Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Marriage All About Fertility? Really, Peter Sprigg?

Cheated on his wife with numerous young women over the years.

Cheated on his wife with numerous young women over the years.

Oh deary, deary me….One thing that the anti-gay groups seem to do a lot of is grasping at straws. It may seem rather absurd to bring up elderly fertility, but just for a second, let us talk about Hugh Heffner. Did you know that The Heff- the man who founded a pornography empire- the man who claims to have slept with 1000 women- is pretty much shooting dust these days?

Did you know that men actually do have a limit to viable fertility. By around the age of 50- roughly the same age as women hit menopause- men’s fertility starts to diminish as well. One of the reasons given for the rise in the number of autistic children is the fact that male sperm over the age of, about, 40 starts to become more and more damaged. By the time they get to 50, they start to produce less sperm as well. Oh, and the older the man, the less likely the sperm is to actually fertilize an egg.

So, when during oral arguments regarding Proposition 8 in front of the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan challenged Charles Cooper’s claims about the unique procreative purpose of marriage, and she inquired about couples over the age of 55 being allowed to marry, the argument should have been seen for the absolute ludicrousy that it is. Well, that isn’t stopping Family Research Council mouthpiece Peter Sprigg from trying to actually correct the record:

Perhaps Cooper was wary of appearing sexist to Justice Kagan if he stated the truth more bluntly—55-year-old women are virtually always infertile, but 55-year-old men are not. As frustrating as it may be to some feminists, there are some sex differences which cannot be overcome. (Justice Antonin Scalia tried to save Cooper with a joke about Strom Thurmond, the late U.S. Senator who continued to father children well into his 70’s, but it seemed to go over the audience’s heads.)

Society’s interest in promoting “responsible procreation”—the term most commonly used in defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman—involves not just promoting procreation itself, and promoting it in a responsible context (i.e., where the mother and father who make a child are both committed to the child and to each other through marriage). “Responsible procreation” also implies an effort to discourage irresponsible procreation—a quite plausible example of which might be a 55-year-old man going around impregnating fertile women (presumably younger than himself) who are not his wife.

First of all, it is not uncommon for an older man to cheat on his older spouse with a younger woman. The best examples for this are often found within the Republican Party, but let us start with former President Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife with several women who were and are younger than former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Then there’s Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is 66 years of age. He married his first wife Ivanna, who is currently 64, in 1977 when she was 28. He divorced her in 1992 when she was 43. He then married Marla Maples in 1993 when she was 20. He divorced her in 1999 when she was 26. He would then marry Melania Trump in 2005 when she was 34.

Then there’s Newt Gingrich, who is currently 69 years of age. He has been married three times, and his current wife is twenty years younger than he is, and each time he cheated on his current wife with a younger woman.

The country is rife with men who married younger women after having married women their own age. Divorce courts are clogged with cases of men cheating on their wives with younger women. So, it is time to put an end to that idiocy of an argument.

At least we can say that Larry Craig never cheated on his wife with a younger woman.

He just cheated on her with younger men.

Comments

comments

Share This Post

One Response to Marriage All About Fertility? Really, Peter Sprigg?

  1. Pat Carbonell

    March 30, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Most people, when they speak of irresponsible procreation, are speaking of the “too young”. They neglect the “too old”… not too old to bear or engender, but too old to have a reasonable expectation of living long enough to support and raise their child to adulthood. We admire the Rod Stewarts and Strom Thurmonds of the world (well, at least men do), and the Elizabeth Edwards, too (sorry, she had her last two children after her first bout of cancer…). Their children are, or will be, raised by the single remaining parent. Those children have, or will, endured the terrible grief of losing a parent at a young age.

    Is that fair? Just to prove you’re not shooting blanks? Or to replace a child who has died?