SSM debate: the sterility objection

[spencelo]

Not when to God homosexual sex is an abomination. God would not oppose himself.

Let’s be careful now. Define “homosexual sex” for me. Does oral sex between two men count? What about kissing?

 

[livingwordunity]

Let’s be careful now. Define “homosexual sex” for me. Does oral sex between two men count? What about kissing?

God doesn’t define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it’s an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

 

[catharina]

In this thread, I would like to focus on one argument in the SSM debate, which I’ll call the “sterility objection” (SO). I’m going to state the objection as clearly as I can, with the hope that someone will tell me where exactly it goes wrong.

SSM debate?
Catholic forum, Catholic teachings.
IOW, there is NO debate.

No SSM, no debate about it.

 

[sw85]

In this thread, I would like to focus on one argument in the SSM debate, which I’ll call the “sterility objection” (SO). I’m going to state the objection as clearly as I can, with the hope that someone will tell me where exactly it goes wrong.

The SO is a response to the argument that SSM shouldn’t be legal because same-sex couples can’t procreate; it argues that if we accept this argument, then we could run a parallel argument against many opposite-sex marriages, which would be absurd. Here’s my construction of the objection:

(1) If same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, and there are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples, then permanently sterile opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry for the exact same reason: because they can’t procreate.
(2) There are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples.
(3) Therefore, if same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, then permanently sterile opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry for the exact same reason: because they can’t procreate. (from 2, 1)

The only way to deny conclusion (3) is to deny one of the premises, because as a matter of logic, the above argument is valid. No one could rationally, in my view, deny (1) because it is simply a statement of the consistency principle: that we should apply reasons consistently, not arbitrarily.

Thus the main problem with SO–if there is a problem–is with premise (2). Opponents who deny the conclusion must deny (2), and affirm the following: that there are relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples. What are those relevant differences?

I deny (2), for the simple reason that there is in fact “relevant differences” even between homosexual couples and infertile heterosexual couples. The former are sterile by nature, the latter by accident. Natural law concerns the nature of things. So I suppose, for that matter, I deny the second part of (1), as I deny that an individual couple’s fertility is the only relevant consideration. QED.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” - Romans 1:24-27, the Holy Bible

 

[catharina]

God doesn’t define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it’s an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[spencelo]

God doesn’t define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it’s an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

Well, this is impossible: for a man to “lay with another man as he would with a woman,” he would have to be able to have vaginal intercourse with his male partner. Two men having anal sex isn’t a man and a woman having vaginal intercourse.

Btw, the passage you reference doesn’t say anything about sexual activity between lesbians.

 

[spencelo]

I deny (2), for the simple reason that there is in fact “relevant differences” even between homosexual couples and infertile heterosexual couples. The former are sterile by nature, the latter by accident.

What do you mean “by accident?” Opposite-sex couples can achieve sterility on purpose – in fact, many do.

 

[sw85]

So which premise in my argument do you deny? How can the sexual union between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples be “ordered” towards procreation?

The reproductive faculty doesn’t cease to be the reproductive faculty just because it is impaired from doing so in a particular case, any more than a blind eye is still an eye (and so still normatively ordered toward sight). Which means the natural law obligation to use the reproductive faculty in accordance with its normative end doesn’t change.

If so, you should know that many opposite-sex couples cannot engage in penis-vagina sex – i.e., people permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Should those people be allowed to marry, even though they cannot engage in acts that are “ordered to procreation?”

In Catholic moral theology, the requirement is that the couple be able to complete the sexual act in the normative manner. This means intravaginal ejaculation. A woman being paralyzed from the waist down doesn’t prevent this, so marriage to her is valid. A man being paralyzed from the waist down does, so a woman’s marriage to him is not.

This is false. If Bob has a vasectomy, and Jane has her tubes tied, there is no possibility of procreation. For some opposite-sex couples, the possibility of procreation is ZERO.

You are clearly not familiar with natural law. I urge you to read Edward Feser’s Aquinas. This is neither a new nor interesting objection to natural law, it simply misapprehends it.

 

[Corki]

I meant biting the bullet, but please answer my question. Would you object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying? Yes or no?

I think I would be neutral on such legislation but couldn’t really answer without reviewing the proposed bill.

Explain why penis-vagina sex is “ordered toward procreation” even when procreation could never result. To me, it seems you’re just picking a specific sex act and then arbitrarily describing it as “ordered toward procreation.”

Yes, I am picking a specific sex act but not arbitrarily. It is the only sex act that, by it’s nature, makes it possible for a man and woman to procreate. That’s not due to my picking it, it’s just biology. You are confusing an act being procreative with it being fecund or fertile. A non-procreative act can never be fertile but a procreative act can be non-fertile.

 

[catharina]

This is false. If Bob has a vasectomy, and Jane has her tubes tied, there is no possibility of procreation. For some opposite-sex couples, the possibility of procreation is ZERO.

That is ridiculous or terribly naive - or both.

Vasectomies FAIL at times, and can be reversed.
Tubal ligations can (and at times do) fail also.

 

[sw85]

What do you mean “by accident?” Opposite-sex couples can achieve sterility on purpose – in fact, many do.

“By accident” does not “not on purpose.” It means “nonnormative.” Male-female sexual relations are normatively procreative. When they aren’t it’s because they are divergences from the norm (hence why we call them fertility disorders). All other forms of sexual intercourse are by nature nonprocreative. They are normatively infertile.

 

[spencelo]

I think I would be neutral on such legislation but couldn’t really answer without reviewing the proposed bill.

“Marriage is valid only if a man and a woman can engage in vaginal intercourse.” Are you against it?

Yes, I am picking a specific sex act but not arbitrarily. It is the only sex act that, by it’s nature, makes it possible for a man and woman to procreate.

Except in many cases of penis-vagina sex, it is NOT possible for a man and woman to procreate. So if “possibility of procreation” is the criterion for a sex act to be designed as “ordered toward procreation,” then where procreation is impossible, penis-vagina sex isn’t “ordered toward procreation.” And therefore we’re back to my Sterility Objection.

 

[spencelo]

The reproductive faculty doesn’t cease to be the reproductive faculty just because it is impaired from doing so in a particular case, any more than a blind eye is still an eye (and so still normatively ordered toward sight). Which means the natural law obligation to use the reproductive faculty in accordance with its normative end doesn’t change.

This doesn’t explain why penis-vagina sex, in cases where there is no possibility of procreation, can be described as “ordered toward procreation.” What is the criteria for a sex act to be “ordered toward procreation?”

In Catholic moral theology, the requirement is that the couple be able to complete the sexual act in the normative manner. This means intravaginal ejaculation. A woman being paralyzed from the waist down doesn’t prevent this, so marriage to her is valid. A man being paralyzed from the waist down does, so a woman’s marriage to him is not.

So would you be against legislation prohibiting opposite-sex couples from getting married when they can’t engage in intravaginal ejaculation?

 

[spencelo]

“By accident” does not “not on purpose.” It means “nonnormative.” Male-female sexual relations are normatively procreative. When they aren’t it’s because they are divergences from the norm (hence why we call them fertility disorders). All other forms of sexual intercourse are by nature nonprocreative. They are normatively infertile.

But this is what I’m not understanding: how can penis-vagina sex be “normatively procreative” when it cannot result in procreation? When penis-vagina sex cannot result in procreation, why is it not accurate to describe it as “normatively inferitle?”

 

[catharina]

“Marriage is valid only if a man and a woman can engage in vaginal intercourse.” Are you against it?

Except in many cases of penis-vagina sex, it is NOT possible for a man and woman to procreate. So if “possibility of procreation” is the criterion for a sex act to be designed as “ordered toward procreation,” then where procreation is impossible, penis-vagina sex isn’t “ordered toward procreation.” And therefore we’re back to my Sterility Objection.

YOU are back to YOUR sterility option.
If a couple (male/female) has a proper (blessed) sexual
union that is ordered toward procreation, then that is the
entire story. If pregnancy does NOT occur, all remain, as ever,
dependent on the will of God, the Aurhor of Life.

 

[spencelo]

That is ridiculous or terribly naive - or both.

Vasectomies FAIL at times, and can be reversed.
Tubal ligations can (and at times do) fail also.

My claim stands: For ***some ***opposite-sex couples, the possibility of procreation is ZERO.

 

[Corki]

Except in many cases of penis-vagina sex, it is NOT possible for a man and woman to procreate. So if “possibility of procreation” is the criterion for a sex act to be designed as “ordered toward procreation,” then where procreation is impossible, penis-vagina sex isn’t “ordered toward procreation.” And therefore we’re back to my Sterility Objection.

Ordered toward procreation does not mean that procreation if possible or probably. It is about how everything is done, not the result.

Ordered to procreation has nothing to do with sterilty and it negates your “sterility objection”.

 

[catharina]

Ordered toward procreation does not mean that procreation if possible or probably. It is about how everything is done, not the result.

Ordered to procreation has nothing to do with sterilty and it negates your “sterility objection”.

Precisely. Thanks, corki.

 

[spencelo]

Ordered toward procreation does not mean that procreation if possible or probably.

That’s what it sounded like when you wrote: “It is the only sex act that, by it’s nature, makes it possible for a man and woman to procreate.”

It is about how everything is done, not the result.

Back to my question: what is it about penis-vagina sex, in cases where procreation could never result, that justifies the description “ordered towards procreation?” What is it for a sex act to be “ordered towards procreation?” Is it because penis-vagina sex can possibly result in procreation? No, that can’t be right. So if not, then what?

Ordered to procreation has nothing to do with sterilty and it negates your “sterility objection”.

You have yet to show why your “ordered towards procreation” description isn’t arbitrary. All you’re doing is picking a specific sex act (penis-vagina sex) and describing it as “ordered towards procreation” even when that act has no actual connection to procreation.