Gay "Marriage"/Infertile Marriage

[PioMagnus]

I know this issue has come up before, and I’ve even read the replies, but for the life of me, I still don’t seem to completely grasp it.

I got into a debate with a friend the other night about the immorality of homosexual marriage. I said that the purpose of marriage is twofold, that God wants us to love, and to procreate, and therefore Gay “Marriage” doesn’t fulfill the requirements.

He said, “Then should we keep infertile couples from marrying”–I said that there is a possibility of life there, even if it is unlikely, and that there is no possibility of life in a gay “marriage.”

I know my answer was correct on at least some level, but I feel that I didn’t adequately explain it. Could someone help me out so I can better answer it in the future?

Thanks,
-PioMagnus

 

[Bride_of_Christ]

PioMagnus:

I know this issue has come up before, and I’ve even read the replies, but for the life of me, I still don’t seem to completely grasp it.

I got into a debate with a friend the other night about the immorality of homosexual marriage. I said that the purpose of marriage is twofold, that God wants us to love, and to procreate, and therefore Gay “Marriage” doesn’t fulfill the requirements.

He said, “Then should we keep infertile couples from marrying”–I said that there is a possibility of life there, even if it is unlikely, and that there is no possibility of life in a gay “marriage.”

I know my answer was correct on at least some level, but I feel that I didn’t adequately explain it. Could someone help me out so I can better answer it in the future?

Thanks,
-PioMagnus

But, hypothetically, if a hetro-sexual couple was 100% infertile, would you argue for them not to be able to marry?

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

Infertile couples are not willfully frustrating the will of God as revealed through the natural law. The conjugal act is, of it’s very nature, about sperm meeting ovum. Even if this doesn’t happen in every case, to knowingly try and pervert this natural end is always wrong. It is an unnatural abuse of a great gift of God. Also, if a fertile couple resolve never to have children, then that is not a validlly contracted marriage.

 

[Vincent]

I think you gave a great answer, Pio.

Perhaps we can make an argument against same-sex “marriage” based on the the difference between non-procreative acts and anti-procreative acts.

Sex during infertile periods (which, in an infertile couple lasts indefinitely) would be an example of the former. Contracepted sex would be an example of the latter.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You said the discussion was about “immorality.”

What is the standard of morality? If not Church teachings, then what about the Bible?

If the Bible, note:
Rom 1:26-27:

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

The Bible makes no such claims about marriage or sex between infertile couples, at least that I’m aware of.

People who use the Bible to justify homosexuality on the basis that “Jesus loves me” are missing the point. Jesus also loved the men who accused Him, sentenced Him, and nailed Him to the cross, but that doesn’t make what they did right. As far as I could tell He even loved Judas, and He said “it would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Those who use the basis “do not judge” have a good point: we are not judging them, but neither do we intend to give them a legally binding license to do what the Bible calls perverted.

If not the Bible, then you must decide what standard you are actually using. Scientifically and philosophically there is no justification for homosexual marriage. If they believe in Darwin, and that homosexuals are born and not made, then they should be extinct by now. The only justification is political, but now we have traveled far from this being a discussion about what is “moral.”

Without some specific standard of “morality” you are just making stuff up and you can use any reason at all such as “I don’t approve of it, period, and I’ll vote for politicians who are against it,” which cannot be refuted.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

gay marriage is impossible because it is not marriage. even if its proponents succeed in changing laws all over this country, they will have achieved merely a legal fiction. Marriage is a product of natural law, society and man-made law have no authority or ability to change it or define it, although they can make laws to protect it. What enacting gay “marriage” laws would accomplish is only to demolish that legal protection. I can call my pickup a Cadillac sedan, but my terminology is not going to effect any change in how my vehicle looks or handles.