Friday, March 29, 2013

"Fertility" Foolishness

Distinguish carefully.  Lefties and the father of lies cannot stand it.

...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.

More where that came from.

HT:  BadgerCath

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, keep pushing the wingnut social issues...that strategy has proved so effective in national elections. Are you afraid priests will start marrying one another?

Jim said...

heterosexual relations are only accidentally sterile

Hogwash! How many men have gotten "accidental" vasectomies? How many women have gotten "accidental" hysterectomies? Is menopause "accidental"?

The issue isn't "fertility". The issue is procreation. So-called "defenders" of so-called "traditional marriage" cite procreation as a prime reason for couples to get married. Yet it is clear that people with no intention of procreating are allowed to legally marry IF they are heterosexual and NOT allowed if they are homosexual.

Dad29 said...

Yah, Jim...

You really ought to look up the definition of the word "accident" before you make a fool of yourself. Again.

Anonymous said...

Accident, noun. 1. an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. 2. lack of intention or necessity

Moreover, some heterosexual couples get married and CHOOSE not to have kids. An "accident"???


Moreover, marriage can be separately referred to as a RELIGIOUS and a SOCIETAL contract. Distinguish, indeed.

Jim said...

Thank you, Anon.

Dad29 said...

ac·ci·dent
[ak-si-duhnt]

[Philosophy] any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else


You were only one click away from finding the applicable definition.

Clicking is HARD, I know.

Anonymous said...

There is a BIG assumption by Dad29 that this definition is applicable to the situation.

Deekaman said...

What is it about marriage that gays want? Exactly? All the arguments I hear for Gay Marriage are easily solved by contract law. "I can't see my partner in the hospital". BS. Living Will, Healthcare Power of Attorney. "I can't inherit his (or her) stuff. B.S. again. "I can't be the beneficiary of his estate." Even more B.S. The only thing that can't be covered by contract law is Social Security survivor's benefits. So just come out and say it. This is about the federal tit. Plain and simple. It is always about the money. Even the argument that it is about undermining the moral foundations of Christianity is only party true. It is about the ability to sue a church because they will not perform the ceremony. It's about the money and all other arguments are bogus.

Dad29 said...

Deek, I think you're 90% right. The other very important component is 'legitimization.'

As to Anony: the use of the term 'accident' is absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

It bears repeating...marriage can be separately referred to as a RELIGIOUS and a SOCIETAL contract.

And thanks Dad29 for acknowledging that my usage of "accident" is absolutely correct.

Jim said...

All the arguments I hear for Gay Marriage are easily solved by contract law.

Why should a gay couple have to go through the time and expense of creating a legal contract that they must produce for hospitals and such when a heterosexual couple need only have a single document that a county clerk can provide for a nominal fee?

The only thing that can't be covered by contract law is Social Security survivor's benefits.

Not so. There are multiple Federal tax benefits available to legally married heterosexual couple that would not be available to a gay couple with a "contract".

This is about the federal tit.

Not in the slightest. Social Security is NOT the "federal tit". It is the rightful return of accumulated investment. If it were the "federal tit", why should heterosexual couples receive survivor's benefits if legally married gay couples cannot.

It is about the ability to sue a church because they will not perform the ceremony.

That's a bogus claim. A church could ONLY be sued for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage if it provides marriage services to the general public, meaning non-members. As long as the church only performs marriages for its membership, over which the church has direct control, they could not be sued.

Of course it's largely (but not solely) about the money because monetary benefit comes to couples that are legally married. For the federal government to disallow these benefits to people who are legally married is a breach of equal protection of the law.

Anonymous said...

Another D29 argument laid to waste...

Anonymous said...

Indeed.

Dad29 said...

Jim:

*Sniff, wail*

Dad29 said...

And it IS about the churches.

Not suing them for money. Crushing them---like ObozoCare---with some spurious 14th Amendment hackery.

Jim said...

It is not one bit about the churches. The ACA has nothing to do with churches except to exempt them from some regulations.

Dad29 said...

To paraphrase SNL:

Jim, you ignorant slut!

Dave P. said...

Why not get the government out of the marriage business entirely and have civil partnerships available to any two adults? I know siblings, parents and children, and platonic friends who would have benefited...

Dad29 said...

Simple solution?

Not so. I'm perfectly happy with 'civil unions' which include hospital visitations, (etc.)

But tax law surrounding marriage is abundant and complex. Every State has its own, plus the Feds.

"Removing gummint from marriage" is not simple, brother.

Jim said...

I am far from ignorant. I followed the legislation, read much of the law, and have taken a college course on US healthcare policy and the ACA.

Dave P. said...

"Removing gummint from marriage" is not simple, brother.

I do realize that. Once you get government involved in anything, it is all but certain that it is there for good.

Also, my idea makes nobody particularly special or privileged, as it is available to any two adults who wish to set up a partnership. If the couple wishes to define themselves as married, that's their business (However, this is the one big flaw I see in my solution, and also a defense for marriage as traditionally understood. What happens if an incestuous couple obtain a civil partnership and declare themselves married? That's why the states have laws prohibiting marriage between close relations, because it assumes that children could and would result. OTOH, if the state no longer defends the procreative aspect of marriage...will have to think about this...)