If these infertile people do not contradict the definition because they are a minority can't homosexuals too not be considered to undermine the definition of marriage because they too are a minority?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If these infertile people do not contradict the definition because they are a minority can't homosexuals too not be considered to undermine the definition of marriage because they too are a minority?
Because a man and a woman can still partake in the act of procreation, despite failure. Two men cannot. Two women cannot.
"Two men cannot. Two women cannot."
Yes, but an infertile man and an infertile woman cannot produce a child either, right? If the possibility for procreation is absent due to infertility how can it still be considered an act of procreation? How can an act of procreation not involve procreation? I mean an act of procreation does need to involve a possibility for procreation, right? If so then if the possibility is absent then it cannot be regarded an act of procreation - and that seems to me to be the case in marriages where either or both partners are infertile.
If a man and woman engage in sexual relations and the woman does not get pregnant, that is a failure to successfully procreate while still performing all the necessary steps to get there. If we consider that infertility usually isn’t a 100% failure rate, the woman can have multiple still births and be considered infertile.
Eggs can be fertilised in an infertile woman but the pregnancy won’t go the whole way.