Reproduction isn't necessary for sex to occur. This applies to heterosexual couples as well, you realize. I had sex with my ex wife for years, and since she was unable to conceive, reproduction was impossible. And without getting into details, we often had sex that did not include the classic penis/vagina combination. So trying to argue that sex = reproduction is illogical and silly.
And this doesn't even begin to suggest why sex is tied to marriage. I know several married couples that don't have sex at all, so I know it's possible to be married and not have sex.
No, you haven't shown reproduction to be necessary for marriage at all. And this is why same sex couples should have the same opportunities.
Lol. Playing a semantics game is fine with me. I'll adjust my points just for you...
1) Unmarried pairs of fertile men and women have the ability to reproduce.
2) Married couples consisting of a man and woman can decide not to reproduce, or be unable to reproduce.
2) Either married couples consisting of a man and woman or married couples consisting of two men or two women can raise children produced by other people.
4) Couples consisting of two men or two women can raise a child where one member of the couple is the biological relative of the child.
This doesn't change the argument at all you realize. Since I'm showing exceptions to the notion that reproduction = marriage, your argument fails.
Upvote
0
- Aug 22, 2009
- 434
- 44
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
As far as the issue of marriage being for reproduction, does that mean infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or that if a married couple finds out one partner is infertile, they should seek an annulment?
Upvote
0
So I take it you're abandoning your original arguments, correct?
Oh, and for a time, the fastest growing population of new AIDS cases was black heterosexual women. During that time, would you have said that it's "illogical" to be a black woman? And is being African "illogical", since the rate of AIDS is higher there?
Face it, you think two men having sex is "icky" and you're attempting to use logic to justify that feeling.
It's not working...
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To ToddNotTodd,
As same sex intercourse can never reproduce you cant even compare it with man and woman, observing fertility is just demanding the proper union always fulfil a purpose the same sex one cant. Its not a credible argument.
All you do in response to the crunch questions is deny the point by ignoring the crunch questions.
I am not playing semantics so much as showing your language is.
The question was how is it sex if not using the sexual reproductive organs? The answer is that if it is sexual intercourse, it is man and woman, same sex intercourse doesnt work.
As same sex intercourse can never reproduce you cant even compare it with man and woman, observing fertility is just demanding the proper union always fulfil a purpose the same sex one cant. Its not a credible argument.
So if sex doesnt equal reproduction why use contraception?
Well yes I have because you cant answer the question how the sexes and sexual organs that do go together functionally should somehow be equal with one sex together?
All you do in response to the crunch questions is deny the point by ignoring the crunch questions.
So are you saying that homosexual isnt same sex attraction? If not why cant two homosexuals be one man and one woman?
I am not playing semantics so much as showing your language is.
Fertile isnt relevant is it, as a same sex couple cant reproduce whether fertile or infertile.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
Doesn’t work for what though? Doesn’t work for reproduction sure, but works for lots of other things.
What happens when the purpose of sex isn’t reproduction, as is the case in the vast majority of times/
You’ve just defeated your argument there. If sex was purely for reproduction there would be no need for contraception. Sex isn’t only for making babies, so we have contraception to minimise the risk.
What has that got to do with marriage? That’s the point you have failed to address.
If the ability to reproduce is important for one set of couples, why is it not for others? Why the double standard?
Upvote
0
CoderHead
Knee Dragger
- Aug 11, 2009
- 1,087
- 23
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Fail. Not everyone is gay. And unlike Christians, gays don't want everyone to be like them; they just want to be themselves.
So...do you urinate from an orifice other than your penis? Because I'd say it's unhygienic to stick your penis into a woman's vagina when you pee out of it.
The statement being made was that sex does not always result in reproduction, as I've already stated in the past. The fact that sex between a man and woman does not result in offspring 100% of the time means that reproduction isn't the sole purpose of sex. It feels good too, you know. We do it for recreation.
What we're saying is sex doesn't always equal reproduction, just as marriage doesn't always equal children. Get it?
Upvote
0
You can have sex without using a penis/vagina combination. This holds true for opposite sex couples.
Sex with my ex wife could NEVER reproduce. Sex among elderly couples when the woman is post menopausal can NEVER reproduce. And as I've pointed out innumerable times, you don't have to be married to reproduce. All of these examples show that marriage does not equal reproduction.
When I had sex with my ex, we didn't. When I have certain types of sex with my current wife, we don't. I think you're failing to understand some basic biology here...
If you're talking about same sex marriage, then all I have to say is:
Marriage does not equal reproduction. I've already proved that.
Methinks you aren't reading what I'm writing.
So? I've already shown that marriage does not equal reproduction, and in order for your argument to work, you have to show that it does.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Psudopod,
It doesn’t work for reproduction and what else is there as a function. If you are going to suggest pleasure again then why have two sexes? The answer which you refuse to recognise is there are two sexes for sexual reproduction, all you are doing is ignoring reality to suit pleasure.
The purpose of sexual intercourse of man and woman is reproduction, why do you think contraception is used when people don’t want to conceive? What has that got to do with same sex which can’t reproduce? Your whole argument is based on your desires and not reality.
The intention of people not to conceive wont stop the function of sexual intercourse to conceive, that’s why they use contraception.
No again I asked you the question how the sexes and sexual organs that do go together functionally should somehow be equal with one sex together?
As I said fertility isn’t important as a same sex couple conceive so cant be equated with a man/woman couple so you cant ask me to compare like you are doing.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To ToddNotTodd,
how can you equate the sexes and sexual organs that do go together functionally to conceive, with one sex together?
Its not sex though is it. The question to you was how can it be sex if not using the sexual reproductive organs?
AS I said you cant use the fertility argument because its only relevant to man/woman.
Ok so no man and woman will conceive because you and your wife couldn’t? I don’t think so. Again just because some male/female couples can’t conceive is irrelevant to someone promoting a coupling that can never conceive. You are failing to understand not only basic biology but basic logic here.
You have proved it does by being unable to say what marriage is in addition to a faithful friendship apart from the physical sexual union. But you have also not addressed the question. The questions show why you are wrong if you actually do answer them, which is why you wont.
how can you equate the sexes and sexual organs that do go together functionally to conceive, with one sex together?
again I didn’t say marriage I said fertility isnt relevant as a same sex couple cant reproduce whether fertile or infertile. That’s why marriage is man and woman only.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
There is pleasure, there is the bonding of the couple, there’s even exercise. Two sexes are required for reproduction, but reproduction is not required for sex. People have sex for reasons other than creating children. If you want proof, look how much money contraceptive companies rake in. You can ignore this all you like, but it doesn’t change reality – reproduction is a possible outcome of sex, but it is not the sole purpose of sex. Just like staying alive is a reason for eating, but people have meals for pleasure, to bond with their friends, to show off their skills etc. We don’t just eat because we need to, and we don’t just have sex for babies.
Can you not see how you are contradicting yourself? If the purpose of sex is reproduction, why to people try and prevent reproduction?
See above. Reproduction may be an outcome of sex, but it’s not the sole reason people do it. If it was, no one would use contraception.
Yes, I know what you are asking, but you are asking this to dodge the statement that was written previously: “No, you haven't shown reproduction to be necessary for marriage at all.” Address this first and then we can answer your question.
They can’t be equated on their ability to reproduce. But then, neither can an infertile couple, or a post menopausal couple. So why the double standard?
Upvote
0
atomweaver
Senior Member
On that same basis, you cannot use the fertility argument either, because it is only relevant to fertile men/women.
I'll say, if he didn't; it is an institution formalizing the inheritance of property, and the right of your spouse to powers of attorney. A quick scan of the Bible supports these aspects being far more prevalent in discussions of marriage than procreation. Numbers 36 comes to mind.
That chapter is also interesting, because it shows God, Himself, through Moses, altering the habits of His followers (limiting tribe of marriage) in order to accommodate the established secular institution of marriage. There's a lesson for you in that, BMS...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You somehow think that sex can only occur in a penis/vagina combination. That, of course, is not true at all. Your denial of this is telling.
It's not possible to equate fertility to marriage at all, as I've proved. THAT'S the point.
I said no such thing, and putting words in people's mouths is dishonest. And once again... you can't equate the ability to reproduce with marriage. Let's not get off on a tangent here.
Uh... you haven't asked me what I think marriage is, so saying I'm unable to is, again... dishonest. Do all Christians do this?
Marriage is the legal recognization of two people that have decide to commit to each other. That's all it is.
Sex isn't a necessary part of marriage, since like I've said (and you've ignored), I know several married couples that don't have sex at all.
Children isn't a necessary part of marriage, since I know several married couples that can't have/don't want children. I also know married couples that have adopted other people's children.
These are all legally married couples. Given your argument, your only choice is to deny that these couples are married or admit that you can be married and not have sex, and not reproduce. And that eliminates your argument altogether.
Because in the context of marriage, there's no logical reason NOT to. Any reason you have is completely arbitrary.
Complete non sequitur. You're providing no logical argument at all.
Upvote
0
...and since marriage isn´t about sex...there is no problem with two males or two females marrying.
Upvote
0
You did notice this was in the introduction, not the conclusions of this study? That, as the first line says, "Surveys of lesbians that did not have heterosexual control groups". So they are saying that none of that data is reliable because without heterosexual women being included there is no accurate way to compare the numbers.
In fact, what they found was not the same as what was in the introduction, for example, "In this study, lesbians had had fewer human papillomavirus infections than the other two groups of women." And, going even more against what you are trying to claim, "As shown in previous studies, a person's lifetime sexual history correlates poorly with sexual orientation."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Logic and rational thought are not a fundimentalist's friend.
I admire those that have the energy to wade through the sea of falacies and child-like thinking.
I admire those that have the energy to wade through the sea of falacies and child-like thinking.
Upvote
0
atomweaver
Senior Member
I added back the rest of the article section that follows your quoted section.
O RLY? Then why did the Nationa Academy of Science find the data you cited so seriously wanting?
re-quote;
Reps to you, for citing your source...
Upvote
0
To all you opponents of righteousness,
The Laws of God are arbitary. The laws of the land were originally derived from the Bible. Then as time passed, the people fight to change the laws to accomodate their lusts and coveting.
Dont confuse the premise that gay marriage is wrong with side issues such as adoption, sterile couples and 'what is normal child rearing?' etc. to justify their lust to oppose God and his Word. gay marriage is still wrong.
If you are a Christian, or you call yourself a Christian, read the Bible. I dont hate the person, just the sin. I stand here to speak against this sin. But I am only a messenger of God. If you hate what I say, you hate what God says.
Yet, if you or they persist to justify their sins, then they condemn themselves on Judgement Day and you are helping them do so.
The Laws of God are arbitary. The laws of the land were originally derived from the Bible. Then as time passed, the people fight to change the laws to accomodate their lusts and coveting.
Dont confuse the premise that gay marriage is wrong with side issues such as adoption, sterile couples and 'what is normal child rearing?' etc. to justify their lust to oppose God and his Word. gay marriage is still wrong.
If you are a Christian, or you call yourself a Christian, read the Bible. I dont hate the person, just the sin. I stand here to speak against this sin. But I am only a messenger of God. If you hate what I say, you hate what God says.
Yet, if you or they persist to justify their sins, then they condemn themselves on Judgement Day and you are helping them do so.
Upvote
0
The Holy Spirit spoke through Jesus. The Holy Spirit spoke through Paul. The message in the Bible and from God (Jah) is consistent. If you are trying to debunk the argument that gay marriage is wrong by trying to pull apart the union between Jesus and Paul, then you are just as pathetic as the pharisees. Just because it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus spoke out againsts gays, doesnt mean that He didnt do so. Perhaps back in the time when there was more righteousness in the world, He didnt need to mention that because everyone knew it is wrong, unlike today where chaos reigns and there is no moral fabric anymore. But still, that is not to say that He didnt speak out against it. Im sure he did.
The Bible clearly says that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith and heaping to themselves teachers with itching ears. They will turn the truth into lies. And thus, we now see that confusion reigns in the public sphere. And who is the author of confusion?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
atomweaver
Senior Member
Likewise, just because it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus spoke out in defense of gays, doesn't mean that He didn't do so. Its ironic to me that you mention the Pharisees. Read John 8; you are the Pharisees, only with homosexuals as the sinners you wish to stone, instead of an adulteress.
He spoke out against adultery, too, and yet John 8 remains.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
