unclear on? If so, I can try again.
I will ask you again, why is it that you care what gays want to call their relationship? Do you think that it causes you harm?
IIRC, the point got made a bunch of times in a thread not too long ago that one of the states allowed opposite-sex cousins to marry if and only if they couldn’t procreate.
IME, of the two gay couples I knew, it was an issue of receiving benefits or estate planning. Without a marriage, there wouldn’t be insurance coverage, and wills could be disputed or abrogated so that the remaining partner could get nothing even though the deceased willed it to him. Neither couple considered it a moral or civil rights issue, they were more concerned with the pragmatic aspects.
Let’s make Civil Unions absolutely equal to Marriage, then let oppose sex couples have the Civil Unions and the same sex couples have Marriage.
How does that sound to you, cornopean?
I’m no doctor, but I don’t recall my sixth-grade sex ed class ever mentioning that single people were incapable of reproduction.
Consider the alternatives
[ul]
[li]Same-sex couples cannot have their relationships recognized at all.[/li][li]Same-sex couples can have their relationships recognized, but as lesser.[/li][li]Same-sex couples cannot have their relationships treated equally to those of different-sex couples, either by design or by oversight, as a result of a different name being used.[/li][/ul]
A subset would be satidfied if the government eliminated the word “marriage” entirely as long as there was no distinction in recognition of same-sex and different-sex couples, but most people would recognize such a move for what it is, and consider it petty.
It would be significantly altered, and I think more people (across all sexual orientations) would be content with the status quo, at least to the extent that the urgency would be gone.
But it wil be a lot harder in the future to say, legally, that some married couples have different rights than other married couples than it wuld be to say, legally, that civilly united couples have different rights than married couples.
Aside from that, I do think, as I said, that a lot of people would be satified enough with an everything-but-the-name arrangement, but vanishingly few of those people would prefer that to actual marriage
How is that not a civil rights issue?
I have an idea to solve the procreation thing: Marriage starts with two people and two 'R’s, right? So, every time a procreation occurs, you get to add an ‘R’. Therefore, my wife and I now have a “marrrriage”. This has the added benefit that the word will appear to stretch in the same way that time seems to when kids are young.
I’m glad this issue was brought up, because this nomenclature is extremely important to us: We worry continually that people will mistake our marriage for one of those “non-procreating marriage simulations”. And by “continually” I mean “not for one second in over 20 years.”
-VM
Also, if you have a lot of kids, you start to sound like a pirate.
When we redefined marriage so that wives were no longer the property of husbands, and had inheritance rights and such, we kept calling it marriage. I suppose we should have come up with some other word for the old kind of marital relationship where you could force your wife to submit to sex and what not, but it seems we overlooked it.
If you really hate the word “satisfied”, I’m sure we can find a synonym that would, um, content you. 
-VM
I don’t care what was or wasn’t. I am asking about right now. What is the term for the relationship that is capable of producing babies?
Well I know what I call it. I call it a “marriage”. The capacity for procreation is there in a way that it certainly isn’t in a same-sex relationship. For me, that is a “marriage”.
“breeders”
You funny.
I am planning on getting married next year (shh! It’s a secret) and I have been medically sterilized. So I guess it won’t be a “real” marriage either.
I think you need to tell us, cause I don’t think there is one. Parents?
“Relationship that is capable of producing babies, with or without being married,” same as it was before, I guess; used to be you could get married with or without being able to reproduce, and you could reproduce with or without being married, and as far as I can tell, nothing has changed.
They are both in their 70’s and are incapable of having children-where is the capacity for procreation in that relationship??