Sunday, 26 May 2013

Thoughts on 'Same-Sex Marriage' (Continued...)

A same-sex union can never achieve conception as a rule - ever - in every case this cannot be achieved.

The reproductive system of male and female can effect the relationship of a marriage in terms of fertility. Fertility can cause joy and pain, for example, joy with the birth or conception of a child and pain if a couple or one of the couple are found to be infertile.

Fertility is a non-issue for same-sex couples. Therefore is it 'equal marriage' if a couple of different genders can achieve something that same-sex couples cannot - reproduction? Surely it is not and therefore cannot be called marriage because we are dealing with a different category of human relationship. Indeed, the Catholic Church would say that we are dealing here with a disordered sexual relationship, but, for same-sex couples, the opposite situation arises. The reproductive system of the couple - be they male and male or female and female - are never involved in the sexual union.

So we see that 1 man + 1 woman = new life in most cases, since even if they contracept, the removal of the contraceptive option allows the possibility of new life that they had hitherto been wilfully impeding.

1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman = no new life in every case without exception.

So how can we use the same word to describe these two unions. It makes no sense unless you want to dismantle the meaning of the original word.

A same-sex couple could indeed adopt a child, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). A same-sex couple can also go through surrogacy, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). Indeed, a same-sex couple could go through IVF or surrogacy, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). However, this will always involve artificial means of obtaining a child and the child can never be the result of their sexual union. Therefore, can we call this 'marriage'?

One could object that infertile couples go down this path, so why not same-sex couples? Yet that misses the point. Unlike for same-sex couples, for infertile heterosexual couples, their infertility is not a result of their union being fruitless because they have the same reproductive organs. It is because there is, for one reason or another, an element of sterility present in one or both of the parties. Yet their union stands and can be called 'marriage' because of the fact that their unitive and reproductive organs are different - not the same. Their union is not less a union because of 'faulty mechanics'. This is what a union is - the union of two complementary but essentially different human beings - biologically, sexually and reproductively - different because and only because they are male and female.

Not only the purpose of human sexuality and of marriage is being destroyed in the 'same-sex marriage' legislation, but, too, the purpose and meaning of male and female. Because marriage is to be an institution into which men can enter with men and women with women, the implicit message of the legislation is not just that marriage has no inherent meaning and purpose, but that to be male and to be female is the same thing. This is incredibly dangerous. We are now saying that men and women are not just 'equal', but we are saying that men and women are 'the same' even though this is a categorical lie of immense proportions. Men cannot, for instance, give birth. A man has no womb. A woman does. Women can breastfeed, a man cannot.

Much rides emotionally and within a marriage for couples in terms of fertility in that from the loving union of a man and a woman, a child may or may not be the result. There are things a heterosexual couple can do that a same-sex couple cannot do. For example, as well as the obvious examples, a same-sex couple can go down different avenues in order to obtain a child, but they cannot, for example, pursue natural family planning as can a couple composed of two persons of the opposite gender.

How is it that we can be at this stage of the progress of the legislation and yet men and women in public office, in politics, in the media and in academia have failed, completely, to object to this legislation purely in intellectual terms because the legislation is riddled with glaring logical inconsistencies and indeed, logical black holes? 


johnf said...

The answer is obvious. Married opposite sex couples should not be allowed to have children because this is 'unfair' on same sex couples.

There is many a true word spoken in jest!

We have already heard one commentator Melissa Harris-Perry in the USA arguing that children belong to the community not the parents. And the Telegraph today reports that the Scottish Parliament wants to appoint a social worker for every child from birth to ?? With vaguely defined terms of reference.

Enjoy your children while you can before the government takes them for the 'community'

pelerin said...

You mention 'words.' I've yet to learn what SSM partners will call their other half. On Wednesday the first SSM will take place in France and it will be interesting to see the publicity given and what they will be calling each other. With civil partnerships they obviously referred to their partner but with a 'mariage' who knows? Will any journalist dare ask the couple?

Highland Cathedral said...


I think that you will find that they call each other ‘partner’. One of the aims of SSM is to further the agenda of those who wish to make all relationships the same. That involves removing the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. The government already does this on most of its documents. The term ‘partner’ will be applied to any adult who is living with somebody else as long as they are not biologically related.

On the question of terminology, what do you call the woman a man is living with when they are not married? Do you fall in with the modern, socially-acceptable term ‘partner’ or do you call a spade a spade? Say, for example, the man is your brother, what do you call the lady friend he is living with? Do you say to him, “How’s your partner?” or do you say something else? If so, what?

Andrew said...

This is a must-read article from Christopher Booker in yesterday's Telegraph, if you haven't already seen it:

"In view of the devastation inflicted on the Tory party by the gay-marriage issue, it is remarkable how little interest has been shown in the story that lies behind David Cameron’s desperation to get a measure – that was not mentioned in his 2010 election manifesto – on to the statute book by no later than June this year.

As I recounted here on February 9, the drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long “secret conference” chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that – with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, “several countries” had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right. Hence the recent rush for several countries to oblige, including France, where gay marriage has brought thousands of protesters out on to the streets. And hence last Tuesday’s unprecedented revolt in the House of Commons, when 133 Tories voted against their government.

They included Owen Paterson, the only Cabinet minister to vote for all the amendments moved by his parliamentary private secretary, David Burrowes, designed to give protection from intolerance to those opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons of conscience or principle.

An irony of all this was that among the amendments defeated by the Government was one proposing that heterosexuals should be given an equal right to homosexuals to enter into civil partnerships.Originally, in 2010, Theresa May had been all for this, as was Equal Love, which supported a case by eight gay and non-gay couples to be taken to the ECHR. But when the Government checked the financial implications of allowing non-gay couples to enjoy civil partnerships, finding that the resulting tax privileges could cost the Treasury up to £4 billion a year, it ruled that this was a step it couldn’t afford. When it comes to equality, it seems that money takes precedence – and that some people must be considered more equal than others."

Katalina said...

To my understanding this whole thing which we see in the West involving "same sex marriage" is the result of a book that was published in 1848 called the "Communist Manifest" In it the State (Socialist) considers itself to be God and for that reason it can trample citizen rights as it wishes. Homosexuality was thought by Marx and Engels to be the best way to destroy the nuclear family so we see.

BJC said...

There's no logic at all in SSM. It just shows how much reason has been supplanted by emotion in the modern world. What I'm waiting for is someone to start an Equal Rights for Straight Couples (ERSC) pressure group. That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons and give the politicians a head-ache. Perhaps the French will do it.

pelerin said...

Highland Cathedral - I have not had to fill in any documents for some time but I would certainly cross out 'partner' and put husband or wife.

In reply to your second question I always refer to them by name!

johnf said...

Madame Featherstone has been quoted as wanting to make the UK the most 'gay friendly' country in the world.

May God help us if she gets her way!

What does she have next on the agenda?

By the way, a report to the Lords in 2010 reported that the cost of caring for those suffering from AIDS / HIV was already over £700M p.a. The costs of antiretroviral drugs over a lifetime is reckoned as between £280,000 and £360,000 per patient. This is to keep them going in a normal gay life. It's a lot for the tax payer to fork out for someone's recreational sex life.

Those unfortunates who contract lung cancer and smoking related diseases can fairly argue that NHS costs of care are far outweighed by the cumulative taxes on tobacco (similarly for alcohol related diseases)

umblepie said...

Thanks for this post. I have just read the comment from Andrew in which he quotes Christopher Booker's article in yesterday's Telegraph- and the jigsaw pieces are beginning to fit together in this unsavoury and immoral legislation. Slightly off topic, but I have taken the liberty of recommending your posts on this matter, in my recent post today. Trust this is okay.

Lynda said...

And that is why the global elite use communism, homosexualism, radical feminism, etc. to control the people, and kill as many as possible. Faith, marriage, family, knowledge and love are bulwarks against their evil oppression and so must be destroyed

pelerin said...

The gay 'marriage' which took place yesterday was the first news item on French channels last night.

Every married couple in France is given a 'Livre de famille' and the news reader stated that in this case the couple were referred to in it as 'Epoux' and 'Epoux.' (Male spouse and male spouse) So now we know. In England the term spouse seemed to have died out in speech but retained on documents. Perhaps it will now be brought back as for a man to say 'This is my spouse' would seem less controversial than for him to say 'This is my husband.'

Sadly the new couple have been quoted as saying that they hope to adopt a child. Those who allow gay adoption are experimenting with children's lives and I think this is very very wrong.

Anonymous said...

Most of these comments should be removed as they do not "maintain a measure of good will."

The Only Safe Space in the World

Virus normalcy, the so-called 'new normal', is for Christians almost certainly more abhorrent than it is for people of other reli...