SSM debate: the sterility objection

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is vastly different. Again this is self evident. You keep making likelihood of conception the determining factor, but it is not. Again, the marital act is objectively correctly ordered.

The perversion of the marital act is not equal to the marital act. Just because both do not result in conception does not make them equivalent.
 
spencelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spence,

You have ignored my post 90 and continue to argue a sterile point of view. I am going to ask you to stop using body parts specifically for courtesy and respect.

We all know what body parts male homosexuals are fixated on.

We all know what body parts female homosexuals are fixated on.

We all know what body parts heterosexuals are fixated on.

Elevate your thinking beyond your body parts or in the Eastern new age…expand your chakra thinking to the 3rd eye…OK…
 
If a married couple engage in the marital embrace while the woman is not ovulating is that equal to same sex actions?
 
spencelo said:
Where did I ever claim or imply that same-sex couples can produce children? Quote me
Click to expand...
This is the point of Post 90…we agree…no homosexual has HOPE of ever producing children in a homosexual union regardless of parts and in that union would never seek HELP to change that situation as there is no hope of changing that situation and therefore are not equivalent to any sterile heterosexual group that you have yet to produce as the basis of your argument…You are making headway…at least you have this point under your belt…good for you…👍
 
fix said:
If a married couple engage in the marital embrace while the woman is not ovulating is that equal to same sex actions?
Click to expand...
I’ll ask again: Where did I ever claim or imply that same-sex couples can produce children? Quote me. Or is deliberately misrepresenting my position one of your typical tactics in debate?
 
spencelo said:
I’ll ask again: Where did I ever claim or imply that same-sex couples can produce children? Quote me. Or is deliberately misrepresenting my position one of your typical tactics in debate?
Click to expand...
You are not making sense. You are equating the marital act with same sex acts.
 
fix said:
That is not what I said. I said you are equating the marital act with same sex acts.
Click to expand...
You clearly implied that I believe that same-sex couples can produce children. You wrote:

"**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**."

In other words, you **dishonestly implied **that I don’t know the “obvious truth” that two men cannot produce a baby. So I’ll ask again: where have I ever claimed or implied that same-sex couples are capable of producing children? Quote me.
 
spencelo said:
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).

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.
Click to expand...
I didn’t misquote. I only captured the second part of point (1) because you wrote it as an AND statement. So either part of the AND statement can be false and the entire premise is false.
Regardless of that, my comments also show (2) to be false.

Anyhooo – “ordered toward procreation” means that we are using our biology in a way that it was designed. The common analogy is that of food. Like sex, food has two aspects: nutrition for our body and also the pleasure/taste. I’m sure you see an inherent problem with bulimia. Someone might eat a tasty meal and then circumvent the nutritional aspect of food by barfing up the meal. This is wrong because eating is “ordered” toward sustaining our bodies. The pleasure aspect is not unimportant, but the nutrition aspect is an integral part of eating.
Now, if my body is unable to digest any food, I can still eat it. Even though I am “sterile” in regards to food – to use the term in the original topic – I am still engaging in behavior ordered to nutrition. So it is fine.
Now lay my food analogy onto the original idea: heterosexual couples are engaging in behavior that is ordered toward procreation, despite the fact that their act can never actually result in a child.
 
spencelo said:
You clearly implied that I believe that same-sex couples can produce children. You wrote:

"**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**."

In other words, you **dishonestly implied **that I don’t know the “obvious truth” that two men cannot produce a baby. So I’ll ask again: where have I ever claimed or implied that same-sex couples are capable of producing children? Quote me.
Click to expand...
That post was pointing out that even children understand the natural order of things. If you want to misdirect things that is fine but it has nothing to do with your claim.
 
surritter said:
I didn’t misquote. I only captured the second part of point (1) because you wrote it as an AND statement. So either part of the AND statement can be false and the entire premise is false.
Click to expand...
The “and” statement should be understood conditionally because of the proceeding “if” statement. So your objection is with premise (2), not (1).
surritter said:
Regardless of that, my comments also show (2) to be false.

Anyhooo – “ordered toward procreation” means that we are using our biology in a way that it was designed.
Click to expand...
This can’t be right. If I use my feet for walking, and my feet were designed for walking, then according to your logic, whenever I walk, I am engaging in an act “ordered towards procreation.” But that’s absurd. “Ordered towards procreation” cannot merely mean “using our body in a way that it was designed.”

Please give me a clearer definition of what it means for an act to be ordered towards procreation.
 
fix said:
That post was pointing out that even children understand the natural order of things. If you want to misdirect things that is fine but it has nothing to do with your claim.
Click to expand...
I’m simply calling out dishonest behavior when I see it, so you’re on notice. Next time you dishonestly imply that I think same-sex couples can reproduce, I’m going to point it out.
 
spencelo said:
I’m simply calling out dishonest behavior when I see it, so you’re on notice. Next time you dishonestly imply that I think same-sex couples can reproduce, I’m going to point it out.
Click to expand...
Disassemble away. In the mean time why do you keep asking what ordered to procreation means when that has been answered several times?
 
fix said:
Disassemble away. In the mean time why do you keep asking what ordered to procreation means when that has been answered several times?
Click to expand...
But it hasn’t been answered. What is it about penis-vagina sex between ***permanently ***sterile opposite-sex couples than makes that act “ordered towards procreation?” Define “ordered towards procreation.”
 
spencelo said:
But it hasn’t been answered. What is it about penis-vagina sex between ***permanently ***sterile opposite-sex couples than makes that act “ordered towards procreation?” Define “ordered towards procreation.”
Click to expand...
I have. Here it is again:

The objective standard for male and female is being able to produce a baby. They engage in a marital act. That may lead to a baby. They engage in a marital act that may not lead to a baby. The action of male into female is ordered toward procreation.

Likelihood of conception does not change the ordering of that act.

What is it you fail to grasp?

IOW, a sterile married couple does not suddenly turn into a homosexual couple simply because their marital act fails to conceive a child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top