Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[zamyrabyrd]

I didn’t bring up unhealthy sexual practices. You did. In the context of marriage, which is what the thread is about. If you think that gay people shouldn’t be married because you believe they indulge in unhealthy sexual practices, does that mean that you think anyone at all should be banned from marriage if they do the same? If not, then one might ask why not. If so, then one might ask how you find out that a couple is likely to have unhealthy sex.These are quite reasonable questions.

You want to talk about unhealthy sex practices? I don’t. Suffice to say that the main purpose of sexuality is procreation. Male and female anatomies were fashioned to compliment one another. Any other misuse is subject to disease. (I prefer not to get into these but consider that the very fact that people avoid the seamier or ickier side is similar to smoking when a whole culture was built around avoiding the lung cancer, shortened life span that are actually worse among the so-called gay community.)

The presumption when signing the marriage document one could say that its consummation would involve these very systems. No justice of the peace, priest, minister, rabbi etc. in their right minds would make as a condition that there should be healthy as opposed to unhealthy relations. Who would want to know anyway? However, please do remember that sodomy has been forbidden for both sexes and as a matter of fact, this is a major way AIDS is spread among heterosexual couples.

But what I really want to point out is the fallacy of assuming that the institution of marriage is based on sex and love. Throughout all cultures it has existed mainly to formalize the family unit that fits into the web of interlocking relationships. Same sex marriage and especially with bringing up children breaks society into glass shards that cannot be mended again.

 

[Bradski]

You want to talk about unhealthy sex practices? I don’t.

Here you go again. For the second time I will point out that I didn’t bring this up. You did. I’m simply asking why you feel the need to bring up the subject of unhealthy sex practices in a discussion about marriage. If you don’t want to talk about them then I will assume that any further discussions on whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry will not result in you mentioning the topic.

The presumption when signing the marriage document one could say that its consummation would involve these very systems. No justice of the peace, priest, minister, rabbi etc. in their right minds would make as a condition that there should be healthy as opposed to unhealthy relations. Who would want to know anyway? However, please do remember that sodomy has been forbidden for both sexes and as a matter of fact, this is a major way AIDS is spread among heterosexual couples.

You’re quite right in that what people do in regards to sex is no matter for the JP or the priest or anyone at all apart from the couple themselves. And that includes, but is not restricted to sodomy. Which, incidentally, includes oral sex.

So why don’t we agree that the type,of sex that anyone has is a matter for themselves and should form no part in any discussion about marriage rights.

Incidentally, if you’d like to start a thread on unhealthy sexual practices, then let me know. I’d be interested in participate.

But what I really want to point out is the fallacy of assuming that the institution of marriage is based on sex and love.

Well, not necessarily on sex. Although someone’s initial attraction to a partner is certainly connected to sex. But you’d be foolish to get married to someone just based on that. But love? Well, that’s what makes the world go around Z. I don’t know if you are married but try this: tell your wife that your marriage was not based on love and let me know how you get on.

Perhaps you should make up the bed in the spare room before you ask. It’ll save time.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Here you go again. For the second time I will point out that I didn’t bring this up. You did. I’m simply asking why you feel the need to bring up the subject of unhealthy sex practices in a discussion about marriage. If you don’t want to talk about them then I will assume that any further discussions on whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry will not result in you mentioning the topic.
You’re quite right in that what people do in regards to sex is no matter for the JP or the priest or anyone at all apart from the couple themselves. And that includes, but is not restricted to sodomy. Which, incidentally, includes oral sex. So why don’t we agree that the** type of sex that anyone has is a matter for themselves and should form no part in any discussion about marriage rights**. Incidentally, if you’d like to start a thread on unhealthy sexual practices, then let me know. I’d be interested in participate.

Using physiology for purposes other than what it is intended for results in strain (over stretching the muscles of the colon - actually quite common, though not openly admitted), atrophy, and opens it up for infection (cancers, STD’s, AIDS, etc.). Human sexual organs were designed for procreation. The procreative function of marriage is recognized as a institution by society and sanctified by the church (or synagogue). This in turn benefits society by providing a formal structure for the nurturing of children.

So while you want to twist the argument to make it seem that marriage is based on sex, it is actually based on** gender**, the irreducible DNA, not what people imagine they can change on a whim.

 

[oneofmany]

A homosexual marriage says one of the parents is not needed, it’s set up to leave one parent out of the child’s life, it makes that a good thing when it is a bad thing.

Single parents do the same thing if they don’t want the other parent to come around or the other parent can’t be bothered but they aren’t married and they try their best to do it on their own. It’s sad for both set-ups for the child.

How come the child is the last one to be cared about.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

A homosexual marriage says one of the parents is not needed, it’s set up to leave one parent out of the child’s life, it makes that a good thing when it is a bad thing. Single parents do the same thing if they don’t want the other parent to come around or the other parent can’t be bothered but they aren’t married and they try their best to do it on their own. It’s sad for both set-ups for the child.
How come the child is the last one to be cared about.

This is a blog by a brave woman whose father couldn’t help himself and dragged his daughter into his perverse lifestyle.
dawnstefanowicz.org/dawntest.htm
"What is the most suitable environment for children to be born or adopted into? The many personal, professional and social experiences with my father did not teach me respect for morality, authority, marriage, and paternal love. **I felt fearfully silenced as I was not allowed to talk about my dad, his male housemates, his lifestyle and encounters within the subcultures without being browbeaten and threatened by my father. While I lived at home, I had to live by his rules. Yes, I loved my dad. **However, I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father’s love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.

From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships…"

See, this is what the well-meaning public doesn’t see. They only hear bromides about “love”. Even if there is enough “love” to support a relationship, to love society is more important by not destroying marriage in order to indulge in it.

 

[Bradski]

Using physiology for purposes other than what it is intended for results in strain (over stretching the muscles of the colon - actually quite common, though not openly admitted), atrophy, and opens it up for infection (cancers, STD’s, AIDS, etc.). Human sexual organs were designed for procreation. The procreative function of marriage is recognized as a institution by society and sanctified by the church (or synagogue). This in turn benefits society by providing a formal structure for the nurturing of children.

So while you want to twist the argument to make it seem that marriage is based on sex, it is actually based on** gender**, the irreducible DNA, not what people imagine they can change on a whim.

Well’ for someone who doesn’t want to talk about sexual practices, you sure seem to spend a hell of a lot of forum time talking about it (and only anal sex for some reason).

And you seem to be under the misapprehension I said that marriage is based on sex, when I’m pretty certain that I said that that was a bad idea.

Anyway, you may remember that I said love was quite important in marriage - whereas you seem to think not. Still not sure if you’re married (my guess is not), but if you are, did you try telling your wife that it wasn’t important?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Well’ for someone who doesn’t want to talk about sexual practices, you sure seem to spend a hell of a lot of forum time talking about it (and only anal sex for some reason). And you seem to be under the misapprehension I said that marriage is based on sex, when I’m pretty certain that I said that that was a bad idea. Anyway, you may remember that I said love was quite important in marriage - whereas you seem to think not. Still not sure if you’re married (my guess is not), but if you are, did you try telling your wife that it wasn’t important?

I don’t know what your point is, except to derail the discussion into the mud and to twist what I wrote. The premise of this thread is “Refuting the infertility argument to promote Same Sex Marriage”. While thinking up what to write back to you, I realized that gender is the deciding factor in marriage, not sex, the fact that a man is a man and a woman a woman. Everything else is irrelevant for the purpose of formalizing the union. So if nothing else I got something out of having to define my thoughts in writing.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know what your point is, except to derail the discussion into the mud and to twist what I wrote.

The premise of this thread is “Refuting the infertility argument to promote Same Sex Marriage”. While thinking up what to write back to you, I realized that gender is the deciding factor in marriage, not sex, the fact that a man is a man and a woman a woman. Everything else is irrelevant for the purpose of formalizing the union. So if nothing else I got something out of having to define my thoughts in writing.

Twist what you wrote? I don’t think that anything you have written needs any help from me for it to appear twisted.

And your appeal to gender as opposed to sex is a non sequitur. The whole discussion is about gender. But I’m pleased that you have realised this.

Any news on what your wife thinks about your position regarding love and marriage?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Are you saying that people with unhealthy sexual practices should not be allowed to marry?

This was your original question just in case anyone else might be led astray by your saying that I brought up the subject, which I didn’t, or expanded into what they actually are. I said misusing bodily parts intended for some other use results in dysfunction, even loss of it and disease. The ONLY consideration for society to formalize a marriage is if the two are male and female as it says in the Bible and no close blood relation in most countries.
Otherwise, there have been arranged marriages throughout history, many of which worked extremely well, where “love” was not even mentioned.
As for your other speculation, I don’t have a wife.

 

[inocente]

Using physiology for purposes other than what it is intended for results in strain (over stretching the muscles of the colon - actually quite common, though not openly admitted), atrophy, and opens it up for infection (cancers, STD’s, AIDS, etc.).

Strange how opponents of equal marriage assume all gay men have anal sex, and no straight men have anal sex, and forget about lesbians altogether.

Perhaps 4% of the population is homosexual. Which means there are far more heterosexual men and women who might have anal sex with their partner, than there are gay men who might have anal sex with theirs.

Human sexual organs were designed for procreation.

Designed? That’s not a great argument. First you’d have to persuade people to believe in intelligent design, then you’d have to get them to believe in your specific teleology.

 

[inocente]

AyJSimon;12929937:

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

Yes.

Linus2nd

It’s always heart warming to see this kind of comment as it means a few more moderate Catholics might decide to support equal marriage rather than encourage the cold inhumanity of children having to be raised in institutions.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Strange how opponents of equal marriage assume all gay men have anal sex, and no straight men have anal sex, and forget about lesbians altogether.

Perhaps 4% of the population is homosexual. Which means there are far more heterosexual men and women who might have anal sex with their partner, than there are gay men who might have anal sex with theirs.

I find your language offensive.

Designed? That’s not a great argument. First you’d have to persuade people to believe in intelligent design, then you’d have to get them to believe in your specific teleology.

If you found a watch on a beach, would it need to have had a maker or just spring out of nowhere? The world and our bodies are far more marvelous, I don’t need to persuade the unintelligent that there is intelligent design.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It’s always heart warming to see this kind of comment as it means a few more moderate Catholics might decide to support equal marriage rather than encourage the cold inhumanity of children having to be raised in institutions.

There are far more families wanting to adopt than the bureaucracy is willing to give them, almost anywhere. As for institutions I can hardly imagine a place like Janusz Korczak’s orphanage in Poland before World War II or that of Father Joe in Thailand based on that, as being inferior to any slap up arrangement where there is sexual immorality.

 

[Bradski]

This was your original question just in case anyone else might be led astray by your saying that I brought up the subject, which I didn’t, or expanded into what they actually are.

Well, yes it was an original question of mine which was asked because it was you that brought the subject up:

But not only that, their sexual practices are unhealthy and ridden with STD’s even after the abolition of discrimination or persecution.

That was the first time it was mentioned, in post 46. Which you wrote. In other words, you brought the subject up. Let’s not slide away from that. You have brought the discussion of unhealthy sexual practices into a discussion about marriage. And very specific sexual practices as well, in which pretty much a majority of married people indulge.

The ONLY consideration for society to formalize a marriage is if the two are male and female as it says in the Bible…

Now, that’s much better. I note your use of the word ‘only’. You have even put it in upper case. So we can forget about the type of sex they have and just concentrate on the biblical interpretation of marriage. Which the majority of people ignore. So unless you have some secular arguments (and please, try not to mention sex), then I think you’re done.

As for your other speculation, I don’t have a wife.

If you don’t think that marriage has anything to do with love, then that’s not a statement that’s going to come as much of a surprise to anyone. But look, you’re only in your fourties, so your parents will hopefully be still around. Ask your Dad why he married your Mum.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Well, yes it was an original question of mine which was asked because it was you that brought the subject up. That was the first time it was mentioned, in post 46. Which you wrote. In other words, you brought the subject up. Let’s not slide away from that. You have brought the discussion of unhealthy sexual practices into a discussion about marriage. And very specific sexual practices as well, in which pretty much a majority of married people indulge.

I still don’t know what point you are trying to make except be childishly provocative. Married people can engage in all sorts of unhealthy practices like gluttony or substance abuse like alcohol. It doesn’t make them right or healthy.

Now, that’s much better. I note your use of the word ‘only’. You have even put it in upper case. So we can forget about the type of sex they have and just concentrate on the biblical interpretation of marriage. Which the majority of people ignore. So unless you have some secular arguments (and please, try not to mention sex), then I think you’re done. If you don’t think that marriage has anything to do with love, then that’s not a statement that’s going to come as much of a surprise to anyone. But look, you’re only in your fourties, so your parents will hopefully be still around. Ask your Dad why he married your Mum.

For the PURPOSES OF THE STATE, marriage need be only 1) between one man and one woman, 2) not close blood related, 3) unmarried, 4) of age according to the laws in a particular country. THAT IS ALL!!! Even in this day and age people still get married for money. I am not in my “fourties”, (left home at 18) so why don’t you go back to elementary school to learn how to spell, some manners and some history of civilization that NEVER recognized same sex marriage? There must have been a reason.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=on_the_hill;12927757]He starts every point with an assumption. I read them and think, ‘Yeah…but.’

Yeah, but what? And what assumptions? Those are facts.

No point in arguing further. I don’t have the werewithal.

How convenient. Whenever I share that article, these are the kinds of responses I get from those who support so-called gay “marriage”.

I don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and was squarely against it.

And you should still be against it. In fact, those who support so-called gay “marriage” have in at least case been asked to refrain from Communion. That’s how serious the matter is.

The longer I read arguments against it the more I realize there aren’t strong arguments against it.

That’s just a lame general excuse that gay “marriage” advocates put out in order to avoid specific discussion. It’s disappointing coming from you because progressives use that thinking all the time since their values cannot stand on merit.

At this point, I say let 'em marry whoever they want.

So let’s take the easy out? Just remember that the next time you want to know why things in society are so bad.

Except they really aren’t married in the eyes of God.

 

[SuperLuigi]

A homosexual marriage says one of the parents is not needed, it’s set up to leave one parent out of the child’s life, it makes that a good thing when it is a bad thing.

Single parents do the same thing if they don’t want the other parent to come around or the other parent can’t be bothered but they aren’t married and they try their best to do it on their own. It’s sad for both set-ups for the child.

How come the child is the last one to be cared about.

Because we’ve all got to make our sacrifices for the great progressive utopia of equality.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

i would say if homosexuals have an illness, they should marry just like infertile couples by nature. what’s wrong with not being able to procreate? remember 1 corinthians 7:9 “it is better for them to marry than to burn with passion”. yes they can’t procreate but even though we don’t think gays can get married, we have to understand that they think they can (which i believe they can) and they should get married as they see it, because it would be better to do that than to live with passion for their spouse.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Because we’ve all got to make our sacrifices for the great progressive utopia of equality.

Wow, you said a mouthful! How people cannot see that this same sex marriage business is just a social engineering ploy! Again, a small number of gays actually take advantage of the opportunity to get married where they can. Most, as even with opposite sex couples, would PREFER just livin’ together, to keep their options open and not to have to make a lifetime commitment. Society has to be upturned to accommodate a minute percentage of a tiny group to begin with?
Clever Bolsheviks are aggressively pushing the gay agenda, dominating the social media, putting slogans into the heads of the masses using time tested PR tactics. As with smoking, while they were popularizing that, all effort was made to convince people that it is benign and harms no one. The social and physical harm of this movement is astounding but like the dinosaur in the living room it has been decided to ignore it until it eats up everything in sight.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

it is NOT a ploy! it’s a REAL equality issue. just because gays can’t reproduce doesn’t mean they can never truly be a loving couple. for all i know, heterosexual couples are the ones that are really disordered for their high divorce rates.