Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[JimG]

I wouldn’t ban all marriages not recognized by the Church–just marriages that are biologically impossible.

 

[Publisher]

I wouldn’t ban all marriages not recognized by the Church**–just marriages that are** biologically impossible.

As defined by your faith community…not defined by the State. The State doesn’t embrace your faith communities definition and restriction of marriage…the State defines marriage differently. The States of the Union that recognize same sex marriage is growing…so, same sex marriage not only is possible…but exists in 6 states.

 

[JimG]

As defined by your faith community…not defined by the State. The State doesn’t embrace your faith communities definition and restriction of marriage…the State defines marriage differently. The States of the Union that recognize same sex marriage is growing…so, same sex marriage not only is possible…but exists in 6 states.

No, I just meant not possible in the biological sense, not as a matter of religion. Marital sexual relations requires sexual complementarity. That’s just the biology of conjugal relations. To paraphrase Johnny Cochran, if the parts don’t fit, you must acquit. Marriage is conjugal. And conjugal relations requires sexual complementarity. That’s been pretty much apparent for the last 6 or 7 millenia, regardless of religion.

 

[Publisher]

No, I just meant not possible in the biological sense, not as a matter of religion. Marital sexual relations requires sexual complementarity. That’s just the biology of conjugal relations. To paraphrase Johnny Cochran, if the parts don’t fit, you must acquit. Marriage is conjugal. And conjugal relations requires sexual complementarity. That’s been pretty much apparent for the last 6 or 7 millenia, regardless of religion.

But the State DOES define a marriage possible between same sex couples…a secular State that authorizes marriage between same sex couples and offers same sex couples the benefits of marriage within that State…they’re not using YOUR or your faith communites definition of marriage but their own…since they issue the marriage licenses…they consider it marriage…even between same sex couples…not withstanding the “parts and pieces”.

 

[JimG]

But the State DOES define a marriage possible between same sex couples…a secular State that authorizes marriage between same sex couples and offers same sex couples the benefits of marriage within that State…they’re not using YOUR or your faith communites definition of marriage but their own…since they issue the marriage licenses…they consider it marriage…even between same sex couples…not withstanding the “parts and pieces”.

Some states might call same sex couplings marriage, but they are wrong to do so. It’s not nice to fool mother nature.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the fist place. The US Constiuion requires equal protection under he law for all persons. If you want to uphold the US Constitution, then either gay marriage must be recognized, or get the government out of marriage altogether. But to permit straight marriage without allowing same sex marriage is,as anybody who understands Constitutional law knows, discriminatory and a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

May I point out the obvious here: the US Constitution is not the highest authority in this world. Why do you think your point is at all relevant to the question of marriage and the church as posed by the OP?

 

[Publisher]

Some states might call same sex couplings marriage, but they are wrong to do so. It’s not nice to fool mother nature.

States may issue license and define secular marriage as they wish…religious communities may do the same…but refusing state sanctioned marriages because one’s religious beleifs don’t accept them…is no reason to deny those couples who wish to enter into a state sanctioned secualr marriage…marriage.

 

[JimG]

States may issue license and define secular marriage as they wish…religious communities may do the same…but refusing state sanctioned marriages because one’s religious beleifs don’t accept them…is no reason to deny those couples who wish to enter into a state sanctioned secualr marriage…marriage.

I never once mentioned religion. I mentioned biology. Religion has nothing to do with how men and women are designed.

As for the state, it can define positrons as electrons, but it would be wrong in that too.

 

[fix]

States may issue license and define secular marriage as they wish…

They have power to abuse, for sure. That does not mean they have the “right” to make things up regardless of reality.

 

[Publisher]

I never once mentioned religion. I mentioned biology. Religion has nothing to do with how men and women are designed.

As for the state, it can define positrons as electrons, but it would be wrong in that too.

Biology does not issue “definitions” of “marriage”…people do…in this case your religiious definition is used to define it to suit it’s beliefs and purpose…the state defines it to suit it’s purposes

 

[JimG]

Biology does not issue “definitions” of “marriage”…people do…in this case your religiious definition is used to define it to suit it’s beliefs and purpose…the state defines it to suit it’s purposes

No, I gave no “religious definition.” I merely stated the facts of biology. Men and women are sexually complementary. That’s the way they are made. No religion or unreligion can change that. The way they are made determines how they function. It’s pretty simple biologically. Governments generally recognize the facts of biology. They don’t have to, but when the don’t, the results are bad for the culture. Denying reality does not help society.

 

[Publisher]

No, I gave no “religious definition.” I merely stated the facts of biology. Men and women are sexually complementary. That’s the way they are made. No religion or unreligion can change that. The way they are made determines how they function. It’s pretty simple biologically. Governments generally recognize the facts of biology. They don’t have to, but when the don’t, the results are bad for the culture. Denying reality does not help society.

You couple procreation with your faith communities definition of marriage…the State’s definition does not bind procreation with marriage…it may not fit your or your understanding of biology …the State disagrees with your not calling a secular same sex marriage…marriage.

 

[JimG]

You couple procreation with your faith communities definition of marriage…the State’s definition does not bind procreation with marriage…it may not fit your or your understanding of biology …the State disagrees with your not calling a secular same sex marriage…marriage.

You keep bringing up religion and faith and ‘faith community definitions.’ I do not. I merely state the realities of biology. That’s what gay marriage activists seem to be arguing with. They seem to disagree with biological facts or wish to disregard them. Whenever I mention biology, you mention religion.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s very hypocritical for “gay” atheists to reject biology while accusing the Church of rejecting science.