Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

[livingwordunity]

Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

If you say a lesbian couple can use the artificial insemination method, they could not have done it without a man donating his sperm to fertilize the female’s egg. And the child is and always will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

If you say two homosexual men can use a surrogate mother, again, they need the opposite sex for a baby to be produced by these artificial attempts at procreation.

If a homosexual couple adopts a child, that child is the product of the biological union of male to female.

Why can’t two sperm produce a child without a female egg? Why can’t two female eggs produce a child without a male sperm?

 

[pinctor]

And how is a same-sex ‘marriage’ consummated?

 

[TracerBullet]

Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

What does procreation have to do with marriage?

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.
If it were we would be denying infertile people and the elderly from getting married

If you say a lesbian couple can use the artificial insemination method, they could not have done it without a man donating his sperm to fertilize the female’s egg. And the child is and always will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

And if a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive because of male sterility uses artificial insemination that child will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

If you say two homosexual men can use a surrogate mother, again, they need the opposite sex for a baby to be produced by these artificial attempts at procreation.

If a homosexual couple adopts a child, that child is the product of the biological union of male to female.

Just like if a heterosexual couples did the very same thing

What’s your point?

 

[livingwordunity]

What does procreation have to do with marriage?

Children are the reason government first started to recognize marriages. Without it government would have had no reason to be interested in it. Children are the future of the world. They are the future workers/tax payers and are only the product of heterosexuality. Homosexuality never produces children. So, why should the government care about a type of relationship that is only about sex with no potential for new life? How do you define marriage?

 

[mynamesjoe]

What does procreation have to do with marriage?

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.
If it were we would be denying infertile people and the elderly from getting married

What’s your point?

Okay so procreation has nothing to do with marriage ? :doh2:

So then tell me your argument against Incest Marriage?

 

[livingwordunity]

And if a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive because of male sterility uses artificial insemination that child will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

That doesn’t answer the question of why is every baby always the product of a male to female biological relationship.

 

[PJD1987]

What does procreation have to do with marriage?

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.
If it were we would be denying infertile people and the elderly from getting married

I think this link youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc answers that question, for you. The fact that someone may be infertile is incidental, but does not change the principle of marriage. Now whether or not you agree with that, the fact remains.

And if a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive because of male sterility uses artificial insemination that child will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

Exactly. That is one of the many reasons why “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation.” published by the Vatican on March 10, 1987 condemns artificial insemination.

Just like if a heterosexual couples did the very same thing

What’s your point?

The point is that the principle of marriage is inherent in our biological make up, in natural law, by logic and reason, and by the tradition of our faith, and more broadly the tradition of the entire human civilization from 6,000 years ago until now. Objective Truth does not change, and the objective Truth that a man was made for a woman and out of that fact the human civilization was founded, and on top of that Jesus Christ raised it to the level of sacrament and from then, until very very recently, marriage was seen as a sacrament and not simply a legal definition. Marriage has been in the realm of religion since its inception because it is grounded not in man made legalism, but God-given objective Truth.

 

[Slavonic]

Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

What you describe is not a norm but, at its most basic level, a biological function.

So, why should the government care about a type of relationship that is only about sex with no potential for new life?

Depending on how I parse this sentence, I would say that same-sex relationships are not just about sex or that the government permits sex with no potential for life already.

 

[thyrodandstaff]

Children are the reason government first started to recognize marriages. Without it government would have had no reason to be interested in it. Children are the future of the world. They are the future workers/tax payers and are only the product of heterosexuality. Homosexuality never produces children. So, why should the government care about a type of relationship that is only about sex with no potential for new life? How do you define marriage?

Right, tax breaks for married couples are intended to encourage the growth of families. Homosexual unions are inherently less likely to stay together if they attempt to raise a child because they don’t have the biological ties and both partners engage in recreational sex which tends toward promiscuity, envy, and dissolution. Why endorse an inferior option which will result in a tragic social experiment that never had to be?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

And how is a same-sex ‘marriage’ consummated?

Believe me, you really don’t want to know! - And I AM being charitable!!!

 

[Nimzovik]

Indeed. Those sexually disoreinted that militatte for such an existnence know not of what they speak in the long run.

I have discussed such issues with many evolutionists. Some assert that once the geneticist is able to replicate the male seed, the male species will soon become extinct…

We already see the terminology being set in motion - yes? With terms like ‘Bio daddy’ ‘Bio Donor’ as opposed to Father. We already see the blatant margininalization of the nescessity for men in the Parental Role. Yes? We already see the hatred for men in regard to the bulk of Feminism -yes?

No doubt the N.O.W. organization will lobby for a ‘Y bomb’ sooner or later (Y as in Y chromosome.)

Can this ultimate reality really be doubted? Methinks not.

Spare us O Lord.

 

[TracerBullet]

Children are the reason government first started to recognize marriages.

Evidence?

Without it government would have had no reason to be interested in it.

Inheritance
Family alliances
Property rights
Business arrangements
Political alliances

Children are the future of the world. They are the future workers/tax payers and are only the product of heterosexuality. Homosexuality never produces children. So, why should the government care about a type of relationship that is only about sex with no potential for new life? How do you define marriage?

Infertile heterosexual couples can’t produce children either. Should they be denied the right to marry?

 

[TracerBullet]

Okay so procreation has nothing to do with marriage ? :doh2:

So then tell me your argument against Incest Marriage?

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[TracerBullet]

That doesn’t answer the question of why is every baby always the product of a male to female biological relationship.

It does however relate to the fact you have erected a double standard. One standard for same gendered couples and one standard for infertile couples. If you are basing your entire premise and the ability to have biological children they you have to explain why infertile individuals are barred from getting married

 

[livingwordunity]

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.

What do you think would happen if heterosexuals stopped having children?

 

[PJD1987]

It does however relate to the fact you have erected a double standard. One standard for same gendered couples and one standard for infertile couples. If you are basing your entire premise and the ability to have biological children they you have to explain why infertile individuals are barred from getting married

This issue was addressed in my post. I’d also add that both procreation and mutual assistance are equal ends of marriage. It is not solely about procreation, although that is part of it. If you will familiarize yourself with Church teaching on this topic, it will help to understand why we believe and proclaim what we do.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Bill_Martin]

What do you think would happen if today every heterosexual in the world decided to never have another child?

That would be bad.

But TracerBullet’s point stands. It still isn’t a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Infertile heterosexual couples can’t produce children either. Should they be denied the right to marry?

I know you didn’t ask me, but I see no reason why not, so long as they are actually sterile and not just a couple with low fertility and it is known ahead of time. I would like to note that I am talking about legal marriage. I see no real interest for the state in recognizing marriage besides the promotion of the family unit, so I see no reason to have a legal marriage for thosse who are known to be completely incapable of having children. They can get married religiously anytime they want, or have some other private secular vow ceremony if they are not religious, there is no dire need for them to be married legally. To be honest, the idea that people who make a lifetime commitment to each other are somehow less comitted to each other because the government has not officially recognized it seems so bizarre. I’ve nevere understood why people make an argument for same-sex marriage because they want their union to be ‘validated’.

 

[TracerBullet]

What do you think would happen if heterosexuals stopped having children?

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[TracerBullet]

. To be honest, the idea that people who make a lifetime commitment to each other are somehow less comitted to each other because the government has not officially recognized it seems so bizarre. I’ve nevere understood why people make an argument for same-sex marriage because they want their union to be ‘validated’.

And you don’t think that the access to the over 1000 rights and legal protections marriage grants has anything to do with it?