• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry ?

S

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex

It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.

Pointing to a recent surge in businesses that have spoken out against same-sex marriage and other rights, Robertson made the eyebrow-raising statement in a recent "700 Club" broadcast, Right Wing Watch first reported.

"If you show me one couple that conceived a child through anal -- through anal intercourse -- just show me one in all the world, and I will say, ‘I agree with you and you are right.’ Show me one," he said. "It is unnatural, I’m sorry."

Robertson made headlines last week in an earlier broadcast after he implied that the gay community would force Christians to like anal sex, as well as polygamy and bestiality, in an effort to "make you conform to them."
Click to expand...

:shock::doh oooh boy.
 
it's just me said:
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
Click to expand...

That's so dumb.

:doh
 
Nilly said:
That's so dumb.

:doh
Click to expand...

There's a reason for it, it all fits into their marriage/procreation thing, along with their aversion to birth control and so on. It makes sense in their universe, and at least they are consistent about it. I personally think it's BS but what do I know?
 
it's just me said:
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I ignore everything they have to say.
 
it's just me said:
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
Click to expand...

One more reason to celebrate that in America we make laws based on evidence and reason and not on religious traditions.

Helix said:
yes
Click to expand...

/thread
 
Paschendale said:
One more reason to celebrate that in America we make laws based on evidence and reason and not on religious traditions.
Click to expand...

Don't make me laugh, it hurts when I laugh.
 
Paschendale said:
One more reason to celebrate that in America we make laws based on evidence and reason and not on religious traditions.
Click to expand...

With that post, you should admit you have never attended law school in your life. Not that there was ever any doubt. :roll:

Why is it I can't buy beer or wine in certain stores on Sunday? :roll: :roll:
 
Top Cat said:
Which is precisely why I ignore everything they have to say.
Click to expand...

In contrast, I am revisiting some of my previous opinions. Have been since the Brits passed that law permitting the creation of chimeras and hybrids. Very troubling.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex

It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.



:shock::doh oooh boy.
Click to expand...

after reading thread title I stopped at the name "Pat Robinson".
Nobody honest, rational, educated and objective takes that bigoted loony-toon hate monger and his anti-american, anti-constitutional, anti-rights and anti-freedom views seriously . . . .

anyway the answer is yes, of course they should. Ability to create off spring has nothing to do with legal marriage.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex

It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.



:shock::doh oooh boy.
Click to expand...

If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
 
phattonez said:
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this talking about legal marriage, and not everyone abides by that church's rules, nor should they have to. Plus, many Catholics consider their faith only applies to them, and others shouldn't be forced to live by it (unless they believe it is causing someone else harm).
 
phattonez said:
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. No one gives you a reproductive exam before they issue the certificate. You can get married at 75 if you want, and obviously you're not going to get pregnant at 75.

Marriage, as the term exists in America, is a society-wide, government institution that has nothing to do with whether you can or want to have kids, or what religion you are. You can be a sterilized Satanist and still get married.

You can say whatever you want about what you think of it, but you are factually wrong that the infertile cannot get married. They get married every day.
 
phattonez said:
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
Click to expand...

Sterile people can get married, as long as there is disclosure to the other spouse before the marriage.

Impotent people cannot get married.
 
Paleocon said:
Sterile people can get married, as long as there is disclosure to the other spouse before the marriage.

Impotent people cannot get married.
Click to expand...

Legally, those people can get married and in fact, the spouses do not have to inform the other (although not informing your spouse that you know you are sterile can be grounds for a divorce more in your favor.
 
it's just me said:
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
Click to expand...


Is that really true? If a person is disabled and cannot consumate the marriage, the Catholic church does not see that as a valid marriage? I wonder where they based that.

It's my understanding that it's the vow, or the commitment to cleave to each other, that makes a man and a woman considered married in the eyes of God.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
What's "ooooh, boy" about it? Why shouldn't an infertile heterosexual not allowed to marry?
Read your own OP article.

Do you see the difference? No.

Oooooh boy, indeed. :lol:
Click to expand...

Neither group, infertile heterosexual couples nor same sex couples should be prevented from legally getting married because legal marriage is not about procreation.
 
roguenuke said:
Legally, those people can get married and in fact, the spouses do not have to inform the other (although not informing your spouse that you know you are sterile can be grounds for a divorce more in your favor.
Click to expand...

No.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

tosca1 said:
Is that really true? If a person is disabled and cannot consumate the marriage, the Catholic church does not see that as a valid marriage? I wonder where they based that.

It's my understanding that it's the vow, or the commitment to cleave to each other, that makes a man and a woman considered married in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...

Marriage is (amongst other things) an agreement to engage in sexual intercourse. If one is incapable, then one cannot validly marry.
 
Paleocon said:
No.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Marriage is (amongst other things) an agreement to engage in sexual intercourse. If one is incapable, then one cannot validly marry.
Click to expand...

Legality is not the same thing as canonical law. Catholic rules on marriage are not the same as actual laws of marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Legality is not the same thing as canonical law. Catholic rules on marriage are not the same as actual laws of marriage.
Click to expand...

The Church has the ultimate right to govern such matters.

And in any case, those are natural laws. Since they proceed from the very nature of the thing.
 
Paleocon said:
The Church has the ultimate right to govern such matters.

And in any case, those are natural laws. Since they proceed from the very nature of the thing.
Click to expand...

For their church, not others.

No, those are not "natural laws" because marriage is not natural, but rather man-made.
 
roguenuke said:
For their church, not others.

No, those are not "natural laws" because marriage is not natural, but rather man-made.
Click to expand...

It is entirely natural for man to marry, thus why practically every society has marriage.
 
Paleocon said:
It is entirely natural for man to marry, thus why practically every society has marriage.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't "natural", not in the way you are attempting to use it in saying "law of nature" earlier. Legal marriage isn't natural at all, since it only deals with recognition of the marriage in exchange for rights, benefits, and protections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom