The Marriage Debate - The conjugal view of marriage leaves us just as free for companionship

[manualman]

If it was as easy for homosexual couples to get children as for heterosexual couples, they would. In an equal atmosphere, they would be perfectly capable of adopting and giving a wanting home to unwanted babies of heterosexual couples, and the numbers would be MUCH more equal. You speak a lot about nature; but isn’t childbearing about nurture anyway?

I’d submit that parenting is about BOTH nature and nurture. Attempts to make it all one or the other are silly.

I’ll concede that homosexual persons have suffered rather a lot of ostracization in the past and that it has contributed to some of their difficulties. Gay populations have MUCH higher rates of promiscuity, domestic violence, relationship infidelity, depression, drug use and suicide. It is the current fashion in gay populations to blame these problems entirely on historic oppression by the heterosexual population. In a vacuum, it’s not an unreasonable argument. But few have scrutinized this assertion closely, probably because it doesn’t hold up to recent facts. Parts of Europe are far “ahead” of the USA in the cultural normalization of homosexual conduct. Some countries over there have considered gay relations to be normal and healthy for decades. Those countries STILL show gay populations to have far higher incidence of the above problems than heterosexual populations. That should give people pause in the rush to toss out the moral wisdom of centuries. Maybe we really aren’t all that much smarter than those that came before just because we have iphones and hybrid cars…

IMO the more convincing argument lies in the changes we’ve seen in the heterosexual community in the last several decades since THEY (without any gay lobby to blame) have gone a long distance towards redefining marriage in a way that makes children and parenthood an optional accessory rather than part of the nature of marriage. In that time we’ve seen ‘no fault’ divorce become the norm, contraception become the norm, seen the age of marriage pushed ever further back, seen premarital sex become socially respectable and seen it become almost weird for people to have more than three kids. Not surprisingly, marriage has suffered badly as general society has modified the definition to marginalize the role procreation plays in its very nature. Those embracing this older redefinition of marriage have little better than a 50/50 chance of marriage success. Those who strive to live out the traditional catholic definition of marriage (including understanding contraception to be harmful to marriage) have better than 90% success rate at marriage. And yet people still want to move FURTHER away from the definition that actually works? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

The studies done comparing children raised by gay parents versus heterosexual parents have become deceptive in that manner. They’ve been comparing kids in the general populace compared to kids raised by gay people who volunteered to be studied. That’s a bit of a skew right off the bat, no? Put it this way: how much stock would you put in a car quality study in which the overall car repair problem frequency was compared to the frequency of repairs reported for Hyundai cars by Hyundai employees? Would you be surprised to hear that said Hyundais needed as few repairs as others? That’s how bad the methodology is on some of the current studies.

What should be studied is the outcome of children raised in intact families (both their parents) to children raised by gay parents who stayed together throughout the child’s home life. That sort of data is going to take time, but I guarantee that the outcome will show that children raised by their father and mother in an intact family do better than anybody else, including children raised by gay people that stay together.

 

[westNwewaxation]

This is a strong response, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. It’s been a very busy couple of days for me!

First of all, I’d like to take issue with one minor detail in your argument which I’ve heard a lot from those on the opposite side as me, and I admit is only marginally pertinent to your larger argument–you call accepting homosexual marriage “redefining marriage” a lot. I’m not arguing that it isn’t redefining marriage; some people probably are, but it most definitely is redefining marriage. But we need to ask whether redefining marriage in order to make it a purer reality, or at least more relevant to modern secular society, is strictly a bad thing…

Hi Ignatian - sorry I’ve been AWOL for a few days - I haven’t had a block of time long enough to compose a quality reply until now. I thought I would try to reply in separate posts and avoid a too-long post.

Regarding the accuracy of the “redefining marriage” wording, we agree, which is always a nice place to start. And of course you’re right too about the next logical question then being is a redefinition wise and necessary, and what purpose would it serve, and what possible pitfalls should we pay attention to when crafting this legal redefinition, etc.

 

[westNwewaxation]

Back a hundred–or really, even fifty on a societal level–years in the USA, marriage was well established as “a usually lifelong bond between a man and a woman who are very strictly of the same race; in which the male initiates every major aspect of the relationship, and the female is subject to him”.

Haha - I think we both know that last part was never written into the law but I get what you’re saying. The only sort of correction I would make is that some states never outlawed interracial marriage, some had long since repealed those laws, and by 1967 only about 15 states had anti-miscegenation laws and they were all in the south and southern Midwest according to Wikipedia which for something like this I will accept as close enough to true. I would also like to point out that the Catholic church has always accepted interracial marriages as valid. I know that’s not an argument per se on this issue in the law, but my feeling is that the Catholic church was right about the interracial issue and they are ALSO right about the gay issue. Love it or hate it, the Catholic church has an annoying habit of being right about stuff!

IgnatianAthlete:

The definition of marriage DOES change as society changes, and conservatives are always opposed to it, but except for fringe minorities, they always end up admitting that the just changes were better in the end. Marriage isn’t the same as it was a hundred years ago. Mixed-race couples are legal now, and even acceptable. Females have significantly more right to self-determination, and while I’m not sure 100% what the orthodox opinion is on this, most Catholics I have known consider it a very good thing. And, for good or evil (evil evil very very evil), over half of marriages now end in divorce. So I just want to point out first of all, that “changing the definition of marriage” is a non-issue. The question is whether we’re changing it in an appropriate way; because there have been lots of changes in the past couple centuries, some appropriate, some very inappropriate.

Ok here I want to make a point about divorce. When divorce laws were relaxed to make it very easy to get divorced conservatives WERE NOT pushing for it, Liberals were. That has turned out to be a gigantic disaster.

The reasoning at the time, as I understand it, was that changing the divorce laws would only affect BAD marriages - those marriages that should probably get divorced anyway. They even had “studies” at the time, proving marriage overall would not be affected. OOPS.

I will conceded that conservatives are not always the smartest people on the political spectrum, but about divorce we were right and the social Liberals were dead wrong.

So here I’m just taking exception to your characterization of conservatives always being wrong and admitting later Liberals were right. It’s not an argument against gay marriage per se, it is an argument for caution and due diligence because here we have a recent historical change to marriage that illustrates how making a change to the rules governing marital interactions can have unintended effects much worse than predicted.

 

[westNwewaxation]

Now for the actual substance of your argument, which I summarize as the following: Under many circumstances, same-sex partners have had the opportunity to have all of their “just demands” met, such as hospital visitation and et cetera, where they receive all the same benefits as legally married couples under a social system which could be accurately described as “separate but equal”; and your second major point (more in illustration than support of the general “gay marriage is bad” argument) is that children are being deprived of something deeply important when they don’t have parents of both sexes to raise them, and that it is wrong to intentionally force that situation on a child. Please correct me if I’ve in any way misrepresented you here, and this affects my response.

Perfect!

 

[westNwewaxation]

“Separate but equal” simply isn’t equal…

Here you are right again. And I agree in a way. I know equality is one of the big concerns you have. So I thought I would try to reframe the way we look at this… this may seem a somewhat wild idea but try to stay with me and I hope this will at least maybe help you see a little bit of what we see from our perspective.

Ok, instead of me trying to show how heterosexuality is better, let’s look at it in a way where homosexuality seems better.

Homosexuality is a lot better with regard to avoiding unplanned pregnancy, can I get an AMEN there?

Ok, so I have 2 populations of people. One is homosexual. One is heterosexual. They live together in the same city and are totally integrated in day-to-day life, but they have different sexual interests, same-sex versus opposite-sex.

I am the mayor and I am drawing up a plan for how to govern all my people so that their sexual behavior will not bankrupt my city. The gay population is a joy to my heart! Sooo easy and low maintenance for me. For the gay population, I do not have to find ways to make them not have sex before they find their life-mate, because there is no chance they will accidentally conceive children they don’t want who will end up on welfare or in my orphanage, which is already overflowing. For those gays who have already found their life-mate, I don’t have to find ways to convince them to remain strictly monogamous because again there is no chance they will accidentally make a baby in same-sex interactions.

The heterosexuals however are a lot more problematic. Very few of them will wait until marriage to have sex. Lots of the teens are getting pregnant. And some of the married men are conceiving children in women who are not their wives. They’re all already used to doing whatever they want, and these sexual behaviors that are costing me so much money in unwanted children are very VERY hard to just quit. They really REALLY like having sex! It’s not like just quitting smoking. Getting them to understand that they can only have sex with one person for the rest of their lives when they have already gotten used to having sex at their option when a nice and convenient and agreeable opportunity presents itself, is a REALLY TOUGH SELL.

I was going to try and teach the kids in school about this mythical thing that used to be called “marriage”, but the homosexuals insist that the gay kids have to be taught the exact same thing. The gays say they should not have to wait to have sex, and they categorically reject when I tell all the kids that they should wait to have sex until they find their life-partner. They understand why the straight kids should wait, but they don’t see why they should have to be inconvenienced out of all the good sex they could be having just because the straight kids have this biological “problem”. So I’m really in a quandary…

So anyway I won’t belabor my lame little story but hope you get the point. Looking at it from the vantage point of what society needs, instead of what the individuals want, makes all the difference in the world.

 

[westNwewaxation]

Are children missing something very important when they are raised in a same-sex household? Well, the fast answer is “no, not usually”. There is some disagreement of course, but most credible psychologists (by which I mean, most psychologists who have conclusions backed with actual study and evidence, and not with unprovable, theoretical Freudian psycho-babble and nonsense) agree that the majority of children in same-sex households grow up just as functionally as those in heterosexual households. What’s more, because they often have experiences with many sorts of people, they are very often even more caring, understanding, loving, and spiritual than are children raised in heterosexual households. At least, there are few credible studies which suggest that they are less of any of those traits. It all depends on parental raising styles of course, but as a rule, the children grow up happy and healthy, and are strong, moral people by the time they are adults. Of course, if you do want to go the route of Freudian mumbo-jumbo, it is perfectly possible for children in same-sex households to find a role model of the unrepresented sex; no one to my knowledge has claimed role models have to parents…

Ok, you keep alluding to this “settled science”, this valid data you believe exists.

There is no study that can tell me a little girl doesn’t have a right to have a mother, and that two gay men can pay a surrogate to “have their baby” for them, and take her home from the hospital and the Mom flies back to Guatemala with her $20,000 and that’s the end of that and 10 years later one of her gay dads will explain menstruation to her. And no a role model is not the same thing as a Mom. And how callous does somebody have to be to just throw that out there? I’m sorry this part does rankle me. We are talking about a RIGHT of the child. Children cannot advocate for their own rights. Adults need to protect them - sometimes from their own parents - when their rights are trampled or ignored.

There is no study that can tell me a little boy has no right to know who his father was, the man from whom he was brought into existence, unless mom wants to tell him, and that he doesn’t have a right to have a father help raise him.

Coincidentally the Catholic church considers IVF and surrogate motherhood immoral - for both straights and gays. Right again, if you ask me. Why?

THEY LOOK AT IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CHILD, NOT THE ADULT.

Sorry but I thought that was important.

 

[Biblepoe]

For the hypothetical children whom you would have adopted by these same-sex couples: Should they do without a mother or should they do without a father?

That type of question could be reverse for children of mixed-sex parents:

“Should they do without a [second] mother or should they do without a [second] father?”

 

[Biblepoe]

By marital I mean sexually complementarity.

So you think two people of the same-sex cannot have “sexually complementarity.” A couple does not need to be able to reproduce in the bedroom in order to complement each other sexually.

There is only one act of human sexual relations that can be deemed marital or conjugal, and it is the one which is anatomically possible only between man and woman. It is the only sexual act that is by nature procreative. That is, its end result tends toward procreation.

This only works if you more or less equate marital and conjugal with procreative. Fertility aside, many mixed-sex couples engage in sex that cannot be procreative, yet they consider it to be marital and conjugal.

And yes, the lesbian advocate may be prescient, for marriage will indeed change. It will tend toward meaninglessness which will lead to its disappearance.

The understanding of the word marriage we are going to is a commitment to live in a union as lovers. You call that meaninglessness! I think that’s very meaningful.

 

[LongingSoul]

So you think two people of the same-sex cannot have “sexually complementarity.” A couple does not need to be able to reproduce in the bedroom in order to complement each other sexually.

‘Complementarity’ reflects the greater natural purpose of any relationship. For example day and night, positive and negative gravitational, electrical and magnetic forces, a nut and bolt, two things which are equal but opposite that in relationship, are intrinsically creative. Newtons law of motion and Einstein’s theory of relativity etc etc establish formulas and equations upon which progress has been achieved for humankind in many different fields of life.

If we say that creative complementarity doesn’t matter and we can base our efforts to progress in life upon things that don’t have natural complementarity through unnatural force ie. having two periods of daylight make up our 24 hour day by some unnatural means or by joining two negatively or two positively charged entities by force to counter their natural repulsion… we create an false equation to base anything else in life on. The illusion of complementarity in these cases, is not supported by nature and is therefore unsustainable in the long term as are all relationships and things based on a lie. Marriage is an formula like other basic natural formulas, that set a precedent for other principles and laws that advance mankind.

 

[Biblepoe]

‘Complementarity’ reflects the greater natural purpose of any relationship.

Purpose, by definition, comes from minds. Natural usually means arising from nature without purposeful intervention (purposeful intervention would make it artificial). So it doesn’t really make any sense to speak of “natural purpose.”

For example day and night, positive and negative gravitational, electrical and magnetic forces, a nut and bolt, two things which are equal but opposite that in relationship, are intrinsically creative.

This doesn’t really help much either. I think what you’re trying to say is that being sexually complementary means being “equal but opposite.” If so, then in what way does the couple need to be equal and in what way the couple needs to be opposite for you to consider them sexually complementary?

When I say a couple is complementary, it’s much simpler. I mean that they are compatible in a way such that one person has strengths that make up for the weaknesses in the other person. In this way, same-sex couples may or may not be complementary, and opposite-sex couples may or may not be complementary.

Newtons law of motion and Einstein’s theory of relativity etc etc establish formulas and equations upon which progress has been achieved for humankind in many different fields of life.

Newton’s laws describe observed phenomenon and Einstein’s theory of relativity is an explanatory model for some observed phenomenon. They don’t seem particularly relevant to whether or not two people of the same-sex can complement each other.

 

[edwest2]

Marriage will not change. Those who worship the god Change demand the new, new, new.

Regarding heterosexuals, a 40 year campaign of slowly, gradually poisoning their hearts and minds is the reason, not “You know, I think we should just redefine the way people regard sex for everybody.” As if it came from nowhere. Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence that the attack on the family was planned, carried out in clearly defined steps, and those involved lied and continue to lie to us, including some of their sons and daughters.

The biggest obstacle? Enemy number one? The Catholic Church. Religious shame, according to a prominent gay/LGBT publication, is the worst of all. So, we have celebrities that model shameless, deviant and perverse sexuality. Who don’t know what the words scandal or guilt even mean. This increased modeling of deviant behaviors, and the infiltration and cooperation of dissidents inside the Church and outside, tore down the foundations of Catholic higher education in 1967. By 1969, abortion was on the radar and they had to lie again, but one of their number realized he was wrong later on and revealed all.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

The same propaganda techniques are at work here. Convince those who don’t believe that “Hey, more and more religious types are getting on board!” Yeah? Maybe. But I doubt it.

1. Give me the name and location of one hospital that will deny anyone visitation rights.
2. Durable power of attorney means a friend of mine can make medical decisions.
3. A simple phone call got my friend put down as beneficiary on my retirement account.
4. And a trip to the bank got his name on my bank account.
5. I can will my estate to my dog or next door neighbor if I want to.

Wake up, Catholics. This is not about disrespecting gay/LGBT persons but opposing any active cooperation in what they call marriage. So far, they have forced a lot of “powerful” people, including the President, to get behind them. They are forcing little kids to learn two men can get married, they are forcing laws and they use 100% emotional words as if they need my permission to live how they want. Get it in your heads my friends, NOBODY needs your permission to get gay so-called marriage. But they demand full acceptance, full approval and full celebration by everybody, by law.

This is like any political movement that attempts to force its belief system on the people. Ask yourself, in a place with 100 people, can I pick out the gay one? No. Of course not. No one can.

That’s why Russia made the wise move of passing a law to stop gay propaganda. You can’t get arrested for being gay, but again, who’s going to know? You, your partner and your gay friends?

When sexual practices are the defining criteria, then don’t fall for all the emotionalism. Gay couples are going to live together whether they can get married or not. Now that there is a treatment for HIV/AIDS it’s back to unprotected sex. That from a major gay publication.

There is no debate. Heterosexual marriage has been the norm for a long time and will continue to remain the norm, even in States where gay so-called marriage is legal. There’s only one combination of genders if you want to see the next generation of human beings.

Ed

 

[JimG]

Biblepoe:

So you think two people of the same-sex cannot have “sexually complementarity.” A couple does not need to be able to reproduce in the bedroom in order to complement each other sexually.

It was not me who created the human reproductive system and the anatomical differences between the sexes. It was God, or evolution, or Mother Nature, however you want to view it. Sexual complementarity is a matter of anatomy. It doesn’t mean compatibility in some other respect.

This only works if you more or less equate marital and conjugal with procreative. Fertility aside, many mixed-sex couples engage in sex that cannot be procreative, yet they consider it to be marital and conjugal.

It works because the marital act in which they engage is the only act that has the possibility of being procreative. It is not procreative in the sense that procreation is inevitable in every instance; that is biologically impossible, even just based upon a womans menstrual cycle. But it IS the only act from which procreation can possibly flow.

When I say a couple is complementary, it’s much simpler. I mean that they are compatible in a way such that one person has strengths that make up for the weaknesses in the other person. In this way, same-sex couples may or may not be complementary, and opposite-sex couples may or may not be complementary.

But that is not sexual complementarity. All the sophistry in the world can not make a same sex couple equal to an opposite sex couple for purposes of marriage. It is an impossibility, something that most civilizations up to the present understood.

 

[LongingSoul]

Purpose, by definition, comes from minds. Natural usually means arising from nature without purposeful intervention (purposeful intervention would make it artificial). So it doesn’t really make any sense to speak of “natural purpose.”

What do you mean? Purpose explains the uniformity in relationship between the things of nature for a greater good. Even godless environmentalists acknowledge purpose in nature. ie. the ozone layer protects the world from UV rays/trees produce oxygen for animal life. Ecology is a purpose driven science. Any sort of relationship serves either a natural purpose or subverts a natural purpose.

This doesn’t really help much either. I think what you’re trying to say is that being sexually complementary means being “equal but opposite.” If so, then in what way does the couple need to be equal and in what way the couple needs to be opposite for you to consider them sexually complementary?

When I say a couple is complementary, it’s much simpler. I mean that they are compatible in a way such that one person has strengths that make up for the weaknesses in the other person. In this way, same-sex couples may or may not be complementary, and opposite-sex couples may or may not be complementary.

The basic truth of human continuity is that because of death, there needs to be a continual process of regeneration otherwise humankind faces extinction. That goes for all living things. That is the primary equation of perpetual human existence. That is achieved through the intercourse of male and female followed by the protection and education of the progeny until the progeny reach a stage of taking the reigns of regeneration. The reproduction of living things is one thing, but the nurturing of the new life is vitally important to this process. Most cultures ancient and modern have held the family in the highest esteem for this important role in regeneration of species. It serves no purpose at all to model and endorse fundamentally barren relationships as being natural and sacred, to the progeny.

It’s important to preserve the integrity of any instrument over and above lustful desire and selfish gratification. For example, you wouldn’t clean the toilet with your toothbrush and you wouldn’t clean your teeth with the toilet brush. Either one could work on the surface of it, but if you undermine the integrity of either by dismissing its proper purpose, you undermine a whole lot of other subtle and delicate systems. Using the sexual functions outside of their purpose undermines their integrity and by extension, the integrity of other important foundations we depend on.

 

[Biblepoe]

Sexual complementarity is a matter of anatomy. It doesn’t mean compatibility in some other respect.

So by “sexually complementarity” it seems you mean that their anatomy is such that they complement each other. I see no reason why that cannot be for two people of the same-sex. After all, if their anatomy wasn’t complementary in some way, then they wouldn’t be capable of doing it.

It works because the marital act in which they engage is the only act that has the possibility of being procreative.

Like I said, restricting what is considered to be “marital” or “conjugal” to mixed-sex sex only works if you are setting up the general capacity of procreation to be important. Many mixed sex couples engage in sexual activities besides vaginal sex that cannot lead to pregnancy.

All the sophistry in the world can not make a same sex couple equal to an opposite sex couple for purposes of marriage.

Who’s purpose are you referring to when you say, “purposes of marriage,” and why does the purpose of that individual or individuals matter?

 

[Biblepoe]

What do you mean? Purpose explains the uniformity in relationship between the things of nature for a greater good. Even godless environmentalists acknowledge purpose in nature. ie. the ozone layer protects the world from UV rays/trees produce oxygen for animal life. Ecology is a purpose driven science. Any sort of relationship serves either a natural purpose or subverts a natural purpose.

You seem to be confusing purpose with function:

Function: What something does
Purpose: What something was intended to do (note that intention implies a mind doing the intending)

Things like ozone layer providing protection are functions. It may be a function that we now need, but it’s not the ozone’s purpose (if it has one at all) unless someone make it that way with the intent of providing protection.

A jet engine has the function and purpose of producing thrust. A jet engine also has the function, but almost never the purpose (unless one intents to commit murder), of sucking in workers and killing them during improper use.

When high school students have sex, pleasure is usually a purpose and a function, but reproduction is usually not a purpose but sometimes an unintended function.

When mature adults have sex, pleasure is usually a purpose and function. Reproduction may or may not be a purpose and may or may not be a function.

The basic truth of human continuity is that because of death, there needs to be a continual process of regeneration otherwise humankind faces extinction… . .]

So you’re moving from talking about complementarity to reproduction. Ok, let’s talk about reproduction…

Obviously if nobody reproduces, a society will die out. The question is, is there really a dire need to encourage reproduction? No. So there really is no need to promote procreative unions over non-procreative unions (mixed-sex or same-sex). Even if there were, things like tax breaks could suffice in order to not marginalize those who choose be be in a relationship (mixed-sex or same-sex) in which there is no chance of them popping out a baby.

It’s important to preserve the integrity of any instrument over and above lustful desire and selfish gratification. For example, you wouldn’t clean the toilet with your toothbrush and you wouldn’t clean your teeth with the toilet brush. Either one could work on the surface of it, but if you undermine the integrity of either by dismissing its proper purpose, you undermine a whole lot of other subtle and delicate systems.

The reason why most people wouldn’t want to use a toilet brush as a tooth brush is because it’s unsanitary and unpleasant.

Using the sexual functions outside of their purpose. . .]

Who’s purpose for sex are you talking about? The purpose for having sex will vary from individual to individual, although one common purpose is usually pleasure.

 

[marymary1975]

So by “sexually complementarity” it seems you mean that their anatomy is such that they complement each other. I see no reason why that cannot be for two people of the same-sex. After all, if their anatomy wasn’t complementary in some way, then they wouldn’t be capable of doing it.

I don’t understand how you cannot see that a same sex can’t be complementary. A same sex couple’s anatomy cannot complement each other for the simple reason that the intestines were not created for sexual intercourse. A same sex couple is indeed incapable of doing so in order to satisfy their sexual desire they look for unnatural ways to satisfy their desires.

 

[marymary1975]

Ok, you keep alluding to this “settled science”, this valid data you believe exists.

There is no study that can tell me a little girl doesn’t have a right to have a mother, and that two gay men can pay a surrogate to “have their baby” for them, and take her home from the hospital and the Mom flies back to Guatemala with her $20,000 and that’s the end of that and 10 years later one of her gay dads will explain menstruation to her. And no a role model is not the same thing as a Mom. And how callous does somebody have to be to just throw that out there? I’m sorry this part does rankle me. We are talking about a RIGHT of the child. Children cannot advocate for their own rights. Adults need to protect them - sometimes from their own parents - when their rights are trampled or ignored.

There is no study that can tell me a little boy has no right to know who his father was, the man from whom he was brought into existence, unless mom wants to tell him, and that he doesn’t have a right to have a father help raise him.

Coincidentally the Catholic church considers IVF and surrogate motherhood immoral - for both straights and gays. Right again, if you ask me. Why?

THEY LOOK AT IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CHILD, NOT THE ADULT.

Sorry but I thought that was important.

 

[Biblepoe]

A same sex couple’s anatomy cannot complement each other for the simple reason that the intestines were not created for sexual intercourse.

First, sex between two people of the same-sex is not necessarily anal sex. I’m trying not to be too descriptive here (since this info can be read by anyone, including children), but there are other forms of sex. Plus, most people who have anal sex are heterosexual, and not all same-sex couples have anal sex.

Second, whether something was created with the intent of being used a certain way and whether it performs that function are two separate questions, with the latter one being the relevant one. For example, in this clip (@ 1:30) from Apollo 13, they decided they needed to use the Apollo Lunar Module for a purpose other than what it was originally intended to do. When the manufacturer was said that the vehicle was not designed with a much different purpose in mind, the lead flight director said, “I don’t care what anything was designed to do, I care what it can do.”

With sex, whether the organs are complementary depends on what it can do, not what it was designed to do. Many same sex couples have been able to have sex using their anatomy in such a way that both partners mutually enjoy the experience and it is relatively safe. That, to me, is sexual complmentarity.

A same sex couple is indeed incapable of doing so in order to satisfy their sexual desire they look for unnatural ways to satisfy their desires.

I’ve known many same-sex couples who have been able to mutually satisfy their desires with each other.

 

[marymary1975]

First, sex between two people of the same-sex is not necessarily anal sex. I’m trying not to be too descriptive here (since this info can be read by anyone, including children), but there are other forms of sex. Plus, most people who have anal sex are heterosexual, and not all same-sex couples have anal sex.

Second, whether something was created with the intent of being used a certain way and whether it performs that function are two separate questions, with the latter one being the relevant one. For example, in this clip (@ 1:30) from Apollo 13, they decided they needed to use the Apollo Lunar Module for a purpose other than what it was originally intended to do. When the manufacturer was said that the vehicle was not designed with a much different purpose in mind, the lead flight director said, “I don’t care what anything was designed to do, I care what it can do.”

With sex, whether the organs are complementary depends on what it can do, not what it was designed to do. Many same sex couples have been able to have sex using their anatomy in such a way that both partners mutually enjoy the experience and it is relatively safe. That, to me, is sexual complmentarity.

I’ve known many same-sex couples who have been able to mutually satisfy their desires with each other.

With regard to your first paragraph, whether is a heterosexual or homosexual couple doing it is still sinful and it is not complementary. Any other "form"of sex is also sinful because sex should be reserved only for marriage and the only non sinful way is the regular intercourse within marriage. The fact that two people are enjoying what they are doing it has nothing to do with being complimentary and little less has to do with whether is a sin. If you want to see that something is complementary just because two people are enjoying it is because that is how you choose to believe is that way, it doesn’t mean it is actually complimentary and precisely because same sex couples have to satisfy their desires by using their anatomy in ways that it was not designed to that the church sees it as disordered. When it comes to the human body is not about what can do but what it was designed to do. If it were like you are saying half of the diseases in the world would not exist. Try to live under the water or start eating paint everyday to see if your not to drawn or die of intoxication, why? Because your lungs weren’t designed to breath under water even though they can do it and your stomach wasn’t designed for paint. Same goes for sex.

And what your second paragraph misses is that the director or anyone in his team gets hurt for using the vehicle in a different manner, the manufacturer is not liable anymore all warranties that the vehicle may have had are lost and they were pretty much using it at their own risk. If anything goes wrong with that vehicle they were all screwed and they couldn’t sue, and you know why they chant sue? Because tort law says that if something was created for a specific purpose it should not be use in a different way.

 

[Monkey1976]

With sex, whether the organs are complementary depends on what it can do, not what it was designed to do. Many same sex couples have been able to have sex using their anatomy in such a way that both partners mutually enjoy the experience and it is relatively safe. That, to me, is sexual complmentarity.

In a male-male homosexual couple, could you please point to the genital tract specifically designed to accept a penis that leads to an organ where a fertilized human egg cell can implant and develop?

In a female-female homosexual couple, can you point to the penis specifically designed to deposit sperm - produced by its associated testes - within the aforementioned genital tract?

**That **is sexual complimentarity - two organs, entirely different from one another, designed specifically to fit together in order to facilitate sexual reproduction.