I would keep in mind that arguing homosexual marriage is wrong because sex was meant for procreation doesn’t make much sense when you consider that women who are post menopause yet single would like to be married and enjoy a loving and sexual relationship with their husband. I am one of those women and, frankly, the whole sex is meant for procreation idea is off putting to me personally and makes me feel excluded. It doesn’t take into account age, fertility, and, above all, expression of love.
I hear Ya…

Obviously God - has no problem with properly ordered, post menopausal sex within marriage…if He did, The nation of Israel would not have gotten started - - - and St John the Baptist would never have been conceived.
However - the “sex is for procreation” argument remains at the root of understanding the proper order and intent of the sexual act in general. Procreation is the reason that the organs exist and why the sexual drive drive is so strong in most people. Thus, the argument that “sex is for procreation” is entirely proper and sound.
This should not be construed as minimizing other aspects of our sexuality, but only to lay before us a fundamental fact upon which other facets of Church teaching on sexuality are built.
So please do not feel excluded or put off by such arguments.
Anyone can argue that sex should be an expression of love and from there it is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from, “Two people who love each other should be able to marry.”
Agreed - Which is why the Church begins her teaching by looking at God’s natural design of our bodies - what the organs are designed to do - and then goes from there.
There must be a better argument against gay marriage than sex is for procreation. I don’t know what it is yet, but I can’t see that idea winning over someone who thinks people who love each other should marry. We don’t think it wrong for a man and a woman in their 70’s who love each other to marry and have sex!
Agreed. The argument that sex is for procreation is just the beginning - the jumping off spot in understanding why the Church teaches as she does.
The problem with people just arguing that “two people who love each other should be able to…” is that such an argument is too broad. Should a married couple where one is a sadist and the other a masochist be thought of as normal and healthy? I certainly don’t think so.
Yet the argument “two people who love one anther should be allowed to marry” would find no problem with this arrangement.
The larger argument - of which the “sex is for procreation” is a subset - must be about what is Love in the Christian sense and in the Christian marriage. In order for marriage to be properly ordered, Love needs to be properly ordered and if love is properly ordered, then sex will be properly ordered.
Sorry to ramble…
Just some thoughts…
Peace
James