Yes, it is indeed what I stated in my first post I believed the Catholic Church taught. It is nice to know that my understanding is not totally off the mark.
Yes and no. As long as the people involved are not Catholic the assumption is that they should be considered valid (legal in the sense of allowed.) just not sacramental. So in a round about way it could force those that see only a man & woman as being able to be considered civilly married (valid not a sacramental) to accept the legal status of other types of “marriage” so as you can see it is a yes and no situation.
Ed believes that feminists are the root of all evil in the world.
I think the Church might differ with you on the idea that the best state is a Church/State. Her experience with being in that kind of power arrangement has not been a very good one, and most see her present independence as vastly preferable. But hey, you may in fact argue for theocracy…I don’t think I would say it too loudly however. There is plenty enough Catholic bashing and Catholics making it hard for other Catholics already.
Hardly…No the church holds a great many marriages it had nothing to do with invalid. Such as the valid civil marriage between a Catholic and any divorced person, even when the divorced perso is not and never been Catholic nor married in a Catholic Church. The Church, declares the Catholic to be living in sin, until such time as the spouse obtains a annulment (how two non-Catholics can be dragged into an annulment is a bit strange to me). So they do indeed speak to marriages they have nothing to do with and find them invalid. I did some research for a neighbor on this, and sad to say, its true…At least it seems sad to me.
Only the latter is I believe prohibited. To desire no children is considered disordered and the penalty is that the person must remain celibate and unmarried for life or until such time as they return to a proper ordered mind. Hopefully, not a lot of this stuff gets too public, I don’t think it plays particularly well in a democratic state. The first two you mentioned still allow the Miracle to take place wherein God intervenes. Apparently, and I sincerely don’t know why this is, God doesnt intervene when a contraceptive is used, though no doubt he could, so only in the latter is there a real refusal to allow for pregnancy, which is the only valid reason for sex. The state of mind of the former two seems not at issue.
Yes. There is still the will to procreate. (In most cases) They can adopt if they want a child. Plus, you need parents of BOTH genders in an ideal marriage. Without one or the other to as a mother or a father, your child really misses out. Imagine: whenever a heterosexual preteen boy hits puberty and his gay dads have to counsel him, what are they going to be able to tell him about women, feelings, and womanly anatomy?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
) if a celibate loving couple, with no intention of adoption, be approved for civil unions. Much of the document is about sex and the raising of children - if these are not involved is the love between two persons of the same sex to be respected? Can that love be validated in a celibate, childless civil union?Probably what a lot of heterosexual dads tell their sons… not a whole lot!
Probably what a lot of heterosexual dads tell their sons… not a whole lot!
Why is it that you suppose that the Church would oppose the union of temporal and spiritual authority? Vatican City is, itself, an example of exactly this sort of arrangement. You say “most” see the current secular state of government as preferable to one where religion forms a formal component of the state. I wonder who it is that these individuals are and I further question their motives in preferring such a government. Too often the preference for a secular state is rooted in the individual’s desire to be free to engage in the sins he or she is tempted towards.
**Yes to be sure, in the name and for the love of Jesus, use “every means. . . to rip such individuals apart.”
**It sounds like you are making them something less than human.
Other Eric
If it sounds as though I am making those who have same-sex attractions out to be less than human, that is your inference, not my argument.It sounds like you are making them something less than human.
This is a very slippery slope whenever anyone views anyone else as something lesser than them based on some arbritary gauge.
On the whole, I agree with your assessment of the validity of marriage and the purpose it is meant to serve. Though your argument was better than many I’ve seen, I would still caution against presenting a same-sex couple’s inability to enter into marriage as nothing more than a mere accident of biology. One’s identity as a man or a woman is deep and profound and meant to serve some purpose. One’s gender is not to be thought of as a quality arrived at by chance and that if only one’s body was equipped with the proper set of genitals, such a union would be fine. I suppose I need not point out to you that there exist more than a few individuals who concede your argument and therefore set out on a program of mutilating their bodies through surgery. The prohibition on marriage to a same-sex couple runs much deeper than the mechanics involved in an act of coitus.
You cannot imagine that the love of Christ is a saccharine sweet thing that contains within it no bitter pill for those who obstinately persist in evil. Nor can you imagine that Christ has called us to ignore the sinfulness of our brothers and to avoid doing what we must to keep them from error. I choose to believe when Christ spoke of Hell, that He was not bluffing. I further choose to believe that indifference to the plight of our brothers is a grave evil that would merit my own damnation should I permit such an attitude within myself.**Yes to be sure, in the name and for the love of Jesus, use “every means. . . to rip such individuals apart.”