The State and a Definition of Marriage

[rossum]

I find the entire argument that compares infertile heterosexual couples to same sex pairings as disingenuous. There is no real comparison at all.

If infertile heterosexual couples are not to be brought into the argument, then you are implying that the lack of children, or the lack of the possibility of children, is not a factor in the argument.

As soon as one side says, “heterosexual couples can have children together,” the obvious response is, “only some heterosexual couples can have children together.”

If you want the other side to drop their response, then your side has to stop making that argument about children and use a different one.

I think that will be difficult. For example, look at your recent post in this thread:

That is no small matter. It is central to the entire issue.

Their acts are still sterile by design. Adoption and illicit techniques do not change anything. Just thought I would give you a lesson in logic.

You yourself are using the “they cannot have children together” argument.

rossum

 

[fix]

If infertile heterosexual couples are not to be brought into the argument, then you are implying that the lack of children, or the lack of the possibility of children, is not a factor in the argument.

As stated, no it is not part of the argument.

As soon as one side says, “heterosexual couples can have children together,” the obvious response is, “only some heterosexual couples can have children together.”

That is a reductionist argument. Objectively, it is true only heterosexual couples can have children. They are in the class of people that can procreate together. That much is obvious. That some persons, through age or pathology, cannot procreate does not negate the fact they are in the class of persons who can procreate. They have nothing in common with two men pretending to be what they can never be.

If you want the other side to drop their response, then your side has to stop making that argument about children and use a different one.

Why? The truth of the matter is that marriage and children cannot be separated. They are integral to each other.

I think that will be difficult. For example, look at your recent post in this thread:

You yourself are using the “they cannot have children together” argument.

rossum

I do not see your point at all? Children are part of the argument. Two men or two women have nothing to do with marriage or procreation.

 

[fix]

Marriage itself has nothing to do with homosexual relations. It can exist only between couples who are sexually complementary.

That is correct. That is why claiming two, or more, same sex persons are equivalent to a heterosexual couple with a post menopausal woman is a type of category error.

There is no apt comparison between the two situations.

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve long argued that the simplest solution to the SSM debate is for the government to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. Just issue civil union licenses. Anyone that wants to be “married” need only find a church willing to perform the rites. And as time goes on, there will almost certainly be more and more churches will to marry SSCs.

As you read post #49, why would/should the state issue a license of any kind?

 

[Giants]

As you read post #49, why would/should the state issue a license of any kind?

Because as long as two people are asking the government to receive all the benefits of being “married,” they should at least pass the eye test, or be able to be checked out and make sure they aren’t already married.

In any event, as long as the government is going to be in the business of issuing marriage licenses, or civil union licenses, SSCs should petition them for equal protection under the law.

 

[Stephen168]

Because as long as two people are asking the government to receive all the benefits of being “married,” they should at least pass the eye test, or be able to be checked out and make sure they aren’t already married.

In any event, as long as the government is going to be in the business of issuing marriage licenses, or civil union licenses, SSCs should petition them for equal protection under the law.

Thanks for trying

 

[Giants]

Thanks for trying

I wasn’t trying. What I said was self-evidently true.

 

[rossum]

As stated, no it is not part of the argument.

I will return to this point about lack of either children or the possibility of children.

That is a reductionist argument. Objectively, it is true only heterosexual couples can have children.

False. Only couples of the opposite sex can have children. The sexuality of either partner does not impact on their ability to have children. If a lesbian is raped by a man she is physically capable of having a child. If a gay man gets married, due to social pressures, then he may have children with his wife. Ted Haggard has children, despite being bisexual, not heterosexual.

They are in the class of people that can procreate together.

Almost everyone is in a “class of people that can procreate together”: males and females can procreate together. There are a few hermaphrodites and others that do not have the required equipment from birth, or have lost it through an accident.

Unfortunately for your argument, almost everyone is also in a "class of people that “cannot procreate together”. All males are in a class that “cannot procreate together”. All females are in a class that “cannot procreate together”. You are basing your argument here on imprecise and not particularly useful statements.

Why? The truth of the matter is that marriage and children cannot be separated. They are integral to each other.

They can be, and easily are. Many married couples do not have children. Many children are born to single mothers. You are not living in the real world here. Just look at Mary and Joseph. How many children did they have together?

I do not see your point at all? Children are part of the argument. Two men or two women have nothing to do with marriage or procreation.

And many marriages have nothing to do with procreation either. If procreation is essential for marriage, then many heterosexual marriages fail to have that essential. If procreation is not essential, then you need to find a different argument against same sex marriage.

At the top of this post, your said that lack of the possibility of children was “not part of the argument”. Now you are saying that they are. Please make up your mind.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Because as long as two people are asking the government to receive all the benefits of being “married,” they should at least pass the eye test, or be able to be checked out and make sure they aren’t already married.

In any event, as long as the government is going to be in the business of issuing marriage licenses, or civil union licenses, SSCs should petition them for equal protection under the law.

“equal protection” from what? Same-sex couples appear to only want a benefits package.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fissionu235]

“equal protection” from what? Same-sex couples appear to only want a benefits package.

Peace,
Ed

Its a good start…

 

[edwest2]

Its a good start…

to what?

Peace,
Ed

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Why shouldn’t same sex couples be allowed to marry? Precisely because they do not have the power to conceive new life. That would be like asking why aren’t passengers expected to have a driver’s license when they get into a vehicle. Precisely because they are not the ones undertaking to fulfill the capacity of “driving” the car. They are not the ones bearing the responsibility for creating new life because they simply cannot.

Let’s talk about a male-female pairing for a second. Based on what you just said, many male-female marriages would not be permitted, either. For example, if the male was physically incapable of having sex.

Are you OK with that?

Actually, I wonder why the Church doesn’t make a bigger stink about this. Because there are couples getting married all the time that cannot perform the sexual act. Has the Church been protesting that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s talk about a male-female pairing for a second. Based on what you just said, many male-female marriages would not be permitted, either. For example, if the male was physically incapable of having sex.

Are you OK with that?

Actually, I wonder why the Church doesn’t make a bigger stink about this. Because there are couples getting married all the time that cannot perform the sexual act. Has the Church been protesting that?

I am not sure what you mean by “physically incapable.”

For the Church, marriage is a sacrament and viewed as a vocation with the mission of creating new life as a natural result of physical love. Why would anyone physically incapable of fulfilling a mission want to take on that mission knowing they could not fulfill its purpose? Priests who exhibit definite shortcomings are denied the “right” of priesthood precisely for this reason.

You are not claiming that anyone who simply “wants” to do a job should have a right to undertake it simply because of their desire, regardless of ability or capacity, are you?

The Church’s position does not preclude someone from being married who is physically capable of engaging in procreative love and who desires to fulfill the mission of the sacrament of matrimony but physiologically encounters obstacles, if these obstacles can be resolved in morally acceptable ways.

Again, this all depends upon what you mean by the term “physically incapable.”

 

[Bradski]

IWhy would anyone physically incapable of fulfilling a mission want to take on that mission knowing they could not fulfill its purpose?

Are you being serious? Are you asking why someone who can’t make love would want to get married? And then compare it to a job?

Your attitude to marriage comes across as cold and utilitarian. Who needs love, eh? It doesn’t seem to be a requirement.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you being serious? Are you asking why someone who can’t make love would want to get married? And then compare it to a job?

Your attitude to marriage comes across as cold and utilitarian. Who needs love, eh? It doesn’t seem to be a requirement.

On the contrary, I find the creation of a new life to be a vocation. That has quite a different meaning for me than “job” has for you. A vocation is a mission that you dedicate your entire life towards doing the best you can to complete to the best of your ability. It requires a total commitment of you as a person. This is not something I take lightly in the least.

A vocation that requires two individuals of complimentary genders to procreate and raise a family is one that requires the total self-giving of each member for a lifetime. The “self” for each becomes, in a very real sense, the family unit. Someone who cannot provide the total self-giving, physiologically, spiritually and psychologically, that is needed to create and sustain a family, is by definition, incapable of the vocation.

If you think this sense of vocation merely means the capacity for sexual intimacy or the capacity to love one other person on an affective level, you are mistaken. A vocation requires the capacity to give yourself completely and unreservedly to the mission or “calling.” It becomes not merely the central focus, but the only focus.

This is not a cold or utilitarian understanding, it is a deeply personal and fully integrated one.
The problem is that today in our modern western culture we don’t “get” the idea of vocation precisely because most of us lack a fully integrated self capable of carrying out anything remotely resembling a vocation.

 

[Giants]

I am not sure what you mean by “physically incapable.”

For the Church, marriage is a sacrament and viewed as a vocation with the mission of creating new life as a natural result of physical love. Why would anyone physically incapable of fulfilling a mission want to take on that mission knowing they could not fulfill its purpose?

Why they would ‘want’ to is beside the point. The fact is, they do ‘take on this mission,’ and the government (if not Catholic Church) ‘allows’ them to take it on, in the full knowledge that they’re incapable of fulfilling what you term to be their “mission.”

 

[livingwordunity]

Not every marriage is procreative, but every marriage between man and woman is sexually complementary. That sexual complementarity enables marital intercourse which is ordered toward procreation, whether it ever in fact produces a child or not.

Same sex couples can never be ordered toward procreation, any more than a man and his TV can be ordered toward procreation.

Same sex marriage is simply a fantasy which society seems poised to impose on all of us as a required fiction, with non-belief being the ultimate sin. Married men and women will be required to pretend that their union is the same as a homosexual union. Of course, it isn’t. It’s as though Amtrak required us all to refer to their trains henceforth as “airplanes” for the sake of transportation equality.

It will render marriage meaningless, and in so doing, very likely make it more infrequent. It will require us to lie about marriage at the expense of civil penalties. And finally, it will undermine true marriage and destabilize the social structure.

Awesome post!

 

[Bradski]

On the contrary, I find the creation of a new life to be a vocation. That has quite a different meaning for me than “job” has for you.

Then it might be better for the sake of clarity that you do not use it as an example.

You are not claiming that anyone who simply “wants” to do a job should have a right to undertake it simply because of their desire, regardless of ability or capacity, are you?

 

[livingwordunity]

“equal protection” from what? Same-sex couples appear to only want a benefits package.

Great point!

 

[PRmerger]

Homosexual, or lesbian, or gay couples are not by definition infertile. They simply cannot procreate together as same-sex couples. They can adopt or they can opt for in vitro. I am not condemning or condoning these acts; I just thought I’d give you a biology lesson.

This is, frankly, ridiculous. If the term “couples” had not been used, then, perhaps, the point would be well made.

But, the fact is that a same sex couple is, indeed, infertile. Sterile. Barren. Unable to reproduce. Not ordered towards procreation.