SSM debate: the sterility objection - Page 2

Corki · #16 Jun 28, '12, 6:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

This seems to be a concession -- or biting the bullet. Are saying then you wouldn't object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying?

A concession to what?

spencelo · #17 Jun 28, '12, 6:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

The surgery could have been botched or God can intervene with a miracle.

What if the surgery was not botched? Then it could have been a miracle? Well, if you're playing the "miracle" card, then so can I! God could "miraculously" intervene and enable a same-sex couple to produce a child.

spencelo · #18 Jun 28, '12, 6:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

A concession to what?

I meant biting the bullet, but please answer my question. Would you object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying? Yes or no?

livingwordunity · #19 Jun 28, '12, 6:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

What if the surgery was not botched? Then it could have been a miracle? Well, if you're playing the "miracle" card, then so can I! God could "miraculously" intervene and enable a same-sex couple to produce a child.

Not when to God homosexual sex is an abomination. God would not oppose himself.

spencelo · #20 Jun 28, '12, 6:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

A marital act ordered toward procreation may result in procreation. But if it doesn't, it is still ordered toward procreation. The marital act that results in procreation is exactly the same as one that doesn't.

On the other hand a sexual act that is not ordered toward procreation such as male-male or female-female sexual stimulation can never result inprocreation nor be ordered toward procreation.

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."

spencelo · #21 Jun 28, '12, 6:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

Not when to God homosexual sex is an abomination. God would not oppose himself.

Let's be careful now. Define "homosexual sex" for me. Does oral sex between two men count? What about kissing?

livingwordunity · #22 Jun 28, '12, 6:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

Let's be careful now. Define "homosexual sex" for me. Does oral sex between two men count? What about kissing?

God doesn't define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it's an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

**catharina** · #23 Jun 28, '12, 6:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

In this thread, I would like to focus on one argument in the SSM debate, which I'll call the "sterility objection" (SO). I'm going to state the objection as clearly as I can, with the hope that someone will tell me where exactly it goes wrong.

SSM debate?
Catholic forum, Catholic teachings.
IOW, there is NO debate.

No SSM, no debate about it.

sw85 · #24 Jun 28, '12, 6:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

In this thread, I would like to focus on one argument in the SSM debate, which I'll call the "sterility objection" (SO). I'm going to state the objection as clearly as I can, with the hope that someone will tell me where exactly it goes wrong.

The SO is a response to the argument that SSM shouldn't be legal because same-sex couples can't procreate; it argues that if we accept this argument, then we could run a parallel argument against many opposite-sex marriages, which would be absurd. Here's my construction of the objection:

(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.
(2) There are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples.
(3) Therefore, if same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate, then permanently sterile opposite-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry for the exact same reason: because they can't procreate. (from 2, 1)

The only way to deny conclusion (3) is to deny one of the premises, because as a matter of logic, the above argument is valid. No one could rationally, in my view, deny (1) because it is simply a statement of the consistency principle: that we should apply reasons consistently, not arbitrarily.

Thus the main problem with SO--if there is a problem--is with premise (2). Opponents who deny the conclusion must deny (2), and affirm the following: that there are relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples. What are those relevant differences?

I deny (2), for the simple reason that there is in fact "relevant differences" even between homosexual couples and infertile heterosexual couples. The former are sterile by nature, the latter by accident. Natural law concerns the nature of things. So I suppose, for that matter, I deny the second part of (1), as I deny that an individual couple's fertility is the only relevant consideration. QED.

livingwordunity · #25 Jun 28, '12, 6:31 pm

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." - Romans 1:24-27, the Holy Bible

**catharina** · #26 Jun 28, '12, 6:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

God doesn't define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it's an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

spencelo · #27 Jun 28, '12, 6:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

God doesn't define sex the way Bill Clinton does. The word of God says that it's an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.

Well, this is impossible: for a man to "lay with another man as he would with a woman," he would have to be able to have vaginal intercourse with his male partner. Two men having anal sex isn't a man and a woman having vaginal intercourse.

Btw, the passage you reference doesn't say anything about sexual activity between lesbians.

spencelo · #28 Jun 28, '12, 6:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

I deny (2), for the simple reason that there is in fact "relevant differences" even between homosexual couples and infertile heterosexual couples. The former are sterile by nature, the latter by accident.

What do you mean "by accident?" Opposite-sex couples can achieve sterility on purpose -- in fact, many do.

sw85 · #29 Jun 28, '12, 6:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

So which premise in my argument do you deny? How can the sexual union between permanently sterile opposite-sex couples be "ordered" towards procreation?

The reproductive faculty doesn't cease to be the reproductive faculty just because it is impaired from doing so in a particular case, any more than a blind eye is still an eye (and so still normatively ordered toward sight). Which means the natural law obligation to use the reproductive faculty in accordance with its normative end doesn't change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

If so, you should know that many opposite-sex couples cannot engage in penis-vagina sex -- i.e., people permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Should those people be allowed to marry, even though they cannot engage in acts that are "ordered to procreation?"

In Catholic moral theology, the requirement is that the couple be able to complete the sexual act in the normative manner. This means intravaginal ejaculation. A woman being paralyzed from the waist down doesn't prevent this, so marriage to her is valid. A man being paralyzed from the waist down does, so a woman's marriage to him is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

This is false. If Bob has a vasectomy, and Jane has her tubes tied, there is no possibility of procreation. For some opposite-sex couples, the possibility of procreation is ZERO.

You are clearly not familiar with natural law. I urge you to read Edward Feser's Aquinas. This is neither a new nor interesting objection to natural law, it simply misapprehends it.

Corki · #30 Jun 28, '12, 6:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

I meant biting the bullet, but please answer my question. Would you object to legislation that prohibits permanently impotent people from marrying? Yes or no?

I think I would be neutral on such legislation but couldn't really answer without reviewing the proposed bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spencelo

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."

Yes, I am picking a specific sex act but not arbitrarily. It is the only sex act that, by it's nature, makes it possible for a man and woman to procreate. That's not due to my picking it, it's just biology. You are confusing an act being procreative with it being fecund or fertile. A non-procreative act can never be fertile but a procreative act can be non-fertile.