Yes, objectibely some people are blind. The point is there is an objective norm. There can be subjective cases that deviate from that norm but that does not invalidate the norm.You are using the terms “objective” and “subjective” in a very odd way. What do you mean by “objective” and “subjective?” Why is it not accurate to say that it’s an objective fact that some humans are blind?
It is simply an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples cannot procreate – no less objective than the fact that many opposite-sex couples can procreate. Both facts are equally objective.Yes, objectibely some people are blind. The point is there is an objective norm. There can be subjective cases that deviate from that norm but that does not invalidate the norm.
This is a philosophical issue, not simply a medical issue. I am using those terms to point out that an objective norm exists and is easily verified through common experience.
Spence,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 oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.Infertility is a widespread problem that has an emotional, psychological, social and economic impact on couples and society (Ricci, 2009). Infertility is a medical diagnosis of the reproductive system, and is defined as the inability to achieve pregnancy after one year of frequent, unprotected intercourse (Orshan, 2008). Primary infertility applies
to a man or woman who
Spence,In other words, you object to premise (2) on the following grounds: permanently sterile couples, unlike same-sex couples, are capable of engaging in penis-vagina sex. Is this right?
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?”
Those facts are “objective” in that they can be known and verified. That is not the point.It is simply an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples cannot procreate – no less objective than the fact that many opposite-sex couples can procreate. Both facts are equally objective.
Oh boy. Likelihood on conception does not equal ordered to procreation. The “objective” norm for humanity is that male and female can make a baby. That happens through the marital embrace. That act is ordered toward procreation regardless of when or if conception takes place.So again: in cases where, objectively, opposite-sex couples cannot procreate, what makes it true that *their *sex acts are “ordered towards procreation?”
True,Then birth control medication is fine, right?
Yes, and that objective moral norm is known by anyone who can perceive reality correctly.Just a comment on that phrase. Without looking it up, I believe that “ordered to procreation” means capable of engaging in the conjugal act. All marital conjugal acts are ordered to procreation, though only a few of them result in conception.
Yes, it’s just a matter of recognizing how humans are designed!Yes, and that objective moral norm is known by anyone who can perceive reality correctly.
Spence,It is simply an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples cannot procreate – no less objective than the fact that many opposite-sex couples can procreate. Both facts are equally objective.
So again: in cases where, objectively, opposite-sex couples cannot procreate, what makes it true that *their *sex acts are “ordered towards procreation?”
In other words, an act is “ordered towards procreation” simply because it is penis-vagina sex? Correct?Oh boy. Likelihood on conception does not equal ordered to procreation. The “objective” norm for humanity is that male and female can make a baby. That happens through the marital embrace. That act is ordered toward procreation regardless of when or if conception takes place.
So an act is “ordered to procreation” simply when it’s penis-vagina sex?Just a comment on that phrase. Without looking it up, I believe that “ordered to procreation” means capable of engaging in the conjugal act.
Spence,So an act is “ordered to procreation” simply when it’s penis-vagina sex?
That’s what the conjugal act of marriage consists in, although that’s putting it a little bluntly.So an act is “ordered to procreation” simply when it’s penis-vagina sex?
Jim,That’s what the conjugal act of marriage consists in, although that’s putting it a little bluntly.
Complementarity and designed by nature.In other words, an act is “ordered towards procreation” simply because it is penis-vagina sex? Correct?
I agree. The matter is really quite simple. It’s a matter of nature. Of course there is a great deal more to marriage than sex. But husband and wife are ordered to procreation by nature, even if they never have children. The possibility of children imiplies the need for permanence and fidelity, even in civil marriages. That’s why the acceptance of contraception and its widespread use was the beginning of the end for marriage. The more society simply gives itself over to its passions, the worse the results will be.Jim,
You are dealing with a Homosexual mind.
Imagine speaking, writing, talking, listening to anything heterosexual absent any homosexual (name removed by moderator)ut.
Marriage between John and Mary took place…are they going to have kids…great…but their cousins are sterile…too bad…are they going to see how that can be helped…yes…etc there is no need to talk about body parts.
Too often the Homosexual mind goes adolescent with body part talk as if we do not know…ie
So an act is “ordered to procreation” simply when it’s heterosexual with the intentioon to procreate?..
Implied what is declared by the shock seeking adolesecent homosexual mind
be patient…
If this is your view, then it cannot form the basis of rejecting premise (2). Your claim here amounts to the assertion that permanently infertile opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are differently simply because the former can engage in penis-vagina sex. What’s so significant about penis-vagina sex when practiced by permanently infertile opposite-sex couples? The fact that one group can engage in penis-vagina sex but not the other isn’t indicative of a relevant difference between the two.That’s what the conjugal act of marriage consists in, although that’s putting it a little bluntly.
In another post I wondered about asking firts graders if two man could have a baby. Up until very recently an innocent mind would have laughed at that as if you were being overly silly. That is because it is self evident that male and female are parents. That is not some social construct. That is ordained by design. It is fundamental, simply, and easily grasped.I agree. The matter is really quite simple. It’s a matter of nature. Of course there is a great deal more to marriage than sex. But husband and wife are ordered to procreation by nature, even if they never have children. The possibility of children imiplies the need for permanence and fidelity, even in civil marriages. That’s why the acceptance of contraception and its widespread use was the beginning of the end for marriage. The more society simply gives itself over to its passions, the worse the results will be.
Typical strawman. I never claimed or implied that two men or two men can produce a child.In another post I wondered about asking firts graders if two man could have a baby. Up until very recently an innocent mind would have laughed at that as if you were being overly silly. That is because it is self evident that male and female are parents. That is not some social construct. That is ordained by design. It is fundamental, simply, and easily grasped.
The problem is that a terribly disordered way of thinking has polluted our minds. Even obvious truths are now questioned and a complex proof is needed.