Sure they are. Age may have rendered them sterile but they are still oriented toward procreation by design.
Because they are man and woman. The marital act is procreative by design whether or not conception takes place.
No, I have never said that two men or two women are identical to a man and a woman in terms of reproduction. I have, however, said that as the ability to reproduce (either in actuality or even as a theoretical possibility) is not a requirement for a heterosexual marriage under civil law (and in fact, the inability to have children is a requirement for civil marriage in some cases), I see no reason that it should be a requirement for homosexual marriage.
Opposite genders is a requirement, or always has been. That is not an accident and it is based, partly, on the fact both persons are designed to be procreative togther whether or not they can subjectively reproduce.
Not sure what this means?
Why not? You admit they are not equal comparisons. It is not only about being able to reproduce, but a lack of complimentarity is a problem. Sterile men and women may not reproduce but they are oriented in that way.
It means that in many states, first cousins are allowed to marry only if they are over 65 or have medical documentation that they are unable to have children. It’s been mentioned a few times in the thread, so I didn’t realize it needed clarification, sorry.
I don’t see that opposite gender is a requirement for any complementarity other than reproduction with each other. Emotional and psychological characteristics are more disparate within each gender than they are between genders.
Thank you, Karen. This has been a valiant effort at educating…and I know personally, your last paragraph to be true. I don’t think this is a debatable issue for some. That’s where they invoke “strawman”…
Says, “Political leaders, of whatever kind, should defend this fundamental institution, the basic cell of society”
Again, so they cannot reproduce but their bodies and human nature are oriented toward procreation. To deny this would mean marriage is not about man and woman but simply any arrangement one describes.
I have no idea what this proves. We have no access to evaluate the data or what the goals of the studies were. Also, if they are comparing media representations to whatever they studied that only means the media is wrong. It does not mean men and women are simply cogs in a machine that are interchangeable.
Robots perhaps could be made to raise children. That does not make it good or natural.
Our bodies and human nature are certainly not oriented toward monogamy. If the primary purpose of marriage is to follow our human nature and most efficiently use our bodies for procreation, we should then be advocating polygyny, as one man is capable of impregnating many women virtually simultaneously. Such an arrangement is certainly in keeping with scriptural precedent and with tradition.
The blue highlighted text at the bottom of that page is called a link and leads to the study for further information. In case that doesn’t work for you for some reason, here is the study
And if the moon were made of cheese, we could mine it to help alleviate hunger. Neither of these things is relevant to this discussion.
By human nature I mean man’s moral end as in the natural moral law. I am not talking of physicalism.
Great. That does not change anything though. The studies compare media images. Why is the media the touchstone?
Great, does that mean any woman you happen to love mean she could be your “husband”? The issue is not that any man could be your husband but that any woman could never be your husband.
Do you think the nature of male and female are simply an accident of nature? You folks seem to minimize anatomy and chromosomes as if they are incidental and simply tools to use as you wish. Man is body and soul.
Only if you define complimentarity apart from gender. Two men can be different, but not different in the way a man and woman are different.
Nope, it makes mine accept there genuine differences endowed by the creator. Your position makes us disembodied minds that see our physical natures as instruments to be used like tools.It would appear that your view makes them much more machine-like than mine.
Sure it is. Just because something is done does not justify it.
Define success.
If the child is raised in an atmosphere were two same sex persons act as husband and wife that is directly contrary to nature.
Just because one is not ovulating, or sterile permenantly, does not mean the marital act ceases to be oriented toward procreation.
I am heterosexual, so no, it would be highly unlikely that I would seek out a woman to be my spouse, whether same sex marriage is legal or not. I really doubt that you will have hordes of people who are heterosexual clamoring to enter into same sex marriages just because such are legally available.
Yes, humans are body and soul and much more than only baby-making machines. That would be part of the reason that civil marriage is allowed between couples who have some sort of physical disability and are not able to insert tab A into slot B, even though the Church does not allow such. This does not minimize anatomy, it knocks it off of a pedestal as the be-all and end-all and puts it into perspective with all the other aspects of the person that lead toward marriage.
And you define complementarity solely based on gender characteristics, which, as the studies I cited showed, are highly influenced by culture. The core differences between men and women are that men can produce sperm and women can bear children.
I see it as acknowledging that our physical natures are not all identical and interchangeable. There is nothing “disembodied” about the love between a heterosexual couple or between a homosexual couple.
Raising children who are able to function independently as adults and be contributing members of society.
Please define “authentic adoption” and how it differs from legal adoption.
Actually, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The fundemental problem that Catholics have with gay marriage is that marriage is one of our 7 Sacraments.
Spirit, I don’t think you can tell him ANYTHING…ever.
What’s the use? The blinders are thickening…
They ask nothing of the Church.Fertility has no bearing.
From a strictly secular point of view, that is false. If homosexuality is a genetic characteristic (and evidence suggest that a genetic component is very likely), then it is counter survival, since it does not genetically propogate the species.
And in real life that is considered to be bi-sexual. You prefer either gender, for people as well as other animals in the web of life.
I will ignore that bad biology here and limit my response to the last paragraph.
That means that I am saying the medical community has done great harm to those who suffer from SSA by telling them they are normal. And the fact that I said it should implies that I think harming people is bad.