SSM debate: the sterility objection

[spencelo]

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?

 

[Corki]

Well, since this is a Catholic forum, I’ll give you the Catholic answer.

There is no “sterility objection” in Catholic moral teaching. The teaching is that all marital acts must be ordered to procreation. A man and woman are built complemetary. This is a simple anatomical reality. The sexual union between a man and woman is ordered to procreation while a union between two men or two women can never be ordered to procreation. Fecundity is a gift of marriage but not a prerequisite.

 

[spencelo]

Well, since this is a Catholic forum, I’ll give you the Catholic answer.

There is no “sterility objection” in Catholic moral teaching. The teaching is that all marital acts must be ordered to procreation. A man and woman are built complemetary. This is a simple anatomical reality. The sexual union between a man and woman is ordered to procreation while a union between two men or two women can never be ordered to procreation. Fecundity is a gift of marriage but not a prerequisite.

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

 

[Corki]

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

Procreation begins with the physical union of two people. If part A goes into part B, the act is ordered to procreation. Male-female couples have all the right parts to perform the marital act in a manner ordered to procreation. Sterility does not impede the marital act. Couples with only two parts A or two parts B cannot unite in a way that is ordered to procreation.

 

[spencelo]

Procreation begins with the physical union of two people. If part A goes into part B, the act is ordered to procreation. Male-female couples have all the right parts to perform the marital act in a manner ordered to procreation. Sterility does not impede the marital act. Couples with only two parts A or two parts B cannot unite in a way that is ordered to procreation.

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?”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Procreation begins with the physical union of two people. If part A goes into part B, the act is ordered to procreation. Male-female couples have all the right parts to perform the marital act in a manner ordered to procreation. Sterility does not impede the marital act. Couples with only two parts A or two parts B cannot unite in a way that is ordered to procreation.

Then birth control medication is fine, right?

 

[spencelo]

Procreation begins with the physical union of two people. If part A goes into part B, the act is ordered to procreation. Male-female couples have all the right parts to perform the marital act in a manner ordered to procreation. Sterility does not impede the marital act. Couples with only two parts A or two parts B cannot unite in a way that is ordered to procreation.

Clarify something for me. Are you saying that penis-vagina sex can be “ordered to procreation” even when it would never, ever result in procreation? Yes or no?

 

[Corki]

Clarify something for me. Are you saying that penis-vagina sex can be “ordered to procreation” even when it would never, ever result in procreation? Yes or no?

Yes, absolutely. In fact that’s the very definition of sex that is ordered to procreation.

 

[spencelo]

Yes, absolutely. In fact that’s the very definition of sex that is ordered to procreation.

It is incredibly odd to describe penis-vagina sex as “ordered to procreation” when procreation could never result. But let’s bracket that problem for now. What about my objection to your response? Should opposite-sex couples who can’t engage in penis-vagina sex (e.g., people paralyzed from the waist down) be allowed to marry? Yes or no?

 

[livingwordunity]

Clarify something for me. Are you saying that penis-vagina sex can be “ordered to procreation” even when it would never, ever result in procreation? Yes or no?

There’s always a possibility that a man and woman can conceive even if they are considered sterile. This can be because people thought they were sterile and were wrong or because of divine intervention. There are biblical examples of this and examples in our own day. But there’s never a possibility that a man can get another man pregnant since the male body was not made for getting pregnant. Men only have one sex organ, the penis. And women only have one sex organ, the vagina. And these were made to be complementary to each other. This is basic biology.

 

[Corki]

It is incredibly odd to describe penis-vagina sex as “ordered to procreation” when procreation could never result. But let’s bracket that problem for now. What about my objection to your response? Should opposite-sex couples who can’t engage in penis-vagina sex (e.g., people paralyzed from the waist down) be allowed to marry? Yes or no?

According to Church teaching, if one or the other was permanently impotent and not able to engage in the marital act, they would not be able to get married.

 

[spencelo]

There’s always a possibility that a man and woman can conceive even if they are considered sterile.

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.

 

[spencelo]

According to Church teaching, if one or the other was permanently impotent and not able to engage in the marital act, they would not be able to get married.

This seems to be a concession – or biting the bullet. Are saying then you wouldn’t object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying?

 

[Corki]

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.

It’s not about possibilities or probabilities. It’s not about whether a child can result. It’s about the order of the union of couples.

A marital act ordered toward procreation may result in procreation. But if it doesn’t, it is still ordered toward procreation. The marital act that results in procreation is exactly the same as one that doesn’t.

On the other hand a sexual act that is not ordered toward procreation such as male-male or female-female sexual stimulation can never result (name removed by moderator)rocreation nor be ordered toward procreation.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

The surgery could have been botched or God can intervene with a miracle. But homosexual couples will never have a child naturally the way a heterosexual couple can because homosexual sex is disordered and unnatural. I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but it’s the truth.

 

[Corki]

This seems to be a concession – or biting the bullet. Are saying then you wouldn’t object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying?

A concession to what?

 

[spencelo]

The surgery could have been botched or God can intervene with a miracle.

What if the surgery was not botched? Then it could have been a miracle? Well, if you’re playing the “miracle” card, then so can I! God could “miraculously” intervene and enable a same-sex couple to produce a child.

 

[spencelo]

A concession to what?

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?

 

[livingwordunity]

What if the surgery was not botched? Then it could have been a miracle? Well, if you’re playing the “miracle” card, then so can I! God could “miraculously” intervene and enable a same-sex couple to produce a child.

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

 

[spencelo]

A marital act ordered toward procreation may result in procreation. But if it doesn’t, it is still ordered toward procreation. The marital act that results in procreation is exactly the same as one that doesn’t.

On the other hand a sexual act that is not ordered toward procreation such as male-male or female-female sexual stimulation can never result (name removed by moderator)rocreation nor be ordered toward procreation.

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.”