Gay couples just like infertile couples?
The pro-homosexual movement uses the matter of infertility in an attempt to gain traction for same-sex marriage by pointing out that if infertile heterosexual couples can marry, then the ability to procreate cannot be a prerequisite for or essential to marriage. Therefore, they reason, homosexuals should also be allowed to marry. However, this argument works only if there is no distinction between the infertility of homosexual relations and those of an infertile heterosexual couple. In other words, all infertilities would have to be equal, ie, existing for the same reason.
Is this so?
It is not. Homosexual relations are essentially sterile, while heterosexual relations are only accidentally sterile. In fact, they are not even both infertilities properly speaking. This is a smokescreen used to deflect attention from the real underlying issue. Infertility is an issue only in respect to those whose exercise of their procreative powers in heterosexual intercourse has failed for some reason that may be due to congenital or temporary health problems.
Infertility and impotence are not the same; neither are coition and sodomy. So yes, dear litigants in the Proposition 8 case, the ability to marry is not contingent on fertility, but it is contingent on potency, on consummation – on becoming “one flesh”. On that requirement alone, your case for same-sex marriage fails.
continue at Mercator
4 comments:
What about a post-menopausal woman marrying? She is infertile. The union is infertile and permanently so. What is the response to that situation? Why issue a marriage license to a man and woman in their 60s? I'm curious as to the response of defenders of traditional marriage.
Maybe you missed it in the article, the thesis is this: "Infertility and impotence are not the same." In other words homosexuals are not physically able to have sexual intercourse, and that is the difference between the two situations. "Homosexual relations are essentially sterile, while heterosexual relations are only accidentally sterile."
Actually, the physiological and physical feedbacks in the body of that post-menopausal woman are still working at achieving pregnancy - the only difference is that due to a few age-related changes pregnancy is next to impossible. To say the "union" is infertile is to disregard all the other physiological/physical body responses resulting from the sexual activity…there is still a lot going on in the body and the brain.
In addition – the post-menopausal woman and man are capable of being parents. They could raise a grandchild or foster child in much the same way as the natural parents could….providing the child with both a mother and a father figure (having both a mother and a father is a societal GOOD.) And, such a marriage would provide one of the many goods marriage gives a society, stable connections between males and females.
Think about it. You see two grey-haired people, one man and one woman, with a 10-year-old boy. There is absolutely no way to be sure they are not the parents….you would have to ask. However, if it was two men and a child, you would not even have to ask….you’d know THEY together could not be the (natural) parents of that child. The ONLY way they could be the “parents” would be through some governmental action.
Elizabeth, Sarah, Hannah and the mother of Samson were all sterile. By God's intervention they all bore sons.
Abraham, Zachary, Elkanah and Manoah did not become pregnant although they were not sterile. Nor could they even with God's intervention as male pregnancy is as much of a contradiction as a square circle.
Same sex marriage is as strange as putting two roosters in a cage and then checking for eggs. Shame on the Supreme Court for even entertaining this absurd proposition.
Post a Comment