Secular argument against gay marriage

[Monkey1976]

Er, no, it isn’t its very much on the point. I think perhaps you have misunderstood Muze’s argument here. You see he /she tried to argue the existence of a legal requirement for a couple to be able to have children in order to marry. The fact that some couples who are unable to have children are still legally allowed to marry shows quite clearly the inaccuracy of this position.

I would disagree with a requirement that a couple have children, precisely because it would discriminate against those couples who - through no fault of their own - are unable to bear children. However, that doesn’t mean that one can construct an argument for same-sex “marriage” based on the unfortunate circumstances of a few married couples.

Ummm, no. Children are a very likely result of a fertile couple having unprotected sex regularly for a long period of time, whether or not that couple are married has no bearing on this whatsoever.

But marriage is the subject under discussion. As I noted later, the financial benefits only attach to the married state - that is, when the state recognizes that a couple has entered into a long-term, exclusive relationship which will likely result in children.

And also because of the other benefits that marriage brings such as lower crime rate, higher social stability, greater economic output, greater ease for taxation etc.

This is another common tactic I see - treating a marriage license as magic. Leaving aside the ease of taxation for the moment, none of these things are directly related to marriage per se, but are the result of the protection of the children resulting from marriages by the state, the parents, and the community. The argument for “ease of taxation” is just silly - one could argue that it would be easiest for the government to simply set a flat rate for all citizens. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Indeed, partially because it is NOT just about children.

I never stated that marriage is “just” about children, but that the laws regarding it are primarily about children.

As has been previously (and extensively) discussed earlier in this thread. Marriage of infertile couples still gathers the government of the country all those additional benefits which do not relate to children. This explains why married childless couples still gain numerous legal and tax advantages while long term unmarried relationships with children do not.

And as I argued above, these secondary benefits still relate to children. As there is no 100% accurate method for determining a couple’s fertility short of determining that either of the persons are missing their genitals, the government errs on the side of liberty. In the case of same-sex marriages, it is patently obvious that there is a missing set of either male or female genitals.

As for the existing legal arrangements, they are unequally implemented. This results in legal rights of a homosexual couple with a civil union getting some of the appropriate rights, but not others in some places, and different or no rights at all in others.

In California, civil unions were given state benefits exactly identical to those given to married couples. Exactly what was lacking that required a case being taken to the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people as expressed in Proposition 8?

It is also important to remember that even if civil union and marriage were legal identical it is still true that drawing legal distinctions between groups by its very nature supports and encourages discrimination against minority groups. Ie it gives some people the excuse to say “of course going and beating up gay people is ok, even the law recognises they’re different from us “normal” folks”. Etc.

Do you really think that the government can change the way that some people view those who have same-sex attraction simply by calling same-sex couples “married”? If a person is predisposed to violence against those with SSA, then it doesn’t matter what the government says. As we’ve seen in the Netherlands, 90% of the population accepts same-sex attraction as normal, but there still exists violence against same-sex-attracted individuals, just as we still see racially-based violence here in America more than 50 years after the end of segregation. That being said, this isn’t about a quality like race or eye color. This is about a specific behavior. We have an innate understanding of what is good and what is not, and tend to react viscerally when something is particularly opposed to the good. Unfortunately, there are those who make the decision that two wrongs make a right and choose to do violence to people who deserve our (properly ordered and understood) love and support. If one wants to end violence against same-sex attracted individuals, then the first task is to recognize that it is a disorder which needs to be properly understood. Not demand acceptance by law.

 

[tonyrey]

How can it be possibly irrelevant when the children have close physical daily contact with homosexuals for years on end?

If you or an adoption agency place a child in the same household as a homosexual couple in full knowledge of the fact that they practise anal sex thereby exposing the child to the risk of infection with HIV or another disease you are morally responsible for the consequences of your action and can be taken to court for negligence.

Suppose one of those agencies sued you for defamation and you attempted to prove your claim. The court would not accept anything you’ve posted up to now because it merely indicates that children might hypothetically have been exposed (if the agencies had acted unprofessionally etc.).

To prove your case you would need to produce evidence that real children had a higher rate of real infections. If that were true it would be front-page news, a major scandal. But there is no scandal is there? Despite your theories, real children placed with homosexuals do not contract more infections.

In view of **the higher incidence of HIV and other contagious diseases among homosexuals who practise anal sex **it is essential to produce statistical evidence that children placed with them do not contract more infections than children with couples who do not practise anal sex. Viruses are transmitted not only by personal contact but also by surfaces and objects in the household particularly over a long period of time. Anyone who ignores this increased risk to health is guilty of inexcusable negligence. It is a basic principle of hygiene that risks to health should always be avoided - particularly when it is children who are needlessly exposed to the danger of a serious disease:

Worldwide, an estimated 5–10% of HIV infections are the result of men having sex with men.[24] However in many developed countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Western Europe, more HIV infections are transmitted by men having sex with men than by any other transmission route.[23] In the United States, “men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population”.[25]

HBV can also be transmitted** between family members within households**, possibly by contact of non-intact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing the virus…

MSM have an increased incidence and prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) including Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus and syphilis.[42]

Syphilis (caused by infection with Treponema pallidum) is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore; these occur mainly on the external genitals, or in the vagina, anus, or rectum.[44] Sores also can occur on the lips and in the mouth.[44] In 2006, 64% of the reported cases in the United States were among men who have sex with men.[44] This is consistent with a rise in the incidence of Syphilis among MSM in other developed nations.

• wikipedia

Unlike lesbians single-parent mothers do not set out to raise children without a father.

No response.

The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates the inadequacy of lesbian parents. It is a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics that underscores the important role that fathers play in adolescent sexual health and behavior.

There are far more boys raised by single-parent mothers than raised by lesbian couples, and as equal marriage won’t alter the number of lesbians raising boys this is all off-topic.

The number of lesbians raising boys is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is right to ignore the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys and the inadequacy of lesbians in that respect.

Silence implies assent or unjustified dissent.

Nope, it implies that we’ve danced around all those points many times on this thread and you can’t force me to get up and dance around them with you yet again.

Silence still implies assent or unjustified dissent.

To conclude this discussion the main reasons for opposing the adoption of children by gay men are:

1. Support for gay marriage is based on the assumption that there are no fundamental differences between persons.
2. If there are no fundamental differences between persons there is no reason why we should not be married to as many persons as we choose.
3. The basic reason given in support of gay marriage is the principle of equality.
4. Since homosexuals have all the rights of a married couple in a civil relationship they are not justified in claiming of discrimination when marriage is preserved as the fundamental basis of family life.

 

[inocente]

To conclude this discussion the main reasons for opposing the adoption of children by gay men are:

1. Support for gay marriage is based on the assumption that there are no fundamental differences between persons.
2. If there are no fundamental differences between persons there is no reason why we should not be married to as many persons as we choose.
3. The basic reason given in support of gay marriage is the principle of equality.
4. Since homosexuals have all the rights of a married couple in a civil relationship they are not justified in claiming of discrimination when marriage is preserved as the fundamental basis of family life.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Clarification:

Since homosexuals have all the rights of a married couple in a civil relationship they are not justified in claiming discrimination when marriage is preserved as the fundamental basis of family life.

They are the ones who are discriminating against the right of heterosexuals to uphold the unique status and value of traditional marriage as the fundamental unit of society in which the father and mother are the normal basis of family life.

 

[CandideWest]

I would disagree with a requirement that a couple have children, precisely because it would discriminate against those couples who - through no fault of their own - are unable to bear children. However, that doesn’t mean that one can construct an argument for same-sex “marriage” based on the unfortunate circumstances of a few married couples.

Nonetheless, that is what Muze was arguing already existed.

But marriage is the subject under discussion.

Indeed, but it was you who made comments about children “resulting” from marriage.

As I noted later, the financial benefits only attach to the married state - that is, when the state recognizes that a couple has entered into a long-term, exclusive relationship which will likely result in children.

Er, no. The state doesn’t pay any attention at all when people enter into long term exclusive relationships which will likely result in children. The state DOES recognise when a couple formalises their relationship legally by getting married.

This is another common tactic I see - treating a marriage license as magic. Leaving aside the ease of taxation for the moment, none of these things are directly related to marriage per se, but are the result of the protection of the children resulting from marriages by the state, the parents, and the community.

No, I’m afraid you have misunderstood. These things are directly related to marriage and at least as far as I have read thus far, not to children.

For example the lower crime rate comes from the added responsibility of caring for another person to whom you are legally bound.

The argument for “ease of taxation” is just silly - one could argue that it would be easiest for the government to simply set a flat rate for all citizens. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Yes, that would have nothing to do with marriage, married couples being easier to tax however is to do with marriage.

I never stated that marriage is “just” about children, but that the laws regarding it are primarily about children.

No, again, this amounts to an attempt to redefine marriage to be about children. SOME of the laws about marriage are about children.

And as I argued above, these secondary benefits still relate to children.

And as covered above they do not. This is why married couples without children do get these benefits while unmarried couples with children do NOT.

As there is no 100% accurate method for determining a couple’s fertility short of determining that either of the persons are missing their genitals, the government errs on the side of liberty. In the case of same-sex marriages, it is patently obvious that there is a missing set of either male or female genitals.

Again, there is no requirement in law for reproductive capability in a married couple. So the absence of a particular set of genitals hardly seems something the government need to concern itself with.

In California, civil unions were given state benefits exactly identical to those given to married couples. Exactly what was lacking that required a case being taken to the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people as expressed in Proposition 8?

The answer to that was in the text you replied to. The laws being unequal in different places (people do move around you know) and the encouragement of discrimination by drawing legal divisions between groups.

Do you really think that the government can change the way that some people view those who have same-sex attraction simply by calling same-sex couples “married”? If a person is predisposed to violence against those with SSA, then it doesn’t matter what the government says.

Seriously? You don’t think what is set in law influences public opinion on related topics?

If one wants to end violence against same-sex attracted individuals, then the first task is to recognize that it is a disorder which needs to be properly understood. Not demand acceptance by law.

No, continuing the pretence that homosexuality is some kind of “disorder” is an example of exactly the kind of discrimination that needs to be countered.

Think about it for a minute, do you really think that racial inequality will ever end if we as a society say “oh, being black is a “disorder”, but remember it isn’t their fault, so don’t discriminate against them because of it”. That’s exactly the kind of discrimination that white people for decades managed to convince themselves was moral.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Think about it for a minute, do you really think that racial inequality will ever end if we as a society say “oh, being black is a “disorder”, but remember it isn’t their fault, so don’t discriminate against them because of it”. That’s exactly the kind of discrimination that white people for decades managed to convince themselves was moral.

That is exactly why your claim is nonsensical.

Skin colour is not a behaviour and it cannot logically be a disorder because skin colour is not ordered towards any purpose, except perhaps as a protection against potentially harmful sunlight. That gender and sexual behaviour are clearly ordered towards an end or purpose demonstrates that it makes no logical sense to claim it is akin to skin colour and should, therefore, be treated in the same category as an irrelevant difference. Gender and sexual behaviour are important distinctions that validate different treatment. Skin colour does not.

 

[Portofino]

Clarification:

Since homosexuals have** all **the rights of a married couple in a civil relationship they are not justified in claiming discrimination when marriage is preserved as the fundamental basis of family life.

I am not finding this to be the case, in the United States. Whether you think same sex unions do not deserve or merit the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples is another matter, but it appears to be false that civil unions and marriages have absolutely equivalent rights and privileges in the United States, where the same sex marriage debate is playing itself out the most publicly.

lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

are the ones who are discriminating against the right of heterosexuals to uphold the unique status and value of traditional marriage as the fundamental unit of society in which the father and mother are the normal basis of family life.

Let’s put it this way – same sex couples are not looking to deprive opposite sex couples of any rights or benefits regarding marriage, nor are they saying, “if you want to get married, find a same sex partner, or none at all.” They want to live and let live, not tell you how to live.

 

[CandideWest]

That is exactly why your claim is nonsensical.

Skin colour is not a behaviour and it cannot logically be a disorder because skin colour is not ordered towards any purpose, except perhaps as a protection against potentially harmful sunlight. That gender and sexual behaviour are clearly ordered towards an end or purpose demonstrates that it makes no logical sense to claim it is akin to skin colour and should, therefore, be treated in the same category as an irrelevant difference. Gender and sexual behaviour are important distinctions that validate different treatment. Skin colour does not.

??? What you have written here is a complete non-sequitur.

The point is that IF we as a society tried to treat being black as a disorder then this would encourage discrimination.

By the same measure, IF we as a society tried to treat being homosexual as a disorder then this would encourage discrimination.

So the point that Monkey tried to make that getting rid of discrimination entails treating homosexuality as a disorder is clearly incorrect.

It’s also worth noting that it is inappropriate to treat homosexuality as a disorder without evidence that it is one. Evidence which to date does not exist and I suspect never will.

 

[Portofino]

That is exactly why your claim is nonsensical.

Skin colour is not a behaviour and it cannot logically be a disorder because skin colour is not ordered towards any purpose, except perhaps as a protection against potentially harmful sunlight. That gender and sexual behaviour are clearly ordered towards an end or purpose demonstrates that it makes no logical sense to claim it is akin to skin colour and should, therefore, be treated in the same category as an irrelevant difference. Gender and sexual behaviour are important distinctions that validate different treatment. Skin colour does not.

The difference I see between secular and religious thinking on the subject is that the latter believes that a perceived order in nature creates a moral responsibility. This thinking makes sense, within a religious context, because the hand of God is perceived as being behind nature.

A non-religious humanist does not perceive himself to be as “beholden” to nature, let’s say.

But even for the religious, there are certain potential double-standards there. For example, one could argue that lifelong celibacy constitutes the unnatural use of a human body. The human body is “intended” by nature to procreate.

Regarding skin color, one could say that it is against nature for someone with very fair skin – whose pigmentation does not protect against the sun, nor ever evolved with the “intention” of living in a hot climate – to live in a place like South Africa. That, indeed, it is against nature for someone to live in a hot climate, whose skin burns when they inhabit that climate. They even have an increased risk of skin cancer, and a lifetime of applying lotions, or staying indoors, or scrupulously walking or sitting under sun umbrellas, just seems to take such extraordinary measures to go against what nature ever “intended” for them.

 

[inocente]

That is exactly why your claim is nonsensical.

Skin colour is not a behaviour and it cannot logically be a disorder because skin colour is not ordered towards any purpose, except perhaps as a protection against potentially harmful sunlight. That gender and sexual behaviour are clearly ordered towards an end or purpose demonstrates that it makes no logical sense to claim it is akin to skin colour and should, therefore, be treated in the same category as an irrelevant difference. Gender and sexual behaviour are important distinctions that validate different treatment. Skin colour does not.

Pardon my intrusion but you’re using a lot of passive voice there. When you say “clearly ordered towards”, who is doing the ordering? What system are they using to do this ordering? Isn’t that system faulty if it only gives some things a purpose and not others like skin color? And to whom is it clear? (Certainly not me).

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding skin color, one could say that it is against nature for someone with very fair skin – whose pigmentation does not protect against the sun, nor ever evolved with the “intention” of living in a hot climate – to live in a place like South Africa. That, indeed, it is against nature for someone to live in a hot climate, whose skin burns when they inhabit that climate. They even have an increased risk of skin cancer, and a lifetime of applying lotions, or staying indoors, or scrupulously walking or sitting under sun umbrellas, just seems to take such extraordinary measures to go against what nature ever “intended” for them.

One could argue that this is a defect in the functioning of the skin. It is NOT doing what it was ordered to do but rather performing an anomalous function.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This point about discrimination is entirely devoid of validity. By using a negatively charged word ambiguously, proponents of same sex marriage are promoting a pretense and calling it an argument.

In actual fact, we discriminate all the time and it is a perfectly valid way of doing business. It is the foundation of logic: the law of non-contradiction. If two things are validly different, we have warrant to treat them differently. All learning is premised on seeing relevant differences. Sesame Street based a good chunk of its program on “one of these things is not like the others…”

The same sex marriage argument amounts to: Some people treat same sex orientated individuals badly, so let’s fudge logic and pretend their behaviour is the exactly the same as heterosexual behaviour even if we have to deny ultimately why two genders exist in the first place. Small price to pay, apparently.

Personally, I discriminate all the time. I sleep in a bed and not in a tree because I stubbornly refuse to call a tree a bed. I recognize valid and important differences. If I didn’t my daily life would become severely confused very quickly.

Now if tree huggers came along and promoted the idea that we should treat trees as if they were beds in order to save them from being cut down, that argument might be effective with some who do not understand the basic rules of logic and principles of philosophy, but it still wouldn’t be a valid proposition.

We have two sexes for a reason. They serve different purposes towards the continuation of the human species. That, in itself, is a valid reason for treating the two genders differently. Marriage is based upon that perfectly valid distinction.

To claim marriage should become something different to accommodate a few who have been treated poorly by others is not a valid reason to do so. It logically amounts to the same recourse as treating trees as if they were beds in order to spare them from abuse at the hands of lumberjacks. Let’s blind logic for the sake of misplaced pity. The logic is clearly faulty, and it could be argued that the pity is, as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Regarding skin color, one could say that it is against nature for someone with very fair skin – whose pigmentation does not protect against the sun, nor ever evolved with the “intention” of living in a hot climate – to live in a place like South Africa. That, indeed, it is against nature for someone to live in a hot climate, whose skin burns when they inhabit that climate. They even have an increased risk of skin cancer, and a lifetime of applying lotions, or staying indoors, or scrupulously walking or sitting under sun umbrellas, just seems to take such extraordinary measures to go against what nature ever “intended” for them.

So skin colour can provide a valid basis to discriminate against where one chooses to live. It might even have “moral” consequences. If one’s offspring will be greatly negatively affected by a decision to act contrary to nature and inflict upon them greatly increased risks of cancer, then it may become a moral issue.

You aren’t claiming that the laws of nature should simply be ignored when it comes to moral decision making, are you?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pardon my intrusion but you’re using a lot of passive voice there. When you say “clearly ordered towards”, who is doing the ordering? What system are they using to do this ordering? Isn’t that system faulty if it only gives some things a purpose and not others like skin color? And to whom is it clear? (Certainly not me).

You don’t think that reproduction requires two sexes or that the purpose of there being two sexes is to reproduce and create new life? This seems pretty “clear” to me. That it isn’t clear to you doesn’t argue against that clarity.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am not finding this to be the case, in the United States. Whether you think same sex unions do not deserve or merit the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples is another matter, but it appears to be false that civil unions and marriages have absolutely equivalent rights and privileges in the United States, where the same sex marriage debate is playing itself out the most publicly.

Quite true. While there are a few states that recognize such rights once that couple exits the state those rights don’t follow them. If it were recognized at a federal level instead of a state level the case would be different.

 

[Muze]

Yes. Now, do both of those people need to be fertile (able to have children) in order to reproduce?

Well, hold on a moment…

Would you agree that if all we knew about a couple was the sex of each person, that we could establish a standard, even if not perfect, of which would very likely procreate together?

 

[Ana_v]

One way to respond the the infertile couple objection is by clarifying that the argument against same-sex marriage was never made on the basis of fertility in-itself, but rather on the basis of the* type of union * necessary for fertility to be productive.

Also, we must bear in mind the following:

1. Long-term infertility, particularly among couples of child-bearing age, is not a tangible, directly detectable condition. It is measured in terms of a couple’s (not an individual’s) failure to conceive after a certain period of frequent sexual intercourse during which conception was attempted or not prevented. That is also why it is possible to make, and there is made, the distinction between primary infertility (the couple has never achieved pregnancy) and secondary infertility (the couple has achieved pregnancy at least once in the past).** The accepted definition of infertility applies only among those couples who have had sexual intercourse.** To the extent that we are referring tot he standard definition of infertility, the infertility objection made by same-sex marriage supporters is not even relevant to male-female couples – in which at least the female is of child-bearing age – who have not previously had sexual intercourse, and intend to marry.
2. It is important to understand that infertility in a couple does not therefore mean both persons, as individuals, are infertile. It means together they have been unsuccessful at conceiving.
3. Infertility indicates a reproductive disorder; therefore it would not be correct to describe a heterosexual couple in which one or bother persons are infertile, as being *fundamentally *unable to conceive, but only incidentally so. Fundamentals deal with principles, and in principle, a male and female, which they are, can conceive. Just as, in principle, humans beings have five senses, persons who have congenital analgesia, or are blind, or deaf, etc, notwithstanding.
4. Infertility in general is treatable, and on a case-by-case basis at least potentially so.
5. I emphasize again, the argument against same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the fertility of same-sex couple, but rather, the very nature of their union. The two men or two women in a same-sex couple could be the most fertile persons in the world, and still, they would be fundamentally incapable of conceiving, because theirs is not the type of union in which fertility operates within a sexual act towards a procreative outcome. In fact, theirs is the type of sexual union in which fertility is frustrated.

 

[Monkey1976]

Indeed, but it was you who made comments about children “resulting” from marriage.

The point of that statement was that children are a natural result of marriage, not that they only result from marriage.

Er, no. The state doesn’t pay any attention at all when people enter into long term exclusive relationships which will likely result in children. The state DOES recognise when a couple formalises their relationship legally by getting married.

This is also known as the state recognizing when a couple enters into a long-term exclusive relationship which will likely result in children.

No, I’m afraid you have misunderstood. These things are directly related to marriage and at least as far as I have read thus far, not to children.

So children derive no benefit from these things?

For example the lower crime rate comes from the added responsibility of caring for another person to whom you are legally bound.

The crime rate of Mount Athos in Macedonia is zero. The number of married couples? Also zero - its entire population consists of about 2000 Orthodox monks, and it encompasses an area of about 330 sq. km. By your logic, with zero married couples, the crime rate should be sky-high. Correlation does not equal causation.

Yes, that would have nothing to do with marriage, married couples being easier to tax however is to do with marriage.

And it would be even easier to simply present a single bill to the entire taxpaying population. Ease of taxation has nothing to do with marriage.

No, again, this amounts to an attempt to redefine marriage to be about children. SOME of the laws about marriage are about children.

As opposed to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples who are incapable of procreation under any circumstances? The point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the generation and rearing of future members of society.

And as covered above they do not. This is why married couples without children do get these benefits while unmarried couples with children do NOT.

Again - Mount Athos has zero crime. Correlation is not causation.

Again, there is no requirement in law for reproductive capability in a married couple. So the absence of a particular set of genitals hardly seems something the government need to concern itself with.

Reproductive capability is implicit in the couple being male and female.

The answer to that was in the text you replied to. The laws being unequal in different places (people do move around you know) and the encouragement of discrimination by drawing legal divisions between groups.

It’s not discrimination to discourage a particular behavior. Is is discriminatory that only those over 21 can legally drink alcohol?

Seriously? You don’t think what is set in law influences public opinion on related topics?

Influence? Yes, to a point. Set in stone? Impossible. Remind me again how desegregation and civil rights eliminated the KKK. Laws are meant to reflect the shared morality of a culture, not define it.

No, continuing the pretence that homosexuality is some kind of “disorder” is an example of exactly the kind of discrimination that needs to be countered.

Can you show me the research behind the removal of homosexuality from the DSM? Or the research showing that same-sex attraction can never, under any circumstances, be modified?

Two things I’m still waiting for:

1. A benefit that only same-sex couples can provide to society if and only if their unions are legally recognized as marriages which is impossible if either not legally recognized or recognized as “civil unions”.
2. A definition of “marriage” which both logically includes same-sex couples while logically excluding polygamous, polyandrous, and incestual couples.

 

[inocente]

You don’t think that reproduction requires two sexes or that the purpose of there being two sexes is to reproduce and create new life? This seems pretty “clear” to me. That it isn’t clear to you doesn’t argue against that clarity.

That wasn’t your argument, which was that “gender and sexual behaviour are clearly ordered towards an end or purpose”. Is the gender of a priest clearly ordered to the same end as the gender of a mother? No of course not. Is the purpose of every man and every woman to reproduce? No, not if you include the priest. Most of the rest of us would also say it’s far from our entire purpose, we do have other things to do.

Regarding skin color, one could say that it is against nature for someone with very fair skin – whose pigmentation does not protect against the sun, nor ever evolved with the “intention” of living in a hot climate – to live in a place like South Africa. That, indeed, it is against nature for someone to live in a hot climate, whose skin burns when they inhabit that climate. They even have an increased risk of skin cancer, and a lifetime of applying lotions, or staying indoors, or scrupulously walking or sitting under sun umbrellas, just seems to take such extraordinary measures to go against what nature ever “intended” for them.

Now come on, you just made that up. According to you every paleface living in southern USA, along with me in Spain, are living where nature didn’t intend. I guess that also means everyone dark skinned from India and Africa living in the UK and Germany are also “disordered” or whatever the expression is.

Dude, you seem to be extemporizing your entire argument on the hoof!

 

[JimG]

One way to respond the the infertile couple objection is by clarifying that the argument against same-sex marriage was never made on the basis of fertility in-itself, but rather on the basis of the* type of union* necessary for fertility to be productive.

Exactly so. Opposite sex couples are sexually complementary: they can engage in marital sex. Same sex couples never can. Case closed.