Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[CHRISTINE77]

I think it’s best to keep it simple. Marriage is the sanctioned union between one man and one woman.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

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.

O.K., what about this. The state has a compelling interest in promoting and supporting traditional marriage because in traditional marriage with a Mother and a Father children prosper better than in other types of family arraingements. And healthy, happy, well adjusted children are a boon to the benefit of society.

Children raised in SSM arraingements and other non-traditional arraingements do not prosper as well.

The infertility of some traditonal marriages cannot be used as an argument in favor of SSM because Christian and other Religious, recognize the validity of many of And freedom of religion is protected by law and the state has an interest in upholding these laws.

Linus2nd

 

[frobert]

…I would answer that comparing humans to animals, dehumanize humans and humanizes animals.

Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos.

Does it dehumanize humans to know that of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees?

How about humans and gorillas who share 98.4 percent of their DNA?

How about with dogs: Humans and dogs share 84 percent of their DNA?

Humans and birds are a different matter. Yet they, too, share a lot of DNA – 65 percent.

I find birds an interesting example because humans and other mammals have live birth but birds do not.

Could there be a reason that same sex activity is found in humans and just about all animals studied?

 

[frobert]

Children raised in SSM arraingements and other non-traditional arraingements do not prosper as well

Linus2nd

Perhaps I have not read the correct studies and literature pointing to the superiority of opposite sex parenting. The studies and literature I have read do back up your assertions.

A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children’s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities – not the sexual orientation of their parents.

Source: American Academy of Pediatrics

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos.
Does it dehumanize humans to know that of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees?
How about humans and gorillas who share 98.4 percent of their DNA?
How about with dogs: Humans and dogs share 84 percent of their DNA?
Humans and birds are a different matter. Yet they, too, share a lot of DNA – 65 percent.
I find birds an interesting example because humans and other mammals have live birth but birds do not.
Could there be a reason that same sex activity is found in humans and just about all animals studied?

This is one of the worst arguments as it is SO full of holes. Sexual activity is for reproduction PERIOD among animals. It happens ONLY in unusual circumstances as with the much touted story of the penguins in a New York zoo. As soon as one of the male pair had a chance to mate with a female, he did.
Furthermore, if you read Genesis, man is supposed to be Lord of created things, not stoop to their level as with the story of the serpent.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Perhaps I have not read the correct studies and literature pointing to the superiority of opposite sex parenting. The studies and literature I have read do back up your assertions.
Source: American Academy of Pediatrics

It’s incredible how the hallowed halls of science have been infected with political correctness and Kinseyism. Commonsense: children of same sex arrangements are deprived at the get go of one or both of their biological parents. This in itself is non-defensible. Adult children of homo families are coming out of the closet to register their own pain about having to live with dysfunction and constantly have to put on a good face.

When they open up about their deeply negative experiences, the gay community swoops down to shut them up. The psychological ramifications are severe. One woman, Heather, wrote how awful it was to be in a triangle vying for her mother’s affection. Another guy Lopez, said how confusing male female relations were for him always feeling like a misfit. He also said that even in the best material circumstances, such children are deeply deprived.

I can only guess what American Pediatrics says about transgendered kids. Phony science was a hallmark of National Socialism and Communism. They also had their “institutes” rubberstamping the current political ideology. And there should be no doubt about the social engineering attempt to explode the family unit by sanctioning same sex unions and forcing children into them.

 

[AyJSimon]

Commonsense: children of same sex arrangements are deprived at the get go of one or both of their biological parents.

As are all adopted children. So better that orphaned children stay orphaned, correct?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I have not read the correct studies and literature pointing to the superiority of opposite sex parenting. The studies and literature I have read do back up your assertions.

Source: American Academy of Pediatrics

That is a secular organization, you would expect them to toe the party line. Do some research at the Ruthinstitute linked below.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As are all adopted children. So better that orphaned children stay orphaned, correct?

Yes.

Linus2nd

 

[on_the_hill]

So, if an organization disagrees with us, it’s wrong and part of a conspiracy. Instead, we trust an organization that is openly biased toward the finding the conclusions we already decided to accept.

 

[on_the_hill]

Yes.

Linus2nd

I’ll give you credit for answering. Most people ignore that question.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Personally I don’t believe that any gay person would argue against the fact that ONE purpose of marriage is to have children. That’s a given. It’s undeniable. It only takes one couple to state it as a reason to make it true. If you know any gay person or any straight person who argues against this, you and I can both tell them that they are wrong.

What I would suggest, however, is that the argument runs more along the following lines:

One of the non-negotiable criteria for a marriage is the ability to have children so therefore gays cannot marry.

Please refute that if you think I have misstated it.

That statement is therefore the argument. The claim that you do allow people who cannot have children to marry is a response to that. Period. Examples are given, not as a way of comparison between those examples and gay couples (which you fallacious lay claim) but as an example of how your argument fails in the first instance. Which it does.

Drawing comparisons between the examples and gay couples is a means of deflecting attention from the fact that the response is valid as it stands.

 

[Bradski]

Adult children of homo families…

Just a heads up on that, Z. If you’re in my part of the world and discussing gay couples, perhaps in a bar over a couple of drinks, I would very seriously recommend that you refrain from using terms such as the one above in general conversation.

It may be fine where you come from but in these parts it will lead to some unpleasantness. Then again, show a little respect and you will be shown some in return.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Just a heads up on that, Z. If you’re in my part of the world and discussing gay couples, perhaps in a bar over a couple of drinks, I would very seriously recommend that you refrain from using terms such as the one above in general conversation.
It may be fine where you come from but in these parts it will lead to some unpleasantness. Then again, show a little respect and you will be shown some in return.

After homosexuality has been raised to more than accepted state, what is the problem with the adjective cut off from the sexuality? “Heteros” are spoken about in the same way as “homos”. Ergo, “hetero-family” and “homo-family”. Why should people who proudly identfy as such think it disrespectful?
I do not respect however depriving children of one or both of the their natural parents. Right now 26 Israelis, most of them same sex couples, are bringing back infants from Nepal borne by surrogate mothers who will never see them again and vice versa. This is really a kooky world and it needs to be respected?

 

[vsedriver]

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.

On the contrary, they can become a father and a mother as foster parents, adoptive parents, or having to raise their grandkids. No miracles necessary. They are still and always will have the potential to be a mother and a father.

 

[vsedriver]

One of the non-negotiable criteria for a marriage is the ability to have children so therefore gays cannot marry.

Please refute that if you think I have misstated it.

I think you have misstated it. It should be “one of the non-negotiable criteria for a marriage is the ability for the couple to become a mother and a father.” They can do this the natural way, or via adoption, fostering, taking in the grandkids. So age doesn’t matter. Once children come into the home the couple must be able to become a mother and father. The couple are not required to become parents but they are the only couple that can change into parents. All children are entitled by nature to experience a mother and a father.

That statement is therefore the argument. The claim that you do allow people who cannot have children to marry is a response to that. Period. Examples are given, not as a way of comparison between those examples and gay couples (which you fallacious lay claim) but as an example of how your argument fails in the first instance. Which it does.

The claim is that you do not allow people who can’t become a mother and a father to marry. Two men can never be a mother and a father. A brother and sister can’t marry because they can’t be both mother and father as well as aunt and uncle. The familial relationships are also a non-negotiable. The number is non-negotiable because you can’t have divided affections where children of one mother are favored over the children of another. So only one man, one woman.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

All children are entitled by nature to experience a mother and a father.The claim is that you do not allow people who can’t become a mother and a father to marry. Two men can never be a mother and a father. A brother and sister can’t marry because they can’t be both mother and father as well as aunt and uncle. The familial relationships are also a non-negotiable. The number is non-negotiable because you can’t have divided affections where children of one mother are favored over the children of another. So only one man, one woman.

Exactly, there are social ramifications as well as psychological ones in MOTHER and FATHER. As a child of an extremely dysfunctional home, there was still the baseline of what is means to be a woman. If I didn’t get all of that from the prime caregiver, there were other role models like aunts (one of whom was childless, yet married) and a grandmother. At least I didn’t grow up gender confused.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is a good resource on traditional marriage.

takebackmarriage.org/take-back-marriage/

Linus2nd

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

No.

Criminal penalties are not necessary. Official discouragement of abnormal sexual activities would do more good.

Quarantining is an interesting concept. Looking back in our history, it could be noted that quarantining was suggested as a means of stopping the AIDS epidemic.

New York Times 1985

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 19— A majority of Americans favor the quarantine of AIDS patients, and some would embrace measures as drastic as using tattoos to mark those with the deadly disorder, according to a poll published today.

Nothing met more vocal and public objection from the gay community than the thought of quarantine. Not from a health standpoint but from a discriminatory stance in that they demanded the freedom to continue sexual activity even after testing positive.

Today the public hysteria has diminished… although the disease still persists. One can only wonder if a well organized quarantine, supported by the gay community, would have totally eradicated AIDS

 

[BobCatholic]

One of the non-negotiable criteria for a marriage is the ability to have children so therefore gays cannot marry.

Please refute that if you think I have misstated it.

I agree with that, but I’m not arguing that in refuting the “infertility argument.” I’m just trying to deflect one of the bullets they’re shooting at us. It is a purely defensive argument, not an offensive argument.