Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[inocente]

When a country is going down the tubes, the idea is to give the people more distractions as in “panem et circences”. I am not so sure that the majority of the population was supportive or it was passed in a Bolshevik coup the way it has been in almost any other place.

So you weren’t sure but you thought you’d deride entire nations anyway.

In Spain, it was a policy of the elected government, and passed by majority vote in Congress, after which two thirds of the population approved. There has been a change of government since, and the law has been kept. Several polls show the Spanish as widely accepting homosexuality (88% in this global poll from 2013).

Now think very carefully if you want to respond, because I will report you for baiting if you make any more unfounded derisory remarks about my country or its people. This is a philosophy forum, not a dive bar.

 

[Bradski]

Real marriage has, as one of its ends, the creation of new life, both in the calling of the couple beyond themselves to become something more than they currently are (complementarity, not sameness, does that) and by bringing into existence new human beings who will challenge all involved to go beyond themselves even more.

Well that, Peter, ain’t necessarily so. And saying it is ain’t much of an argument. It’s a statement about your beliefs. Which, I would add, I entirely respect. But if that is your argument, and apart from some nonsense we’ve heard about the pros and cons of certain sexual acts, then you have no case.

A fact which I am absolutely sure you realise that most people understand. Hence the continuous threads about the subject on this forum. It’s nought but a rearguard action. And the more you realise you are losing, the harder you fight. And the more strident the arguments. And therefore the more ground you lose.

I think Inocente mentioned it earlier, and I have long had a suspicion, that people like Z are actually a kind of fifth columist, working on behalf of SSM, but playing the part of a beleaguered Christian, spouting abject nonsense and cranking the rhetoric up past the point where reasonable people feel they want to be part of the same team. Hence the gradual movement of people away from those associated with those views and into the opposite camp.

All power to her elbow I say.

 

[Bradski]

The same mind set that ostracised and persecuted gays for being different IS the disturbed psychology that now persecutes and ostracises individuals who simply and legitimately disagree that a gay lifestyle is all that it is trumped up to be.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread. Cake baking has no relevance to the question about allowing SSM. It’s a matter of civil rights that is being discussed elsewhere. Feel free to discuss it elsewhere.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well that, Peter, ain’t necessarily so. And saying it is ain’t much of an argument. It’s a statement about your beliefs. Which, I would add, I entirely respect. But if that is your argument, and apart from some nonsense we’ve heard about the pros and cons of certain sexual acts, then you have no case.

A fact which I am absolutely sure you realise that most people understand. Hence the continuous threads about the subject on this forum. It’s nought but a rearguard action. And the more you realise you are losing, the harder you fight. And the more strident the arguments. And therefore the more ground you lose.

I think Inocente mentioned it earlier, and I have long had a suspicion, that people like Z are actually a kind of fifth columist, working on behalf of SSM, but playing the part of a beleaguered Christian, spouting abject nonsense and cranking the rhetoric up past the point where reasonable people feel they want to be part of the same team. Hence the gradual movement of people away from those associated with those views and into the opposite camp.

All power to her elbow I say.

And what the above amounts to is a realization that human beings are essentially self-invested and - more often than not - are motivated by self-interest. Which means it is far easier to convince the “mass” of humanity to take the easy and wide path than it is to stand for what is right and true.

Kudos to you on making the easy choice, the route that the “movement of people” - the sheeple - seem to have no difficulties following. Then, of course, you don’t need my congratulations since your celebratory tone with regards to corralling the herd speaks for itself.

Funny, though, I have always considered “get on the bandwagon” a poor argument where the truth of things is in question.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

So you weren’t sure but you thought you’d deride entire nations anyway. In Spain, it was a policy of the elected government, and passed by majority vote in Congress, after which two thirds of the population approved. There has been a change of government since, and the law has been kept. Several polls show the Spanish as widely accepting homosexuality (88% in this global poll from 2013).

Now think very carefully if you want to respond, because I will report you for baiting if you make any more unfounded derisory remarks about my country or its people. This is a philosophy forum, not a dive bar.

What I am saying when there are more pressing issues like poverty and extreme unemployment, the focus should be on those rather than an marginal group that will change the whole fabric of society by their demands. This means officially mother and father will be changed to parent 1 and parent 2. This is Bolshevism anywhere it is happening.
In the Wikipedia article from 2005 on the average of 3500 same sex weddings were performed in Spain out of the total pool of around 175,000 each year. Hopefully the rights of those with traditional values will not be trampled on as they are in Canada where this small vociferous minority has everyone by the throat.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Here’s your chance then. Would you like to list all the unhealthy sexual practices that would preclude anyone from getting married?
And worried about the Bolsheviks in Spain? I think the answer to the question ‘can we have a fairer society’ was ‘Si, podemos’ long before Podemos even existed. And nearly 90% Catholic, too. Look, the writing is on the wall!

Your provocations do not deserve an answer. As for “yes we can”, sure we can destroy any decent convention of society and not put anything of value in its place.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Inocente mentioned it earlier, and I have long had a suspicion, that people like Z are actually a kind of fifth columist, working on behalf of SSM, but playing the part of a beleaguered Christian, spouting abject nonsense and cranking the rhetoric up past the point where reasonable people feel they want to be part of the same team. Hence the gradual movement of people away from those associated with those views and into the opposite camp.

All power to her elbow I say.

And I have long held the suspicion - conviction, really - that propagandists for a cause like to use the presumption of victory to undermine the morale of their opposition.

The problem with such a propaganda move, however, is that you get large numbers to come over to your side and, thus, inflate your numbers with individuals who could just as easily shift sides when what is in vogue and fashionable changes. An army of mercenaries has a fickle and volatile quality to it.

I’d rather stand with a few who are convinced and loyal than to the crowd who will cower and run for safety when the bloodletting starts. You can always tell which side God is on - the side which requires moral courage and unrelenting faithfulness. That is why faith, hope and love are supernatural virtues. And why God was largely abandoned when he was crucified.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Being in love with somebody is the basis for any marriage. Unless you are marrying for money or it’s an arranged marriage, then what other basis would you have? I can’t conceive of wanting to marry someone without actually loving them. Does it sound at all credible suggesting to a married couple that they must love each other very much to be told: ‘Oh, no – we’re not in love. It’s just that we found we have similar interests and thought it was a great idea to have a permanent relationship’.

A marriage made in heaven, no doubt.

“Love is temporary insanity curable by marriage.” Ambrose Bierce

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Perhaps people are animals in the sense that we share many common traits. However, people have capabilities which go beyond those of animals, which means we are not ONLY animals. I have to side with Aristotle’s notion that we are rational animals. We can be motivated by reasons, ends and goods, not purely animal appetites

This has to be the most simplistic and errant thing you have ever written. You forget that humans are attracted to many things not merely on the basis of physical appetite or need, but also on the basis of sensible qualities (beauty) and the intelligibility of the object (truth.)
So, there are things (which appeal to purely physical appetite) which cannot become unattractive to physical appetite merely by “changing one’s mind.” There are also sensible and intellectual things, humans are attracted to or not, based upon their qualities of beauty (or lack, thereof) and truth (or falsity) which we can come to realize are not what we supposed them to be and we CAN change our minds about them - even things which we may have, at one time, found physically attractive.

I do, by the way, know that it is entirely possible to “change one’s mind” about what a person finds attractive. Aligning oneself to the truth has a way of revealing the true nature of things and revealing things (or illusions) for what they are, even those which appear attractive on the basis of physical appetite alone. A wise man in once said, “Do not judge by appearances.”

Now merely because you may have difficulty getting beyond pure animal desire does not mean everyone suffers from that same incapacity. You are more than your glands.

The part of the explanation you seem to have left out of “marrying for love” is the accounting for why one person “loves” another in the first place. That “love” does not simply exist a se, it exists because there are reasons and motives (grounded on reasons) for loving the person that come into play. It is those reasons that form the basis for “love.” Therefore, people do not marry BECAUSE they “love” the other person, but because they are moved (emotivated) to do so - ultimately - by the reasons they have to do so.

Your accounting that people “must love each other” is simply shorthand for saying people have an overall “warrant” to commit themselves to the other person which they refer to as the “love” they have for the other person.

It would seem bizarre, actually, to claim that love purely grounded on emotion (sans any rational basis) is sufficient for entering into marriage. It denies the rationality of human beings and makes marriage the most irrational thing any two people could possibly do - commit to each other purely on the basis of some unknown and uncontrollable emotional “attraction.” Marriage, viewed in this way, is not a responsible choice, but an inevitable fate one falls into or capitulates to.

I might allow that I could safely show a preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry based upon pure emotion devoid of thought or sound reason, but to risk the future happiness of other people (whose well-being I ostensibly care about) purely for some unknown, blind, emotional draw seems - pardon my candor - idiotic, at best.

Personally, I married (over 31 years ago) because I cared deeply about the well-being and future happiness of this woman I came to know and understand, and subsequently made a thoughtful and responsible commitment to that end. Another consideration which came into the decision was the understanding that our marriage wasn’t just about us, but also about the people connected to us whose happiness was also at stake - including our children who, at the time, were unknown participants in that decision. It is this “bigger” view of marriage as a responsible commitment which seems to be unaccounted for in your “being in love is sufficient” POV.

Love isn’t primarily about “attraction.” In Catholic parlance, love is a virtue - one that has the power (grounded in truth) to make both you and the beloved all that you can possibly be. That is why God is Love and, at the same time, Pure Act, the fullness of Being. Love is essentially teleological in that it aims for an end beyond itself, which is why love cannot be purely an attraction, since attractions (in particular physical ones) are concrete and tethered to maintaining the current state of things.

This, by the way, is why SSM is a faux “marriage” since the end of a same sex relationship is, at best, to sustain itself. Real marriage has, as one of its ends, the creation of new life, both in the calling of the couple beyond themselves to become something more than they currently are (complementarity, not sameness, does that) and by bringing into existence new human beings who will challenge all involved to go beyond themselves even more.

:thumbsup:Excellent post.

 

[kozlosap]

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

LOL! Yes indeed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How does gay marriage promote irresponsible sexual behavior? Is there a cause and effect?

I don’t think you would say that the denial of gay marriage would prevent or reduce irresponsible sexual behavior. If the goal is to reduce such behavior the best way is with targeted educational risk reduction programs.

It is an indisputable fact that gay sexual behavior spreads disease. Based on that fact alone, people who engage in such activity are acting irresponsibly.

Recognizing a same sex relationship as a marriage is nothing more than promoting dangerous and irresponsible sexual behavior.

Targeted educational risk reduction programs exist. The CDC publishes hundreds of warnings directed towards the gay community annually. They just don’t seem to pay attention.

To really reduce such behavior the best way would be for the gay community to act more responsible and maybe suggest to its members that the guys look for girlfriends and the girls look for boyfriends.

 

[Bradski]

Kudos to you on making the easy choice, the route that the “movement of people” - the sheeple - seem to have no difficulties following. Then, of course, you don’t need my congratulations since your celebratory tone with regards to corralling the herd speaks for itself.

That post has a whiff of desperation about it: ‘I’m in the minority, you disagree with me, therefore you are a sheep’. I’ve no problem with you thinking I’m wrong and I have no problem with people thinking that arguments with which they disagree are idiotic. But using derogatory terms such as ‘sheeple’ makes it sound like you think you’ve lost already. How do you think the discussion would go if someone says that some arguments for allowing SSM seem to be valid and you respond: ‘Well, if you want to be a sheep and simply take the easy road, go ahead’.

And maybe it should be ‘corralling the flock’ if you want to call people sheep.

What I am saying when there are more pressing issues like poverty and extreme unemployment, the focus should be on those rather than an marginal group that will change the whole fabric of society by their demands.

You said nothing about more pressing issues. So may I suggest you state your arguments as you go rather than revise them when taken to task? It makes it much easier to understand the point you are trying to make. So, as per above, your stance now is that gay people should not be allowed to get married because…people are poor and unemployed and we can’t deal with more than one matter at a time. Can’t see you convincing many people with that, I must say.

And I have long held the suspicion - conviction, really - that propagandists for a cause like to use the presumption of victory to undermine the morale of their opposition.

The problem with such a propaganda move, however, is that you get large numbers to come over to your side and, thus, inflate your numbers with individuals who could just as easily shift sides when what is in vogue and fashionable changes. An army of mercenaries has a fickle and volatile quality to it.

It’s not a presumption, Peter. You and I both know which way this is going. And the undeniable fact of the matter is that young people are overwhelmingly deciding that you are wrong. So the situation isn’t going to get much better from your viewpoint. In fact, it’s not going to get any better at all. And do you honestly believe that this is just some fad? That it just happens to be the way the wind is blowing at the moment and people will decide on a whim that they no longer support SSM? Boy, have you ever got it wrong. This is for keeps, Peter.

It is an indisputable fact that gay sexual behavior spreads disease. Based on that fact alone, people who engage in such activity are acting irresponsibly.

Recognizing a same sex relationship as a marriage is nothing more than promoting dangerous and irresponsible sexual behavior.

And again with the sex. What is it with you guys? If the type of sex that people have is any sort of determinant as to whether they should be allowed to get married, then maybe there should be a form to be filled when you get your blood test. It’ll ask about your sexual preferences and you will not be allowed a license if you…well, you guys can make the decision as to what is acceptable or not. Or maybe during the service you can make a commitment:

‘I, Zoltan Cobalt, take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife, with whom I promise not to have the following types of sexual intercourse: ‘

Maybe you can now give me a list of what would exclude you, and everyone else, from getting married. Otherwise you have no argument.

To really reduce such behavior the best way would be for the gay community to act more responsible and maybe suggest to its members that the guys look for girlfriends and the girls look for boyfriends.

Dear me. You really have no understanding of any of this at all, do you…it appears to be beyond your comprehension.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
It is an indisputable fact that gay sexual behavior spreads disease. Based on that fact alone, people who engage in such activity are acting irresponsibly.

Not “sex” Bradski, old sport…Disease

‘I, Zoltan Cobalt, take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife, with whom I promise not to have the following types of sexual intercourse: ‘

Maybe you can now give me a list of what would exclude you, and everyone else, from getting married. Otherwise you have no argument.

Actually it was 50 years ago that Zoltan said: “I take this WOMAN to be my lawful wedded WIFE to have an to hold from this day forward, through sickness and health, richer and poorer till death do us part.”

That promise produced three wonderful children. Our oldest gave his life in defense of our Country. You would know our second son…suffice to say he is a double Grammy winner. Our daughter teaches theology at a Catholic University.

Of course I am very proud of my children…other marriages have children that provide equal or greater pride for their parents. It saddens me to think of those who want to call their unnatural relationship a “marriage” and not share the joys (and sometimes…pain) of parenthood.

But I digress…

To answer your question…**there is only one type of sexual intercourse **and that does not need to be elaborated here. If you need more details, I would suggest you have a long talk with your parents. Not to be too very blunt but …anything else is deviant. In that it deviates from the normal.

Dear me. You really have no understanding of any of this at all, do you…it appears to be beyond your comprehension.

That type of flippant comment proves that you have no intelligent point to debate. It is the equivliant of a grammar school: “Naaa, naaa, naaa”.

So if you think I am wrong…prove it.

 

[Bradski]

Not “sex” Bradski, old sport…Disease

Ah, so you can’t get married if you have a disease. Or maybe a disease that is transmittable. Or is it just a sexually transmitted disease? Presumably you would be quite happy if any two people were to get married if they had no medical problems. You can’t spread anything if you don’t have it in the first place. Or is it that you only want people to have one type of sexual intercourse? Because you seem to think that maybe that ‘special’ type of sexual intercourse doesn’t spread disease (you’d be wrong) and that all other types necessarily do (you’d be wrong again).

But surely you have no problem with people having sex any way they want? I mean, what’s it got to do with you? It’s hardly deviant, is it…

To answer your question…**there is only one type of sexual intercourse **and that does not need to be elaborated here. If you need more details, I would suggest you have a long talk with your parents. Not to be too very blunt but …anything else is deviant. In that it deviates from the normal.

Ah, so you do think it’s deviant. So if you have deviant sex you can’t get married. Well, at least we’re tying this down a little more. So how does one go about finding out what kind of sex someone is going to have before you agree to them getting married? Show them pictures? This is OK, but all those over there are not.

That type of flippant comment proves that you have no intelligent point to debate.

Mmmm. Like suggesting that gay organisations recommend that all the gay boys get a girl and vica versa. Do you really think that’s an intelligent suggestion? Old sport…?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Ah, so you can’t get married if you have a disease. Or maybe a disease that is transmittable. Or is it just a sexually transmitted disease?

I can’t speak for you…but I would not marry someone with a transmittable disease.

Presumably you would be quite happy if any two people were to get married if they had no medical problems.

I am sure the two people who married without any medical problems would be very happy.

You can’t spread anything if you don’t have it in the first place.

Your grasp of the obvious is remarkable.

Or is it that you only want people to have one type of sexual intercourse? Because you seem to think that maybe that ‘special’ type of sexual intercourse doesn’t spread disease (you’d be wrong) and that all other types necessarily do (you’d be wrong again).

There is only one “type” of sexual intercourse. Unless you want to include a distorted definition of sexual intercourse.

But surely you have no problem with people having sex any way they want? I mean, what’s it got to do with you? It’s hardly deviant, is it…

It is deviant, in that it deviates from the normal…and I do have serious problems with it.

1. When it is promoted to children as a normal, natural, wholesome and healthy form of sexual activity…I have a BIG problem.
2. When any form of deviant behavior spreads disease that threatens all of society…I have another BIG problem.

Ah, so you do think it’s deviant. So if you have deviant sex you can’t get married…

I don’t have deviant sex. (offensive to suggest that)

Well, at least we’re tying this down a little more. So how does one go about finding out what kind of sex someone is going to have before you agree to them getting married? Show them pictures? This is OK, but all those over there are not.

I am assuming that you are much younger than me. Therefore you would know that people today have spent a lot of time being intimate before considering marriage. I would think that after a year or two of shacking-up, a couple would have a pretty good idea of what “floats each other’s boat”.

In the case of a same sex relationship, I would be pretty sure they would be very aware of the kind of sexual abuse they intend to continue with.

Mmmm. Like suggesting that gay organisations recommend that all the gay boys get a girl and vica versa. Do you really think that’s an intelligent suggestion? Old sport…?

Why not? It is the normal and natural way things are supposed to be. Right?

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course I am very proud of my children…other marriages have children that provide equal or greater pride for their parents. It saddens me to think of those who want to call their unnatural relationship a “marriage” and not share the joys (and sometimes…pain) of parenthood.

Don’t you realize that many same-sex couples also have children that they are proud of, too. But as Justice Kennedy pointed out in his opinion striking down DOMA in United States vs. Windsor:

By creating two contradictory
marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA
forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose
of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal
law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of
basic personal relations the State has found it proper to
acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines
both the public and private significance of state sanctioned
same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples,
and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages
are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex
couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier
marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose
moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see
Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State
has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands
of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law
in question makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community
and in their daily lives.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

 

[Bradski]

I can’t speak for you…but I would not marry someone with a transmittable disease.

Another classic example of answering questions that haven’t been asked. I’m not interested in who you would marry. But you seem very concerned about not allowing people to marry if there is a risk of disease. And that has been specifically noted as a sexually transmitted disease passed on by deviant means. So the question, again, is how do you tell if someone is going to indulge in what you quaintly describe as ‘deviant sex’?

I am sure the two people who married without any medical problems would be very happy.

Same problem as above. That’s not what I asked. I asked if YOU would be happy if two people could marry if they had no medical problems. You seem to be concerned that people will pass on any disease they have if married (by Deviant Sex!), so if they had no disease, we can presumably discount that objection.

As you said, it’s pretty obvious there’s no problem in transmitting something that doesn’t exist.

There is only one “type” of sexual intercourse. Unless you want to include a distorted definition of sexual intercourse.

And again, is that the only type you should be allowed when getting married? If not, then your argument that gays have ‘different types’ of sex and should therefore not be married, is invalid.

I am assuming that you are much younger than me. Therefore you would know that people today have spent a lot of time being intimate before considering marriage. I would think that after a year or two of shacking-up, a couple would have a pretty good idea of what “floats each other’s boat”. In the case of a same sex relationship, I would be pretty sure they would be very aware of the kind of sexual abuse they intend to continue with.

Yet again! I really don’t believe this. You are either not reading what I write or are choosing to ignore the questions because they are in the too-hard basket. I did not ask how people who are getting married find out what sort of sex they are likely to have together. You have constantly complained about deviant sex and how it spreads disease and have used this as an argument for not allowing gay people to get married.

Notwithstanding that it’s a facile argument, it holds no merit whatsoever if you would then allow straight people to marry if they indulge in the same behaviour – deviant, disease-spreading sex.

So, one more time: You say that people having deviant sex should not be allowed to marry. And the question, again: How do you tell who is going to have ‘deviant sex’? You seem to assume that gay people will have it but how do you tell if straight people are going to do the same?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You neglected to comment on…

Originally Posted by Bradski
But surely you have no problem with people having sex any way they want? I mean, what’s it got to do with you? It’s hardly deviant, is it…

It is deviant, in that it deviates from the normal…and I do have serious problems with it.

1. When it is promoted to children as a normal, natural, wholesome and healthy form of sexual activity…I have a BIG problem.
2. When any form of deviant behavior spreads disease that threatens all of society…I have another BIG problem.

Does this mean you are in agreement with me here?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Don’t you realize that many same-sex couples also have children that they are proud of, too. But as Justice Kennedy pointed out in his opinion striking down DOMA in United States vs. Windsor:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Justice Kennedy stated: “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

I wonder where he got that figure…seems very high to me. I wonder exactly how many children are being raised by same sex couples.

 

[Bradski]

You neglected to comment on…

It is deviant, in that it deviates from the normal…and I do have serious problems with it.

1. When it is promoted to children as a normal, natural, wholesome and healthy form of sexual activity…I have a BIG problem.
2. When any form of deviant behavior spreads disease that threatens all of society…I have another BIG problem.

Gee, you’ve got more front than Maceys. You either answer questions I’m not asking or refuse to answer the ones I do ask. And then I omit to comment on one irrelevant part of your post and you take umbrage.

What? Did he say irrelevant? Well, yes he did. As this thread is about SSM and sex education for children is a different matter entirely. What I do in my bedroom and what gay people do in their bedroom is completely our own business and there is zero connection with how children are introduced to sexual matters. If you want to talk about it, then start a thread and I’ll join in.

Likewise any comments you have regarding sexual diseases are irrelevant to a discussion about marriage. Not least because you are not willing or able to consider the matter when it comes to straight couples. Unless you want to make it relevant and answer the questions I’m asking. I’m not holding my breath because I know your argument holds no water and your reticence in answering shows that you realise it to.