Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[BobCatholic]

Sometimes the same-sex marriage (SSM) proponents bring up the infertility argument. I’ll refute them in this post.

“You guys let men and women who are old marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of old age. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuality is the same as old age, because both are infertile.

I would argue that old age leads to people become infirm. The infertility of old age is because of an infirmity. So if both are the same, therefore homosexuality is an infirmity.

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

“You guys let men and women who are infertile by choice (they have sterilizations) marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility by choice, say by operations, use of artificial birth control, etc… The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

I would argue that OK, let’s say that the infertility of homosexuality is the same as the infertility by people making by choice. So therefore, since both situations are identical, the cause of both infertility must also be the same. They’re saying that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think they wanted to go there!

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

“You guys let men and women who are infertile by illness marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of illness. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuals are the same as someone who is ill, because both are infertile.

I would argue that OK, let’s say that the infertility of homosexuality is the same as the infertility by people because of an illness. So therefore, since both situations are identical, the cause of both infertility must also be the same. They’re saying that homosexuality is a illness. I don’t think they wanted to go there!

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sometimes the same-sex marriage (SSM) proponents bring up the infertility argument. I’ll refute them in this post.

“You guys let men and women who are old marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of old age. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuality is the same as old age, because both are infertile.

I would argue that old age leads to people become infirm. The infertility of old age is because of an infirmity. So if both are the same, therefore homosexuality is an infirmity.

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

“You guys let men and women who are infertile by choice (they have sterilizations) marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility by choice, say by operations, use of artificial birth control, etc… The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

I would argue that OK, let’s say that the infertility of homosexuality is the same as the infertility by people making by choice. So therefore, since both situations are identical, the cause of both infertility must also be the same. They’re saying that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think they wanted to go there!

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

“You guys let men and women who are infertile by illness marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of illness. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuals are the same as someone who is ill, because both are infertile.

I would argue that OK, let’s say that the infertility of homosexuality is the same as the infertility by people because of an illness. So therefore, since both situations are identical, the cause of both infertility must also be the same. They’re saying that homosexuality is a illness. I don’t think they wanted to go there!

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

The infertility argument is invalid because it is based on a comparison to hetersexual couples which is natural… Homosexuals who wish to marry are same sexed. So the infertility of the former is natural, that of the latter is not.

Furthermore, there is no reference in Revelation supporting homosexual unions. All the marriages in Revelation are heterosexual.

Linus2nd

 

[BobCatholic]

The infertility argument is invalid because it is based on a comparison to hetersexual couples which is natural… Homosexuals who wish to marry are same sexed. So the infertility of the former is natural, that of the latter is not.

The infertility of heterosexual couples using artificial contraception is not natural, so your comparison of natural vs not natural is not working properly. In addition, by using “natural vs not natural” argument, you leave yourself open to gay activists pointing out animals having homosexual relations. I would answer that comparing humans to animals, dehumanize humans and humanizes animals.

Furthermore, there is no reference in Revelation supporting homosexual unions. All the marriages in Revelation are heterosexual.

The argument I put forward was intended to be a secular argument, without appealing to revelation.

We are most likely going to deal with people who don’t care about the Bible, Catechism, or any religious arguments. So I put forward a secular argument.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The infertility of heterosexual couples using artificial contraception is not natural, so your comparison of natural vs not natural is not working properly. In addition, by using “natural vs not natural” argument, you leave yourself open to gay activists pointing out animals having homosexual relations. I would answer that comparing humans to animals, dehumanize humans and humanizes animals.

The argument I put forward was intended to be a secular argument, without appealing to revelation.

We are most likely going to deal with people who don’t care about the Bible, Catechism, or any religious arguments. So I put forward a secular argument.

In "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" Adam Kolasinski notes that it would not be in the interest of the state to deny infertile couples marriage because “mandating sterility tests would be too costly for states.”

Additionally, I would add that not everyone who thought they were sterile actually were.

 

[on_the_hill]

In "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" Adam Kolasinski notes that it would not be in the interest of the state to deny infertile couples marriage because “mandating sterility tests would be too costly for states.”

Additionally, I would add that not everyone who thought they were sterile actually were.

:ehh: I don’t think I’d rely on that article to defend against gay marriage. Seems it’s based on assumptions that aren’t particularly solid.

From my perspective, the only reason for the state to be involved in marriage is for official record-keeping purposes in terms of inheritance, estates, wills, trusts, fiduciary responsibility, child support, and other legal matters. In other words, marriage is a legal arrangement.

There’s no reason a state should prohibit gay marriage. Gay people have all those things, inheritance, estates, wills, trusts, fiduciary responsibility, child support, and other legal matters. Maybe not so often child support.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=on_the_hill;12927512]:ehh: I don’t think I’d rely on that article to defend against gay marriage. Seems it’s based on assumptions that aren’t particularly solid.

What exactly are the assumptions in the article?

The article refutes just about every single claim gay “marriage” advocates make with resounding success.

From my perspective, the only reason for the state to be involved in marriage is for official record-keeping purposes in terms of inheritance, estates, wills, trusts, fiduciary responsibility, child support, and other legal matters. In other words, marriage is a legal arrangement.

That’s only part of the picture. States are involved for economic reasons, not just record-keeping or make someone feel a certain way.

There’s no reason a state should prohibit gay marriage.

There are many reasons states should. There’s already mounting evidence it is not good for children.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The infertility of heterosexual couples using artificial contraception is not natural, so your comparison of natural vs not natural is not working properly.

The use of artificial contraception does not invalidate a marriage which has been entered into with the right intentions. And if an engaged couple enters into marriage with the idea that they will engage in contraception, that would very likely invalidate the marriage. So in this case there would have been no marriage and therefore this case cannot logically be compared to that of the infertitlity of a SS couple.

In addition, by using “natural vs not natural” argument, you leave yourself open to gay activists pointing out animals having homosexual relations. I would answer that comparing humans to animals, dehumanize humans and humanizes animals.

Humans are not only animals, they are human beings with a spiritual soul capable of knowing right from wrong. Did Revelation ever say that humans were animals. No. So any attempt by the SSM lobby to make that comparison is invalid on the face of it and can be dismissed. Of course they will continue to press the point. Nevertheless, we must continue to uphold the distinction.

The argument I put forward was intended to be a secular argument, without appealing to revelation.

I wouldn’t do that. By so doing, you have given away the store. We can’t make them accept it but we must stand fast. It is our only hope, we have to rally the Christians - those who are left.

We are most likely going to deal with people who don’t care about the Bible, Catechism, or any religious arguments. So I put forward a secular argument.

Again, I think that is a mistake, it embroils one in the endless atheist anti-atheist arguments. How are those going???

Linus2nd

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

:ehh: I don’t think I’d rely on that article to defend against gay marriage. Seems it’s based on assumptions that aren’t particularly solid.

From my perspective, the only reason for the state to be involved in marriage is for official record-keeping purposes in terms of inheritance, estates, wills, trusts, fiduciary responsibility, child support, and other legal matters. In other words, marriage is a legal arrangement.

There’s no reason a state should prohibit gay marriage. Gay people have all those things, inheritance, estates, wills, trusts, fiduciary responsibility, child support, and other legal matters. Maybe not so often child support.

Actually the state involves itself in marriage to protect society beyond legal matters.
The state has the authority and responsibility to **prohibit marriages **between certain individuals for any number of reasons. Age being just one factor, blood relationship another.

This is the reason the gay community makes the argument about infertility and reasons as brought up by the OP. Their fear is that the state, not the Catholic Church, will forbid SSM.

While, in truth, the state has the responsibility and duty to outlaw homosexual relations as a public health issue. It is an undeniable fact that homosexual activity spreads disease that threatens all of society. By recognizing homosexual relations as a marriage, the state is essentially promoting a dangerous sexual activity…that it has no authority to do.

 

[on_the_hill]

What exactly are the assumptions in the

.

.

He starts every point with an assumption. I read them and think, ‘Yeah…but.’

No point in arguing further. I don’t have the werewithal. I don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and was squarely against it. The longer I read arguments against it the more I realize there aren’t strong arguments against it. At this point, I say let 'em marry whoever they want.

 

[on_the_hill]

. And if an engaged couple enters into marriage with the idea that they will engage in contraception, that would very likely invalidate the marriage. So in this case there would have been no marriage

If this is true, I’d bet the majority of Catholic marriages are invalid.

 

[Thorolfr]

While, in truth, the state has the responsibility and duty to outlaw homosexual relations as a public health issue. It is an undeniable fact that homosexual activity spreads disease that threatens all of society. By recognizing homosexual relations as a marriage, the state is essentially promoting a dangerous sexual activity…that it has no authority to do.

So do you advocate criminal penalties for homosexual activity, locking homosexuals up or quarantining them?

 

[vsedriver]

my argument has always been that the reason the state is interested in heterosexual marriage is because a man and a woman have the potential to be a father and mother. Doesn’t matter what age they are, whether they are infertile by choice or accident. Only a man and a woman can be a father and a mother. Children are entitled by nature to have a mother and a father. A gay couple can’t ever be a mother and a father.

If marriage is not about being a mother and a father then there is no reason to limit the number of people in the marriage, the relationship (incest), or the gender.

legalizing SSM discriminates against all other forms of relationships.

 

[Thorolfr]

my argument has always been that the reason the state is interested in heterosexual marriage is because a man and a woman have the potential to be a father and mother. Doesn’t matter what age they are, whether they are infertile by choice or accident.

Of course an infertile couple or a very old couple don’t have the potential to be a father or a mother baring a miracle of some sort. So age and fertility are certainly very important when it comes to being parents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If this is true, I’d bet the majority of Catholic marriages are invalid.

And you could well be right. As far as I know every marriage must be open to having children or it is invalid. But if a couple knows ahead of time they will be using contraception part of the time, that would not invalidate the marriage, but it would certainly put the moral state of the couple under a cloud. And that is not a good way to begin.

Linus2nd

 

[zamyrabyrd]

He starts every point with an assumption. I read them and think, ‘Yeah…but.’
No point in arguing further. I don’t have the werewithal. I don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and was squarely against it. The longer I read arguments against it the more I realize there aren’t strong arguments against it. At this point, I say let 'em marry whoever they want.

Before I made it a point to read up on the issues, I was also a deer caught in the headlights of the blaring media propaganda. They have all the buzz words and phrases: love, rights, tolerance, acceptance, etc. In the beginning it was only a drive not to be persecuted and just live their lives in peace. But this morphed quickly into aggressive self-promotion to the extent of trampling on the rights of others and marriage is one of them.
This is a drive not so they can have their little families (very few actually opt to commit to one another as usually their relationships are VERY fluid) but to destroy the institution of nuptials. There is also a very snarky social engineering intent as well, that the communists admitted back in the 1950’s, to destroy society by exploding the family unit. Furthering the homosexualist takeover of society was set out by Erastes Pill about 30 years ago, in “After the Ball”, how to cram sleaze down the throats of well meaning citizens.
As for rights, all are free to marry, according to time-honored definitions of marriage, the other sex. Why? Because marriage is for procreation. Society and by extension, history is predicated on lineage. Knowing where you come from means having an interest in the world YOUR children will be living in. One can see right away where the breakup of social ties leads, to the state being the nurturer and ultimately the controller.
I personally would not argue the “infertility” point or “one should be able to marry the person one loves” because love and fertility are not prerequisites for marriage. The only ones are being of opposite gender without close blood ties. This means no incest but ripping apart the definition of marriage can actually include anything and it seems some have already taken that opportunity to try and marry their fathers or siblings.

 

[Bradski]

Sometimes the same-sex marriage (SSM) proponents bring up the infertility argument. I’ll refute them in this post.

“You guys let men and women who are old marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of old age. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuality is the same as old age, because both are infertile.

The argument is simply that you allow some people to marry and not others. In this case it’s the ability to have children. Period. The reasons for that are many and varied and are, frankly, irrelevant. They are only brought so that you can knock them down.

And no proponent of gay marriage brings these points up. No gay couple would effectively say: ‘look, we’re just like old people - we can’t have children either’. It’s only those who are against SSM bring up the point that they can’t have children. And that argument fails as it stands. The reasons are irrelevant.

A classic Straw Man argument.

 

[BobCatholic]

And no proponent of gay marriage brings these points up.

Actually, they do bring this up. You’ve clearly never listened to Catholic radio like EWTN or Catholic Answers where the topic of marriage comes up. The caller who is a SSM proponent vehemently disagrees with the idea that one purpose of marriage is to have children. Then here comes the “you let the infertile marry” argument. The argument invariable is in one of three areas, and I addressed them in my post.

It is I who showed that, the “marriage has nothing to do with children” argument is the straw man argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

my argument has always been that the reason the state is interested in heterosexual marriage is because a man and a woman have the potential to be a father and mother. Doesn’t matter what age they are, whether they are infertile by choice or accident. Only a man and a woman can be a father and a mother. Children are entitled by nature to have a mother and a father. A gay couple can’t ever be a mother and a father.

If marriage is not about being a mother and a father then there is no reason to limit the number of people in the marriage, the relationship (incest), or the gender.

legalizing SSM discriminates against all other forms of relationships.

Yes, the state has an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage, because only hetersexual couples can bear children.

Linus2nd

 

[BobCatholic]

I wouldn’t do that. By so doing, you have given away the store. We can’t make them accept it but we must stand fast. It is our only hope, we have to rally the Christians - those who are left.

I’m not arguing that there is no revelation. So therefore, I am not giving away the store.

We have non-revelatory tools in our arsenal, and what you’re doing is saying “NO! Revelation only!!!” I disagree with that.

We have plenty of secular arguments against SSM. Don’t be afraid to use them.

Again, I think that is a mistake, it embroils one in the endless atheist anti-atheist arguments. How are those going???

Ask Trent Horn. Ask Dr David Anders. They both will say secular arguments should be used.

We have plenty of secular arguments against SSM. Don’t be afraid to use them. My arguments are intended to be used in that arsenal.

 

[Rhubarb]

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility of old age. The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so therefore homosexuality is the same as old age, because both are infertile.

I would argue that old age leads to people become infirm. The infertility of old age is because of an infirmity. So if both are the same, therefore homosexuality is an infirmity.

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

The infertility argument is a counterexample to the often-used argument that SSM should be forbidden because their inability to have children. The comparison involves sharing a property, not sameness of situation. Someone who uses the argument you mentioned does not have to claim that they are in the exact same situation as the elder couple - and thus be infirm. All they have to do is show a couple who cannot have children who is allowed to married. The argument does not entail that homosexuality is an infirmity. (Though there are plenty of arguments that this is the case)

“You guys let men and women who are infertile by choice (they have sterilizations) marry, and they can’t have kids. Homosexuals can’t have kids either, so they should be allowed to marry.”

So basically speaking, the SSM proponent is comparing the infertility of homosexuality to the infertility by choice, say by operations, use of artificial birth control, etc… The argument basically is that the situations are the same, so homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

I would argue that OK, let’s say that the infertility of homosexuality is the same as the infertility by people making by choice. So therefore, since both situations are identical, the cause of both infertility must also be the same. They’re saying that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think they wanted to go there!

Their argument falls apart when closely examined.

Again, there is a distinction between the abstracted property of infertility and the entirety of the case. The argument does not need to claim that the homosexual is in the exact same situation as the sterilized, just that they share a property that seems to be what is often used as the grounds for denying them the right to marry. The argument does not entail that homosexuality is a choice. (though again, there are arguments to that case)