Sunday Comments on Sex and Marriage

http://www.nomblog.com/13147

While Denny Smith, Executive Director of Winning Marriage Equality, lists plenty of nice things that happen to be part of marriage (and other deep friendships as well), he is passionately convinced that "marriage is not about sex ... it's not about sex":

Marriage isn't about sex at all? We wonder what married people would think about that claim.

Denny's claim that marriage isn't about sex proves the point our President Brian Brown made in this week'sMarriage News:

"Gay marriage is a radical proposal because it cuts marriage off at the root, separating it from its roots in human nature."

Let's round up some comments

Here's one from John Noe

Marriage is about the union of one man and one woman. It is about the sex because only heterosexual sex can produce future offspring.


To save myself time, I'll address it at the same time as addressing this gem from Louis E.


Anyone who doesn't understand that marriage exists to unite males to females (those are the sexes of the partners) doesn't understand marriage at all.


Well, they're both wrong. Marriage is not about procreation.  If I may quote the ruling, "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut"


Here's one from twingirl2


If marriage is not about SEX, then let's just all drop the label "sameSEX" as a label to claim it applies to sameSEX people. A little sameSEX honesty is in order on the bit and switch politics of sameSEX activists. First you use SEX acts to describe people as either homo or hetero-SEXual (because they have SEX with each other), and then you lump them toegether also based on their gender as non-similar groups because they have male or female homoSEXual or heteroSEXual or biSexual attraction, still based on gener or sex (male or female). It is dishonest and ingenuous to then claim that that same activity, SEX, doesn't really matter in the relationship because it is all about love and commitment and wine and sunsets. No, it IS about sex, but not about only sex acts, but about sexuality itself.


You missed capitalizing SEX a few times at the end there. And yes, we should drop the same sex label and just say it's "marriage" because that's what it is. The joining of two consenting adults into a civil contract called marriage. Everything else is kind of gibberish.


Here is a winner from Tim


Really CJR?? You think this is a description of marriage? It may be a description of a relationship but it has NOTHING to do with the fundamental nature of marriage. This describes parts of a good friendship or a romantic relationship but NOT a marriage. You may want to redefine marriage to be just this but it ISN'T! Marriage is protected and valued in society because of it's nature and ability to bond a woman and man together into more than they are alone. The capacity that they have together to procreate and to provide, care, and develop their children, to provide a home, the social foundation and fabric of a true family that is the fundamental unit of society IS what marriage is about. If marriage isn't about procreation and the upbringing of children then it isn't really marriage. And don't raise the issue of couples who cannot procreate because of age or infertility. God has proven over and over that He can and does overcome those issues. The examples of Abraham being a simple one. In the depths of old age and infertility Abraham and Sarah concieved a child that was destined for greatness. Homosexual couples lack the capacity to produce a child or provide the same home (both a mother and a father) in which to best care for a new life.


Umm...he's not trying to redefine marriage. He's just saying that procreation and having sex aren't essential to marriage. As for the God argument put forth, I'd like to point out that Jesus killed a figtree (what sane God does that?) and that in general the bible is kind of crazy if you actually read it. Seriously though, Tim is using the bible as proof that infertile women or impotent men can procreate? And Abraham as an example? The man was ready to kill his child for God. Doesn't exactly sound like father of the year material to me. Everything else said by Mr. tim is kind of pointless, as gay couples can provide a home and care for a child. That, and finally, marriage isn't about procreation; otherwise, it would be a requirement. Even Massachusetts said that limiting marriage to one man one woman doesn't do anything to make sure heterosexual couples don't have bastard children (Like Maggie Gallagher). 


Here's another winner from MikeGLBT


The sex act is a pleasure and it is a fact of reproduction. Taking the purpose of sex out of the picture is what helps create the illusion of false equivalancy of a couple of the same sex and a man and a woman. The marriage idea was never intended to be the vehicle to make the appearance of 2 men as a couple or 2 women as a couple the same as a man and a woman. They are different. Profoundly and extremely different. Our American obsession for equal rights and equality should not be fooled by this bogus double talk. There is nothing wrong with the special status of a man and a woman as a married couple. It does not make anyone any more or less different.


Marriage was never intended to be an equal partnership between man and woman, it was originally done as a property exchange.  And yes, congratulations, a man-man couple is different from a man-woman couple, just as a black-white couple is different from a white-white couple which is different from an asian-white couple which is different from an asian-black couple, etc. (Oh no, race is being compared to sexuality. Good thing race is not immutable). Every couple is unique, but every couple deserves the same legal recognition by the state. 


And finally, one comment from Michael Ejercito. 

I think his point is marriage is not all about sex ....

So why did Tiger Woods's marriage fail?

I'm kind of curious as to what point Mr. Ejercito is trying to make here. Pointing out a legally-recognized marriage that is clearly a sham does nothing to help your point; if anything, it strengthens the point made by equality activists that marriage is not sacred with rising divorce rates

And to answer Mr. Ejercito's original question, Tiger Woods' marriage failed because he got some bad advice from a caddy who said he should play through and not take the penalty stroke.