SSM debate: the sterility objection

[JimG]

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-a-person-is-infertile-through-no-fault-of-his-own-can-he-get-married-in-the-cathol

 

[spencelo]

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-a-person-is-infertile-through-no-fault-of-his-own-can-he-get-married-in-the-cathol

The question is addressing whether a person can get married in a Catholic Church. Do you propose that the marriage requirements for marriage in a Catholic Church be the same as the marriage requirements for civil marriage?

 

[catharina]

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.”

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?

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.

My question for you:
what was your religious (faith) background
before you chose to become a nontheist?
This is likely relevant to your search for personal
“understanding” since Catholicism views “Understanding”
as a gift from God, an actual gift of the Holy Spirit. A gift!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.”

Because in normal circumstances if everything is good and nothing goes wrong then this act, taken independently of everything else, considered as an abstract act that exists in the ether (and which happens to be instantiated by people a lot), could result in procreation and no other act could.

It’s along the lines of saying attempted murder is attempted murder whether it had any chance of succeeding or not. If I try to shoot someone with a gun only to find out that it’s loaded with blanks, I’m still trying to shoot them. If I highly suspect that the gun is loaded with blanks, but still empty the entire magazine at someone in the hope or expectation, or at least in the knowledge and acceptance that one of the rounds might turn out not to be a blank, I’m still trying to shoot them. If this person is behind a wall that I did not put there, and whose existence I do not condone, and I shoot at this person in the hope that or acceptance of the possibility that the bullet go through the wall and hit them, then I am trying to shoot him.

In these cases, my acts are ordered towards shooting the person, even though the probability of success may be very nearly zero. If instead I make my hand into a finger gun and shout “bang” real loud, because I enjoy doing that and get similar feelings to those I would get from trying to shoot him, my actions may be ordered towards giving myself feelings, but they are not ordered towards shooting him.

This is not about specific cases, or problems, or what have you, at least not at this level. The act in the form it is meant to take with no “but what if this happens to be messed up” is ordered towards procreation. If the act in it’s perfect form could accomplish something and I do that act without trying to prevent it from occurring and with the acceptance that this thing may occur, even if there is near a 0 chance that it would, then my act could be said to be ordered towards that thing.

An objection, you speak of “sex act” as if there is more than one. This is false. There is sex, and then there are acts which happen to generate the same or similar pleasure as sex but which aren’t sex. The marital act is sex, everything else is just some number of people pleasuring themselves or each other.

 

[catharina]

The question is addressing whether a person can get married in a Catholic Church. Do you propose that the marriage requirements for marriage in a Catholic Church be the same as the marriage requirements for civil marriage?

Look to the Church of England.
They embodied laws that still exist re the issue of SSM.

jurist.org/hotline/2012/06/paul-johnson-lgbt-coe.php

You can do the reading.

 

[JimG]

The question is addressing whether a person can get married in a Catholic Church. Do you propose that the marriage requirements for marriage in a Catholic Church be the same as the marriage requirements for civil marriage?

To the extent that the Catholic Church will not marry same sex couples–yes. Such couples are inherently incapable of engaging in marital relations. Thus, no marriage is possible. The Church’s prohibition on marriage between couples, either of whom is permanently and antecedently incapable, of completing the marital act, also makes sense for the same reason, but need not be insisted on civilly.

 

[spencelo]

Because in normal circumstances if everything is good and nothing goes wrong then this act, taken independently of everything else, considered as an abstract act that exists in the ether (and which happens to be instantiated by people a lot), could result in procreation and no other act could.

But I wasn’t talking about the “normal circumstances,” but about circumstances where penis-vagina sex could never result in procreation – those aren’t the “normal” ones. Why is penis-vagina sex “ordered towards procreation” in those circumstances?

It’s along the lines of saying attempted murder is attempted murder whether it had any chance of succeeding or not. If I try to shoot someone with a gun only to find out that it’s loaded with blanks, I’m still trying to shoot them. If I highly suspect that the gun is loaded with blanks, but still empty the entire magazine at someone in the hope or expectation, or at least in the knowledge and acceptance that one of the rounds might turn out not to be a blank, I’m still trying to shoot them. If this person is behind a wall that I did not put there, and whose existence I do not condone, and I shoot at this person in the hope that or acceptance of the possibility that the bullet go through the wall and hit them, then I am trying to shoot him.

In these cases, my acts are ordered towards shooting the person, even though the probability of success may be very nearly zero. If instead I make my hand into a finger gun and shout “bang” real loud, because I enjoy doing that and get similar feelings to those I would get from trying to shoot him, my actions may be ordered towards giving myself feelings, but they are not ordered towards shooting him.

One big problem: in many cases of sterility, couples **know **they can’t procreate, which is more analogous to knowingly shooting an unloaded gun – that’s not attempted murder. If I know I’m sterile, then whenever I have sex, by your logic, my act cannot be ordered towards procreating.

 

[spencelo]

To the extent that the Catholic Church will not marry same sex couples–yes.

I don’t understand this answer. No one is objecting to allowing the Catholic Church to exclude same-sex couples from marrying in a church. My question: Do you think the requirements for religious marriage should be the same requirements for civil marriage?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

But I wasn’t talking about the “normal circumstances,” but about circumstances where penis-vagina sex could never result in procreation – those aren’t the “normal” ones. Why is penis-vagina sex “ordered towards procreation” in those circumstances?

I think you’ve missed my point entirely. It’s the normal circumstances that matter. We talk about the act, not the circumstances. The act in it’s normal form is ordered towards procreation. Therefore, the act is ordered towards procreation, even if it has an abysmal chance of success (assuming one is not purposefully interfering with the results).

One big problem: in many cases of sterility, couples **know **they can’t procreate, which is more analogous to knowingly shooting an unloaded gun – that’s not attempted murder. If I know I’m sterile, then whenever I have sex, by your logic, my act cannot be ordered towards procreating.

Not entirely true. Have you ever heard the phrase “there’s no such thing as an unloaded gun”? You treat a gun as though it’s loaded even if you just checked 2 minutes ago and saw no bullets (don’t point it at anything you don’t want a hole in etc). Now, if a person is attempting to take advantage of their sterility to avoid children (ignoring the rule just mentioned) - that is, they’re saying “I’m sterile, so I can have all the sex I want and no kids, hurray me!” then that’s a problem. In this case they would be behaving immorally.

But if they say “I know there is very nearly a zero chance of me having children [few things are actually zero chance, but even if the chances were exactly zero], but I am preforming this act in the knowledge and acceptance that that’s what it’s for and should, by some happy accident, a child come into being then that is an awesome thing and the desired out come, regardless of the fact that I am very nearly certain, as certain as I am that the sun will come up tomorrow, that I will not have children,” then that act is still ordered towards procreation.

Again, the mere chances that the goal happen have very little to do with whether or not an action is ordered towards accomplishing that goal. You can try to do the [nearly] impossible knowing it is impossible and still be trying to do the impossible.

 

[JimG]

I don’t understand this answer. No one is objecting to allowing the Catholic Church to exclude same-sex couples from marrying in a church. My question: Do you think the requirements for religious marriage should be the same requirements for civil marriage?

I didn’t say anything about religious marriage. While homosexual behavior has been tolerated in may societies, I don’t know of any which accepted homosexual ‘marriage’ precisely for the reason that it could not be marital. To the extent that marriage was recognized and benefited by the state, it was because the state viewed it as beneficial to the continuance of the society.

And to the extent that marriage, as a civil institution has fallen into decline, so have those civilizations in which it occurred.

Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family and Civilization,” has an exhaustive history of family structure throughout the millenia. Family structure has varied widely, but it didn’t vary widely enough to include homosexual marriage. He notes only three true crises in family structure in recorded history, one crisis occurring in ancient Greek times, another in Roman times. When the family structure got into these crises, the civilizations pretty much collapsed. (The third crisis in family structure is the present.)

Now, I don’t blame gay marriage for civilizational collapse. The state of marriage has been undergoing crisis for a long time, being exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of contraception and the sexual revolution begun in the mid-20th century. Gay marriage would not be conceivable had not the state of marriage already been in a state of decline. It will merely speed the collapse along.

 

[spencelo]

I think you’ve missed my point entirely. It’s the normal circumstances that matter. We talk about the act, not the circumstances. The act in it’s normal form is ordered towards procreation. Therefore, the act is ordered towards procreation, even if it has an abysmal chance of success (assuming one is not purposefully interfering with the results).

Your “therefore” doesn’t follow. Just because penis-vagina sex is “ordered towards procreation” in the normal circumstances, it doesn’t follow that that act is “ordered towards procreation” in the non-normal circumstances. Justify the inference.

Not entirely true. Have you ever heard the phrase “there’s no such thing as an unloaded gun”? You treat a gun as though it’s loaded even if you just checked 2 minutes ago and saw no bullets (don’t point it at anything you don’t want a hole in etc).

I checked my gun two seconds ago (for the 5th time in the past 30 seconds) and it’s unloaded. I point it at someone and pull the trigger – nothing happens. Have I committed attempted murder? Is my act “ordered towards shooting the person?” I don’t see how. So similarly, if I’m sterile, and I know I’m sterile (ZERO chance of procreation), then having penis-vagina sex with a woman cannot be accurately described as “attempted procreation” or “ordered towards procreation.” By your logic.

But if they say “I know there is very nearly a zero chance of me having children [few things are actually zero chance, but even if the chances were exactly zero], but I am **preforming this act in the knowledge and acceptance that that’s what it’s for and should, **by some happy accident, a child come into being then that is an awesome thing and the desired out come, regardless of the fact that I am very nearly certain, as certain as I am that the sun will come up tomorrow, that I will not have children,” then that act is still ordered towards procreation.

What does the bolded and underlined clause mean? Again, suppose the chances of procreation for Bob and Jane are exactly zero, and they know this (in fact, they’re **glad **procreation won’t result). Why would their act of penis-vagina sex be 'ordered towards procreation?" If you maintain that their act would nevertheless be “ordered towards procreation,” then you need to concede that your attempted-murder analogy doesn’t hold.

 

[spencelo]

I didn’t say anything about religious marriage.

Your link was about religious marriage – marriage in a “Catholic Church.”

 

[JimG]

Your link was about religious marriage – marriage in a “Catholic Church.”

You’re right. The link was about Catholic marriage, specifically the impediment of impotence. It’s late and my mind is tired. But my intent was to show that such an impediment was widely recognized by nearly all civilizations, regardless of whether marriage was religious or civil, because it goes to the nature of human beings. Indeed, marriage was a natural institution before it was a religious institution. But it was always between men and women precisely because of its “marital” nature, which required sexual complementarity.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Your “therefore” doesn’t follow. Just because an act is “ordered towards procreation” in the normal circumstances, it doesn’t follow that that act is “ordered towards procreation” in the non-normal circumstances. Justify the inference.

Not an inference. Almost a definition. Perhaps I should ask you what you mean by the phrase “ordered to,” if we’re using different meanings for the same words this could take a while.

But the justification for why chances of success (and knowledge thereof) does not affect whether or not we consdider an act ordered towards an end are as I previously stated: if the act would naturally work towards the end and it is not being purposefully impeded, then the person is honestly attempting to reach the desired end in as reasonable a way as he can. The fact that his particular carrying out of the act will not succeed is immaterial to the fact that he is trying in an honest, if doomed to failure, way.

I checked my gun two seconds ago (for the 5th time in the past 30 seconds) and it’s unloaded. I point it at someone and pull the trigger – nothing happens. Have I committed attempted murder? Is my act “ordered towards shooting the person?” I don’t see how.

Depends. If you had as the main reason that you allowed yourself to point the gun and pull the trigger the fact that you thought (knew) that the gun was empty, then no. It would not be. The analogue to this in the case of a sterile person would be morally wrong.

But if despite knowing that the gun was empty, you picked it up aimed it and pulled the trigger in the hope that and acceptance of the (remote, nearly zero) possibility of killing the guy and hoped against hope (or even hoped dimly, or even didn’t particularly hope but would be ok with the result) that a bullet would come out, then yes. You would be guilty of trying to kill someone. Perhaps not in a legally prosecutable way, but you would have committed a moral fault. The analogue to this would be perfectly acceptable.

What does the bolded and underlined clause mean? Again, suppose the chances of procreation for Bob and Jane are exactly zero, and they know this (in fact, they’re **glad **procreation won’t result). Why would their act of penis-vagina sex be 'ordered towards procreation?" If you maintain that their act would nevertheless be “ordered towards procreation,” then you need to concede that your attempted-murder analogy doesn’t hold.

My attempted murder analogy has two cases as above:

Case 1: you are essentially treating an unloaded gun which you know to be unloaded as a toy, and “shooting” people for fun. Not guilty. Analogue is Bob and Jane taking advantage of their sterility to avoid children. Mostly a mental thing. Not acceptable.

Case 2: you are treating your unloaded gun as a weapon which could go off at any time, despite the fact that you know it won’t. Every time you pull the trigger you are acknowledging that it is a weapon you are using and that the “natural result” of putting a hole in something is the purpose of pulling the trigger, and furthermore that when you pull the trigger you are acknowledging either your desire for there to be a hole in whatever the gun is pointed at, or at least your acceptance of the idea of there being a hole there. Someone annoys you, and you pick up your gun and try to shoot them in the face, despite being certain (near certain) that nothing will happen, but being ok with the result if by some miracle it would. Guilty. The analogue is acceptable, because even though the act will not result in a child, it is still being used in a way which is consistent with this “natural result” of the act.

This is what I meant. A good rule of thumb is to never treat a gun as though it is unloaded (obvious exceptions apply, cleaning for example, but a general good rule of thumb in many situations). Case 1 above is disregarding this rule. Case 2 is following it.

 

[spencelo]

You’re right. The link was about Catholic marriage, specifically the impediment of impotence. It’s late and my mind is tired. But my intent was to show that such an impediment was widely recognized by nearly all civilizations, regardless of whether marriage was religious or civil, because it goes to the nature of human beings. Indeed, marriage was a natural institution before it was a religious institution. But it was always between men and women precisely because of its “marital” nature, which required sexual complementarity.

Are you opposed to impotent couples being allowed to marry civilly (i.e., NOT in a Catholic Church)?

 

[surritter]

The OP argument fails due to premise #1 (and also #2):
“[T]here 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.”

The problem is the first part of the quotation cited above. The relevant difference between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples is that the opposite-sex couples, though sterile, have biology that is ordered toward procreation.

This does not mean they must be able to procreate in each instance of intercourse; obviously that’s never possible since we’re discussing permanent sterility. But their bodies are ordered to the act which is designed to achieve procreation.

 

[spencelo]

Iron Donkey,

We need to keep this debate in the context of the argument I made in the opening thread. The key claim in that argument is premise (2), which you (I think) deny: you think there are relevant differences between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. The difference, according to you, is that permanently sterile opposite-sex couples can engage in sex that is “ordered towards procreation.” Is this your view?

If it is, then I’m entitled to an explanation for why penis-vagina sex between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples is “ordered towards procreation” and sexual activity between same-sex couples is not. In particular, I’m looking for an argument. Do you have one?

Not an inference. Almost a definition.

Is it? Are you simply defining all instances of penis-vagina sex as being “ordered towards procreation”? Yes or no?

Perhaps I should ask you what you mean by the phrase “ordered to,” if we’re using different meanings for the same words this could take a while.

Someone else was using that phrase, and I followed his lead. I’ll follow yours by sticking with “ordered towards procreation.”

But the justification for why chances of success (and knowledge thereof) does not affect whether or not we consdider an act ordered towards an end are as I previously stated: if the act would naturally work towards the end and it is not being purposefully impeded, then the person is honestly attempting to reach the desired end in as reasonable a way as he can. The fact that his particular carrying out of the act will not succeed is immaterial to the fact that he is trying in an honest, if doomed to failure, way.

Let me ask my question another way: Can there be any instances of penis-vagina sex that are not ordered towards procreation?

Case 1: you are essentially treating an unloaded gun which you know to be unloaded as a toy, and “shooting” people for fun. Not guilty. Analogue is Bob and Jane taking advantage of their sterility to avoid children. Mostly a mental thing. Not acceptable.

Just to be clear: Bob and Jane both know they’re sterile, don’t want children, and are having unprotected sex because that gives them pleasure. Not acceptable? And by “not acceptable,” do you mean their act of penis-vagina sex is not “ordered towards procreation?”

 

[spencelo]

The OP argument fails due to premise #1 (and also #2):
“[T]here 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.”

The problem is the first part of the quotation cited above.

You misquoted (1). Here it is again:

(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.

(1) doesn’t claim that there are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples, but only that if there weren’t any, then if the latter shouldn’t be allowed to marry, then the former shouldn’t be allowed either. Your dispute is with (2).

The relevant difference between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples is that the opposite-sex couples, though sterile, have biology that is ordered toward procreation.

This does not mean they must be able to procreate in each instance of intercourse; obviously that’s never possible since we’re discussing permanent sterility. But their bodies are ordered to the act which is designed to achieve procreation.

What does it mean for an act to be “ordered towards procreation?” Supply the definition so we can then see whether it applies to permanently sterile opposite-sex couples.

 

[Zosimus41]

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.

AMEN

The bible does tell us its an abomination

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Iron Donkey,

We need to keep this debate in the context of the argument I made in the opening thread. The key claim in that argument is premise (2), which you (I think) deny: you think there are relevant differences between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. The difference, according to you, is that permanently sterile opposite-sex couples can engage in sex that is “ordered towards procreation.” Is this your view?

Yep.

If it is, then I’m entitled to an explanation for why penis-vagina sex between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples is “ordered towards procreation” and sexual activity between same-sex couples is not. In particular, I’m looking for an argument. Do you have one?

See above. I will refrain from retyping the analogies and explanations, but the short version is that the fact that the act is doomed to failure has no bearing on the fact that it is ordered towards procreation.

Is it? Are you simply defining all instances of penis-vagina sex as being “ordered towards procreation”? Yes or no?

No. The definition is the definition of what it means for an act to be ordered to a goal. I am saying that, so far as I understand, an act (taken without consideration of motivations of the person committing it) is ordered towards an end if that act in it’s natural form could accomplish that end, and the only thing that can change this "ordered to"ness in a particular case is a purposeful attempt to dodge the end, whether by purposefully relying on things beyond the person’s control or by actively changing something.

Let me ask my question another way: Can there be any instances of penis-vagina sex that are not ordered towards procreation?

Yes, see analogy. But it’s not a difference so much in the action or the possible results of the action as in the intent of the people doing it. For example, contraceptive sex or the analogue of treating an unloaded gun like a toy gun posted above.

Just to be clear: Bob and Jane both know they’re sterile, don’t want children, and are having unprotected sex because that gives them pleasure. Not acceptable? And by “not acceptable,” do you mean their act of penis-vagina sex is not “ordered towards procreation?”

Not necessarily. They don’t have to want children for the act to be ordered towards procreation, they merely have to recognize that that is what the act is for and accept it as the “natural outcome” which, should it occur, would be acceptable even if not particularly desired. Again, along the lines of “shooting” an unloaded gun at someone’s head knowing that it won’t doing anything, but considering the “natural result” of that person now having a hole in the head acceptable.

A more concrete application of this principle: As you know, the Catholic Church is opposed to sterilization. But it does not teach that a couple which undergoes a reversible sterilization procedure is morally bound to either abstain or reverse the procedure, only that they must realize that the procedure was immoral. (It is often considered praiseworthy to reverse the procedure, but not obligatory.) This, in my understanding, is because of the distinction above - whether or not the couple is capable of producing children is not relevant, but whether, at the time of the act (and not before and not after), they are seeking to avoid children by any means, passive or active, is relevant.