Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[inocente]

I wish people would wake up to that term which has slipped under the radar to be almost universally used “orientation”. It is as though people are animals or plants with no control over what they are attracted to.

Try controlling the gender you are attracted to and report back.

Also “discrimination” should stop being considered a dirty word and “egalitarian” to reclaim reducing everything to the LOWEST common denominator.

It was another poster who said “Gay marriage is fundamentally discriminatory”, as if allowing only opposite genders to marry is in some logic-defying way less discriminatory than also allowing same genders to marry. And now, on top of that. you’re saying discrimination is good.

I’m wondering if you guys secretly support equal marriage and are just making really bad arguments to mess with opponents of equal marriage.

I find the two words when put together offensive, or at least indelicate. I said certain practices were unhealthy so would really stop there and not go into detail. I do come from a time when even grown-ups would not talk about such things.

You raised the subject.

Pseudo science is “born that way” or a “gay gene” that so far no one has seen. Also sexual “orientation” is ridiculous. It implies a whole smorgasbord of acceptable orientations without any scientific basis except in psychological terms, that is, the result of trauma or abuse.

You mean without any basis except for every last human being on the face of the earth.

The only argument needed for equal marriage is simply that a fair society must treat all law-abiding citizens equally. That’s it, that’s the only argument needed.

You can abide with that principle by lobbying to criminalize homosexuality. Alternatively, you could lobby to end all civil marriages altogether. In either case you would be promoting the principle of treating all law-abiding citizens equally and promoting a fair society. But somehow opponents of equal marriage never think of that.

 

[inocente]

I suspect this whole “orientation” thing is bogus. Healthy men and women are not “orientated” sexually in the way commonly supposed. Psychologically well-off men and women are oriented towards others as individuals and care for them as unique beings.

I would further propose that psychologically grounded human beings view sex in terms of a creative capacity that fundamentally is about embodying love in new human beings. Seen in proper perspective, the act of sex is not separable from love for other human beings and the desire for their ultimate happiness and well-being for each as individuals.

As it’s obvious to everyone than most men are attracted to women and most women are attracted to men, your notion that “healthy men and women are not “orientated” sexually” is never going to fly.

If there were any good arguments against equal marriage, there wouldn’t have been the hundreds and hundreds of threads started by opponents. Every new thread is testament to the desperate lack of a good argument, as are your increasingly esoteric attempts.

Well, no, actually. The purpose for monastaries and nunneries is not the same as the purpose for family. Raising children to become good well-rounded human beings is quite a different matter from forming mature men and women to focus on their unique call from God.

You forgot that I also mentioned priests, and you may not realize that the Church didn’t perform marriages for its first 1,000 years, preferring to exhort both men and women to total abstinence, a policy which could be described as not exactly centered around family.

The argument that a loving couple of the same gender cannot raise children to become good well-rounded human beings is irrational. It is contrary to evidence. It ignores the much larger number of kids in one-parent families, as if a broken home is somehow better for children. And it paints all homosexuals as incompetent or worse, which doesn’t even accord with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Bahman]

Homosexuality is something related to feeling hence no argument can cut it.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Try controlling the gender you are attracted to and report back.

First of all I can’t tell you how much I despise discussing this subject due to the twisted thickets I have take to time and energy to plow through. If I just look back on my development, it was just that, a process over many years of learning who I was, not like an animal that suddenly gets hormones to mate. Social modelling has a lot to do with a person’s view of himself and how he relates to others. So all this orientation malarkey is just that, bull hockey.

It was another poster who said “Gay marriage is fundamentally discriminatory”, as if allowing only opposite genders to marry is in some logic-defying way less discriminatory than also allowing same genders to marry. And now, on top of that. you’re saying discrimination is good.

It is good, I don’t buy the bad rap discrimination has collected over the years. Allowing only opposite genders to marry is a funny way of describing the fundamental definition of marriage as it existed for millennia.

I’m wondering if you guys secretly support equal marriage and are just making really bad arguments to mess with opponents of equal marriage.

Stretching the definition of marriage makes it in the end meaningless.

You raised the subject.

There is a difference between saying certain practices are unhealthy, even statistically proven to be, without having to draw pictures. Whatever is not normal sexuality doesn’t have to be dragged into a civil discussion like putrid dead rats. This thread is about the essential infertile nature of same sex arrangements, therefore they do not deserve the appellation of marriage. What passes for expression of sexuality is even unhealthy. This should serve as a warning at least.

The only argument needed for equal marriage is simply that a fair society must treat all law-abiding citizens equally. That’s it, that’s the only argument needed. You can abide with that principle by lobbying to criminalize homosexuality. Alternatively, you could lobby to end all civil marriages altogether. In either case you would be promoting the principle of treating all law-abiding citizens equally and promoting a fair society. But somehow opponents of equal marriage never think of that.

Exactly, anyone can get married if they conform to the requirements already mentioned 1) opposite sex 2) of age 3) in some places to prove no venereal disease 4) not already married 5) not close blood relatives. When the first requirement is dropped, everything else will be permissible in time, including incest.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

You forgot that I also mentioned priests, and you may not realize that the Church didn’t perform marriages for its first 1,000 years, preferring to exhort both men and women to total abstinence, a policy which could be described as not exactly centered around family.

I wasn’t going to respond to to this allegation except that it is so wacky. Whatever you don’t recognize, simply make it up!!!

The argument that a loving couple of the same gender cannot raise children to become good well-rounded human beings is irrational. It is contrary to evidence. It ignores the much larger number of kids in one-parent families, as if a broken home is somehow better for children. And it paints all homosexuals as incompetent or worse, which doesn’t even accord with Catholic doctrine.

You are saying something without backup and completely contrary to commonsense. Physical needs can be provided for but there are social and psychological needs for stable male and female role modelling. Arguing what should be commonsense is really wearying.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The only argument needed for equal marriage is simply that a fair society must treat all law-abiding citizens equally. That’s it, that’s the only argument needed.

The only such argument that could possibly work is the logical one commonly stated as “Treat like things alike.”

The problem for you applying that logic to a “fair society” is that glaring differences exist between conjugal marriages and same sex “marriages.” These two are NOT alike AND not alike in VERY relevant ways where the concept of what a marriage actually is is concerned. You have to put on some very vision-restricting blinkers to claim alikeness in these two relationships.

Which of course is why “fairness” isn’t really the issue here. If it were, then the same human rights that would protect the livelihoods and human dignity of gay people (those fundamental human rights owed to gay individuals because they are human) would, likewise, now stop gays from persecuting and threatening the livelihoods of those who have a different view of marriage than they do. Again, this isn’t about fair mindedness or a fair society, it is about foisting one perspective on everyone and making all conform to one view by coercion using punitive means.

When a traditional view of marriage is in jeopardy of being criminalized, that ought to be taken as “things have gone too far.” The fact some cannot see this means they suffer from the exact same blindness that led to the persecution of gays now but is now leading them in the opposite direction. Our society is like a drunken sailor overcompensating for a fall in one direction by listing heavily in the opposite.

You can abide with that principle by lobbying to criminalize homosexuality. Alternatively, you could lobby to end all civil marriages altogether. In either case you would be promoting the principle of treating all law-abiding citizens equally and promoting a fair society. But somehow opponents of equal marriage never think of that.

The only alternative isn’t criminalizing homosexuality, and since homosexuality is a completely different issue than the redefinition of marriage, keeping the legal definition of marriage from being revised does not amount to treating gays unfairly. In order to be unfair (not equal) treatment you would need to demonstrate that gay “marriage” is identical in all relevant ways to conjugal marriage which produces, by its very nature, the new human beings which become the citizens of tomorrow. As such, the state has an interest in supporting and safeguarding conjugal marriages that it does not have in the case of those engaging in same sex behaviour, which is infertile by its very nature.

Again the basic law of logic which grounds your “fair society” argument is "treat alike those things which are alike in all relevant ways. Since gay “marriage” is clearly not the same as conjugal marriage, fairness does not make us abandon logic and treat unalike things alike merely for the sake of assuaging the “feelings” of those who make demands.

The so-called “argument” for fair treatment is a bogus one since it requires essentially different things be treated as if they were alike without sufficient warrant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It was another poster who said “Gay marriage is fundamentally discriminatory”, as if allowing only opposite genders to marry is in some logic-defying way less discriminatory than also allowing same genders to marry.

That other mysterious poster was me and actually engaging with the argument rather than summarily dismissing it as “logic defying” would be in your interest.

For the benefit of those who prefer to be less than shallow in their thinking processes, the argument was as follows…

It seems to me that the advocates of “gay marriage” are very selective (prejudiced, in fact) in terms of who is to be loved. They want their “choice” to determine WHO they will love and they want that choice to be reflected in their “orientation.” Very discriminatory.

A heterosexual couple who get married (ideally) and who grasp the integral meaning and significance of marriage ought to make no such pretensions concerning their love. Their love will bear fruit (bring about embodied beings of both genders) and their love (properly disposed) means they will love those new human beings they beget of both genders without prejudice. They ought to make no claims as to “preferences.” Their “love” in the full and robust sense of “concern for other as other” has no “orientation” with respect to preferring one gender over another.

That is why the natural family (in the true and full sense of the word) is universal with both genders being accorded equality of concern and love since both genders have been equally represented from the beginning. Gay marriage is fundamentally discriminatory and not egalitarian from the beginning (despite the claims of its advocates to the contrary) since it excludes one or other gender from the partnership from the get go.

Gay or lesbian partners in a “gay” marriage are quite exclusive about who they are going to love and that exclusivity cannot help but be transferred to their “children” regardless of how those children are brought (artificially) into the partnership. That is why gay “marriage” is a pretense, a “faux” marriage, at best.

Not to put too fine a point on it, a family is a mini-society of sorts and one which forms the basic unit of the larger society. What gay marriage revisionists advocate is that this mini-society (family) ought to be exclusive if those setting it up decide they want to discriminate against the “opposite” gender. Rather than having both genders (man and woman) equally represented in the founding pair, same sex marriage advocates are lobbying for a prejudiced exclusivity. That is, this “society” they are originating as their “family” will exclude the other gender as a matter of choice, their preference. Either way (gay or lesbian,) new male or female members that are somehow adopted into the “family” will not be represented by one or other gender in the founding pair.

Since the founding pair view sexual preference as the ground and basis for their “love,” it would seem their love is incapable of transcending sexual preference as the ground for this mini-society they are founding, since their “union” is based on a “love” unable to get beyond emotional or sexual attraction.

The pertinant question, which is never asked, is: “Why, if ostensibly mature adults cannot see beyond pure sexual desire when deciding who they will love for a lifetime, should those same adults be subsequently capable of “loving” – in a less self-interested way – opposite gendered individuals which are brought into the family in the future?”

Your challenge to heterosexuals with reference to transcending sexual desire is, I suspect, overblown in terms of importance. Marriage is not fundamentally about sexual attraction, it is more crucially about being human to the fullest possible degree and that depth of humanity is one that is fostered and brought forth amidst the challenges and differences of complementarity, not through the narcissism of identity assurance.

Humans are physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual “organisms” (in the broadest sense of the word) which grow beyond ourselves by challenges from outside of our current state – not by reinforcing or preening feelings of self-satisfaction and emotional comfort.

The whole idea of same-sex “love” is a stilted, in-grown form which will ultimately not succeed precisely because it cannot get beyond itself. If it truly were a robust form of love it wouldn’t need to be foisted on society by the coercive, insufferable campaign we are currently having to endure.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The whole idea of same-sex “love” is a stilted, in-grown form which will ultimately not succeed precisely because it cannot get beyond itself. If it truly were a robust form of love it wouldn’t need to be foisted on society by the coercive, insufferable campaign we are currently having to endure.

There is a heavy dose of narcissism as well in loving the same gender rather than the opposite. The selfishness is evident with depriving children of one or two parents from the outset. And it does come from Numero Uno culture - You’re worth it!

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

peter, in response, i’m going to say:

…“defending marriage” isn’t really the issue here. If it were, the same human rights that would protect the livelihoods and human dignity of straight people (those fundamental human rights owed to straight individuals because they are human) would, likewise, now stop straights from persecuting and threatening the livelihoods of those who have a different view of marriage than they do, and would also make divorce illegal. Again, defining marriage as between one man and one woman isn’t about fair mindedness or a fair society, it is about foisting one perspective on everyone and making all conform to one view by coercion using punitive means.

When a non-traditional view of marriage is in jeopardy of being criminalized, that ought to be taken as “things have gone too far.” The fact some cannot see this means they suffer from the exact same blindness that led to the persecution of straights (yes straights were persecuted) now but is now leading them in the opposite direction. Our “christian” society is like a drunken sailor overcompensating for a fall in one direction by listing heavily in the opposite.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Your challenge to heterosexuals with reference to transcending sexual desire is, I suspect, overblown in terms of importance. Marriage is not fundamentally about sexual attraction, it is more crucially about being human to the fullest possible degree and that depth of humanity is one that is fostered and brought forth amidst the challenges and differences of complementarity, not through the narcissism of identity assurance.

:thumbsup:Marriage has only in recent times been about romantic love. Marriage is traditionally a way to join families together and to generate new beings into that family.
In most cultures, until recently, marriages were arranged. Actually, arranged marriages are usually very lasting. Romantic marriages often fall apart, because there was no realism to the union in the first place. Marriage is all about family.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

maybe it’s time you started thinking the way you view marriage may not be right after all. as someone else said, the church didn’t do marriages for the first 1000 years. that alone is tradition, to me.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

maybe it’s time you started thinking the way you view marriage may not be right after all. as someone else said, the church didn’t do marriages for the first 1000 years. that alone is tradition, to me.

What does the church have to do with this? This is a secular issue.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

maybe it’s time you started thinking the way you view marriage may not be right after all. as someone else said, the church didn’t do marriages for the first 1000 years. that alone is tradition, to me.

That doesn’t mean people did not get married. They surely did according to civil law.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sir Edmund Ronald Leach (7 November 1910 – 6 January 1989) was a British social anthropologist said that the institution of marriage is for:

1. To establish a legal father of a woman’s children.
2. To establish a legal mother of a man’s children.
3. To give the husband a monopoly in the wife’s sexuality.
4. To give the wife a monopoly in the husband’s sexuality.
5. To give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife’s domestic and other labour services.
6. To give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband’s domestic and other labour services.
7. To give the husband partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the wife.
8. To give the wife partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the husband.
9. To establish a joint fund of property – a partnership – for the benefit of the children of the marriage.
10. To establish a socially significant ‘relationship of affinity’ between the husband and his wife’s brothers

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

no but the church had no business in it, and since the church is like a government to you, the government had no business in it. a libertarian perspective is that government shouldn’t define marriage at all, so the libertarian way is actually traditional, and not the conservative way.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

have you ever heard of “if someone makes you go one mile, go with them two”? if someone asks you to make a cake, make one or don’t work in the cake industry at all.

When the state forces a baker to bake a cake, the state has just made that baker a slave.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

you have to remember that Leach was from a much different time from now so the things he believed aren’t necessarily true anymore.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

bake them two then. when you enter a secular business, you agree to serve everyone, including people of different sexual orientation.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

bake them two then. when you enter a secular business, you agree to serve everyone, including people of different sexual orientation.

No. You start a business to make a profit. You can refuse service to anyone due to their inability to pay for your service or their behavior. Ever seen signs…“No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. or “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

The government has no authority to force someone to do work he does not want to do. That is slavery.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

no but the church had no business in it, and since the church is like a government to you, the government had no business in it. a libertarian perspective is that government shouldn’t define marriage at all, so the libertarian way is actually traditional, and not the conservative way.

I have no idea what your are saying here.