SSM debate: the sterility objection

[spencelo]

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.

What is it you fail to grasp?

I fail to grasp why penis-vagina sex is “ordered towards procreation” in cases where it is impossible for a child to result. Impossible isn’t the same as “may or may not.”

 

[fix]

I fail to grasp why penis-vagina sex is “ordered towards procreation” in cases where it is impossible for a child to result. Impossible isn’t the same as “may or may not.”

It does not matter whether conception is impossible or not. They are acting as designed.

 

[spencelo]

It does not matter whether conception is impossible or not. They are acting as designed.

So in other words, penis-vagina sex is moral and gay sex is immoral. That’s the difference between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite sex couples? That one engages in “immoral sex” and the other engages in “morally permissible sex?”

 

[fix]

So in other words, penis-vagina sex is moral and gay sex is immoral. That’s the difference between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite sex couples? That one engages in “immoral sex” and the other engages in “morally permissible sex?”

Not only immoral, but unnatural.

 

[spencelo]

Not only immoral, but unnatural.

Is oral sex unnatural?

 

[fix]

Is oral sex unnatural?

As you define it yes.

 

[spencelo]

As you define it yes.

Suppose a straight couple never engages in penis-vagina sex (but other kinds of sex acts), and never wishes to engage in it. Should they be allowed to marry?

 

[fix]

Suppose a straight couple never engages in penis-vagina sex (but other kinds of sex acts), and never wishes to engage in it. Should they be allowed to marry?

Would that be a question on some form? It is not asked now? Why would it be asked?

We are back to objective versus subjective again. Objectively there is no barrier to marriage they are man and woman.

 

[spencelo]

Would that be a question on some form? It is not asked now? Why would it be asked?

Sure. Would you in favor of laws that condition marriage licenses on couples promising to engage in penis-vagina sex during the course of their marriage? If not, why not?

We are back to objective versus subjective again. Objectively there is no barrier to marriage they are man and woman.

Actually we’re not. I gave you a scenario where an opposite-sex couple will not have sex that is “ordered towards procreation.” Why should that couple be allowed to marry?

 

[Usige]

The “and” statement should be understood conditionally because of the proceeding “if” statement. So your objection is with premise (2), not (1).

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.

I should know better than to feed a troll, but…

The biology the human reproductive system is primarily geared toward producing more humans. The pleasure associated with human sexuality is a secondary effect for what purpose? To encourage humans to have sex. Why? To have more children. So to give the simplest answer. Inter-vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman is assumed to be ordered to procreation.

Lets use Iron Donkey’s analogy of a gun with a slight twist. I have two revolvers and two bullets. One revolver has the firing pin filed down and one bullet has no powder in the casing. One of each has deviated from it’s nominal design. Now lets say you can’t tell which bullet or revolver is defective. You randomly pick a gun and a bullet, load that single shot and pull the trigger. A bullet in a gun is ordered toward firing a projectile regardless of any defects that might impeded firing said projectile. Even if you purposefully chose to pickup the defective bullet and revolver the actions are still ordered toward firing a projectile. Now lets say you instead pickup the two guns and leave both bullets on the table. Bang the guns together all you want and and you aren’t going to be firing a projectile.

Personally I think the government should not recognize marriage period. All the marriage benefits I believe should only be granted only after one starts to raise children. Why? Because that is the only benefit to a civil government; to maintain or grow it citizenry.

Since you want a definitive answer, if it’s a choice of allowing SSM or denying marriage to people who are sterile? I’ll go further than the church teaching and say yes, only those persons that are capable and intend to have children would be allowed to marry since ensuring future citizens is the only benefit for civil authorities. The contact would only be ratified once offspring were produced. I figure since you want to deal with absolutes those are the only absolutes that I could accept.

 

[surritter]

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.

You’ve had several definitions of what “ordered” means, from me and Fix and others, but you keep firing back with replies asking for the definition. We get that you don’t get it, but at least rephrase your question so that we can help.

The function of sex organs is different from the function of feet because the sex act (like food, remember?) is integrally tied with two aspects that are dependent on each other. You can prop your feet up all day long, or even walk on your hands, and there is no secondary aspect of the feet that has been compromised. See the first part of Usige’s post above for more info about the relation of the two aspects.
The violation of natural law is not in whether an act is engaged in, but whether the two aspects are retained. Homosexual acts are unnatural because they, by biological definition, lack the procreation aspect.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure. Would you in favor of laws that condition marriage licenses on couples promising to engage in penis-vagina sex during the course of their marriage? If not, why not?

Actually we’re not. I gave you a scenario where an opposite-sex couple will not have sex that is “ordered towards procreation.” Why should that couple be allowed to marry?

Spence,

Next you will be asking what the destiny of chromosomes is as you narrow down your questions to specifics of an act.

Homosexuals have sex.
Heterosexuals have sex.

No marriage license or approval is required to have sex. In this forum Marriage is a sacrament but acknowledges that sex occurs outside of a sacramental union.

So lets start with this. Why should homosexuals marry?

Sterility…they cannot reproduce in a marriage
Sex…they don’t need and have not been hindered in having sex without marriage…

So as you go down this road…define the purpose of the need to have marriage acknowledged and accepted.

 

[fix]

Sure. Would you in favor of laws that condition marriage licenses on couples promising to engage in penis-vagina sex during the course of their marriage? If not, why not?

If it is not asked now why is it needed? We can assume people get married and have sex. That is the natural order of things. Why do we need particular details?

Actually we’re not. I gave you a scenario where an opposite-sex couple will not have sex that is “ordered towards procreation.” Why should that couple be allowed to marry?

They have the ability to engage in normal marital relations. Why is that not enough?

 

[pgnat1]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. :hug3:

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So lets start with this. Why should homosexuals marry?

Why should anyone marry? You don’t need a ceremony or a legal document to provide a stable environment for your children.

Gays should marry because they wish to take on the responsibilities of marriage and receive the corresponding legal recognition. We must be explicit here: they want at least civil marriage, which has a different set of responsibilities than Catholic marriage.

 

[surritter]

Why should anyone marry? You don’t need a ceremony or a legal document to provide a stable environment for your children.

Gays should marry because they wish to take on the responsibilities of marriage and receive the corresponding legal recognition. We must be explicit here: they want at least civil marriage, which has a different set of responsibilities than Catholic marriage.

Wrong – the very definition of marriage (even civil) is predicated on the biological act which is ordered toward procreation. The responsibilities you speak began with that element of children as the integral factor.

Centrist: Why the heck did governments even get into the business of certifying a love relationship? Answer this carefully; any answer that doesn’t have the procreative aspect as an integral factor can’t logically limit that “marriage” to just two people.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Wrong – the very definition of marriage (even civil) is predicated on the biological act which is ordered toward procreation. The responsibilities you speak began with that element of children as the integral factor.

Centrist: Why the heck did governments even get into the business of certifying a love relationship? Answer this carefully; any answer that doesn’t have the procreative aspect as an integral factor can’t logically limit that “marriage” to just two people.

Find some legal proof that civil marriage is “predicated on the biological act which is ordered toward procreation” as you say.

Love is not a responsibility of civil marriage. Procreation is not a responsibility of civil marriage. You are confusing the requirements of Catholic marriage with those of civil marriage. Many of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage are listed here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
There certainly are rights pertaining to the raising of children, but they are not responsibilities; married couples are under no obligation to rear children, but if they do they have certain rights. In the same way, people have the right to enter into a prenup, but are under no obligation to do so.

Indeed, I think that for the government to call civil marriage “marriage” invites too much misunderstanding due to preconceived ideas from religion.

 

[surritter]

Find some legal proof that civil marriage is “predicated on the biological act which is ordered toward procreation” as you say.

Love is not a responsibility of civil marriage. Procreation is not a responsibility of civil marriage. You are confusing the requirements of Catholic marriage with those of civil marriage. Many of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage are listed here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
There certainly are rights pertaining to the raising of children, but they are not responsibilities; married couples are under no obligation to rear children, but if they do they have certain rights. In the same way, people have the right to enter into a prenup, but are under no obligation to do so.

Indeed, I think that for the government to call civil marriage “marriage” invites too much misunderstanding due to preconceived ideas from religion.

So I again pose to you: why is a government even in the business of handing out certificates to two people? What is it about two people in love that would even be of interest to a government? It’s that these two people form the basis or “cell” from which new citizens will emerge.
I never said that married couples are under an obligation to rear children. But the nature of their relationship is “ordered” toward procreation. The descriptions you provide about marriage have no basic reason for limiting marriage to just two people.
This is not about religious vs. civil marriage. It’s about the definition of marriage, and need not involve religion, as you seem to think. It’s based on biology.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why should anyone marry? You don’t need a ceremony or a legal document to provide a stable environment for your children.

Gays should marry because they **wish to take on the responsibilities of marriage and receive the corresponding legal recognition. **We must be explicit here: they want at least civil marriage, which has a different set of responsibilities than Catholic marriage.

True,

What responsibilities of marriage do the disordered homosexuals want to take on?

Do not protest the use of disordered. This is Catholic Answers and as a Catholic, just like I have to say Blessed Mary as the Bible tells me, I have to abide by the teaching of the OHCAC

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

If you have a problem with the notion of homosexuallity being disordered do what any good Christian does…“take it to the Church”

So please inform me of the responsibilities.

 

[epan]

Yes, she is sterile but objectively the norm is to be fertile. It is not a weak argument at all in fact I find your position weak.

If I asked a first grader if two men could make a baby what would be the answer?

The point is that male and female are fertile by design. Yes, exceptions may occur due to pathology but those exceptions are not the norm. The marital act is still ordered correctly.

Ordered toward procreation does not equal likelihood of conception.

I empathize with the mental gymnastics you need to go through.