We aren’t proposing to tell people how to live their lives, we are just explaining that marriage has a certain function within society, and two members of the same sex “marrying” doesn’t fit the function.The very last thing I ever want to be is a hypocrite. I’m just very uncomfortable telling someone else who does believe the same as I do how to live their life. I know its sinful and I know its wrong, but most of what goes on is. I know I’m just as guilty of commitibg offenses again God. Of course the difference is I ask for forgiveness and do my best to turn. Not everyone feels that way. Would be nice if they did as I’m sure the world would be a better place, but you can’t lead a horse to water then make it drink. You can’t force feed beliefs on others who have no interest.
What I was writing is related to society in general, not to any particular faith. I am not saying that because the Catholic Church sees marriage as a sacrament before God that we shouldn’t allow homosexuals to attempt to marry: I am saying that marriage has a certain function within society: that of continuing the society by providing its future. That is true of all societies.This is all very true, but again outside the Church. What makes a marriage valid? We believe in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest. But what about Jews? They are obviously not married in the Catholic Church…is there marriage wrong or invalid?
I would agree with you that it would not be appropriate to tell other people how to live thier lives. Unless these are people for whom you are responsible, it isn’t really our place. But that’s not what the Church’s teaching is about. It’s about telling the **government how to structure laws for the common good. If you read the link I posted earlier, the duty it to oppose laws **that change the defininition of marriage or that create an equivalent status to marriage. Working for moral laws with regard to marriage is no different than working for moral laws with regard to property, education or employment.The very last thing I ever want to be is a hypocrite. I’m just very uncomfortable telling someone else who does believe the same as I do how to live their life. I know its sinful and I know its wrong, but most of what goes on is. I know I’m just as guilty of commitibg offenses again God. Of course the difference is I ask for forgiveness and do my best to turn. Not everyone feels that way. Would be nice if they did as I’m sure the world would be a better place, but you can’t lead a horse to water then make it drink. You can’t force feed beliefs on others who have no interest.
OK, I’ll open my own can.Ok so I know I’m going to open a can of worms.
Is it wrong of me not to care about same sex marriage outside of the Church?
I have been trying to be very clear that what the problem is has nothing to do with the Church, since (at least for now) no attempts are being made to get the Church to change Her teaching on this.Understand that gay people are not trying to infringe on your sacrament of holy matrimony. What we’re seeking is a legal recognition of our relationships, and the benefits that come from that. You are free to say that that union is not technically a marriage in the eyes of the church, and that’s okay, because I don’t care about being married in the eyes of the church, I care about being married in the eyes of the state. So really you have no reason to actively work against it - it doesn’t affect you, and at this stage all you are doing by opposing it is denying legal benefits to certain people (who are living together and acting like married couples regardless of whether they’re legally married or not).
I would agree with you, and I would say this is part of the problem: the idea that marriage has something to do with the way two people feel about each other rather than what they are working to do with their lives together.OK, I’ll open my own can.
Is it wrong of me to think that, in the great majority of cases, the eros is not what constitutes a good marriage, but agape? Is it wrong of me to think of the current romance-luuuve-sex ideal as the primary prerequisite for marriage is disordered?
And – are you ready for this one – Is it wrong of me to truly see marriage as ultimately having little to do with opposite-sex OR same-sex attraction, but primarily as a vocation, religious OR secular, worthy of great discernment, preparation, protection and committment?
Is it wrong of me to acknowledge the ubiquity of passionate sexual feelings and urges as opposite- or same-sex realities, but to reject basing the foundation of marriage primarily on these feeling and urges? Especially if marriage is the basis for the stability of society?
Uh oh. There go all the worms.
Exactly. It’s the same with the abortion is always wrong, but if my teenage daughter got pregnant, it would be a family decision" argument. Personal experience doesn;t change what the Church has dictated.The problem with your bringing in your own personal situation is that you are bypassing the idea of what is going on and saying that because you love your mother and this would make her happy, it should happen.
Of course you love your mother. And your father, from your description, is a jerk. And it is great that your mother did such a good job in raising you–she sounds like a wonderful and strong woman.
However, not all practicing homosexuals who want to get “married” are as nice, or wonderful, or strong as your mother. Some of them are creeps.
Should we decide this issue based on the creeps? Should we say, some practicing homosexuals who want to “marry” are creeps so we shouldn’t do it?
So, would it be right to decide this issue based on the fact that some practicing homosexuals are really wonderful people?
I don’t think so. I think we need to decide this issue based on a thoughtful consideration of the social issues involved.
I was not aware that the Catholic Church forbade post-menopausal women, “who have no chance of procreation” to contract a legal marriage.At this point, we should be talking about what marriage is really supposed to be, not considering allowing people who have no chance of procreation to contract a legal marriage.
Not at all. First, there are plenty of “surprise babies,” but more importantly, the reason the usual post-menopausal or infertile woman doesn’t conceive is because of nature, not because of what she is doing.I was not aware that the Catholic Church forbade post-menopausal women, “who have no chance of procreation” to contract a legal marriage.
There are legally married people in heterosexual marriages who have no biological possibility of having children, post-menopausal women being the obvious example. If the ability to have children is the real criterion, then it should apply to those people as well.
rossum
However, those who are unable to consummate the marital act are forbidden to marry. So if a man or woman has a physical defect which is known and would make it so they cannot consummate the marriage, they would not be allowed to marry./QUOTE]
When’s the Church members in the US going to get around to trying to have that passed as law? I’d love to see that.
I am glad we can agree. The ability to produce children is not a requirement for marriage. Hence any argument against same sex marriage cannot use that argument. There are legal heterosexual marriages where there is no realistic chance of conception, short of a miracle.Not at all. First, there are plenty of “surprise babies,” but more importantly, the reason the usual post-menopausal or infertile woman doesn’t conceive is because of nature, not because of what she is doing.
This applies to Catholic marriage, not to civil marriage. The OP indicated that this thread referred to marriage “outside the church”.However, those who are unable to consummate the marital act are forbidden to marry. So if a man or woman has a physical defect which is known and would make it so they cannot consummate the marriage, they would not be allowed to marry.
First of all, we Catholics do not try to have everything we believe passed as a law. If we did, then the first thing we would do is to pass a law saying everyone had to be Catholic.St Francis;9623913:
When’s the Church members in the US going to get around to trying to have that passed as law? I’d love to see that.However, those who are unable to consummate the marital act are forbidden to marry. So if a man or woman has a physical defect which is known and would make it so they cannot consummate the marriage, they would not be allowed to marry.
It is rather disingenuous to take half of what I have said, lead it to the opposite conclusion, then suggest that we agree.I am glad we can agree.
The *personal *ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage, but the “status” ability *is. *The ability to produce children is not a requirement for marriage.
it doesn’t matter if it is realistic or not, the fact that it sometimes does happen shows that two people of the opposite sex are capable of procreating. Two people of the same sex *inherently *cannot conceive.Hence any argument against same sex marriage cannot use that argument. There are legal heterosexual marriages where there is no realistic chance of conception,
This applies to Catholic marriage, not to civil marriage. The OP indicated that this thread referred to marriage “outside the church”.
If you had read all my posts, you would have seen that I *have *been talking about marriage in societal terms rather than Catholic terms.rossum
short of a miracle.
It is rather silly of you to criticize me for speaking in Catholic terms and then bring in a Catholic belief to bolster your argument, isn’t it?We already know that with miracles allowed, there is no requirement for intercourse to produce a child.
St Francis;9623913:
When’s the Church members in the US going to get around to trying to have that passed as law? I’d love to see that.However, those who are unable to consummate the marital act are forbidden to marry. So if a man or woman has a physical defect which is known and would make it so they cannot consummate the marriage, they would not be allowed to marry.
See number 8, which does say that if the impotence was known to the other spouse at the time of the marriage, impotence (inability to conceive) is grounds for [ETA: legal, not Catholic] annulment.…This applies to Catholic marriage, not to civil marriage. The OP indicated that this thread referred to marriage “outside the church”…
An annulment is a statement that a marriage never occurred.That’s annulment. The part I quoted you specifically as saying was “they would not be allowed to marry.” I do consider there to be a difference.
Except that’s not fully true in the Legal sense, though it may be in the Catholic sense. Children born into a marriage that is later annulled are still legally considered legitimate, and legitimate children require having been born into a marriage. There are also other parts where the legally binding nature of a marriage will still connect the two, depending on what they did while married.An annulment is a statement that a marriage never occurred.
Not in civil marriage. Remember that this thread is about marriage “outside of the Church”. Your restriction is irrelevant to a discussion of non-Catholic civil marriage.The *personal *ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage, but the “status” ability *is. *
What is not in civil marriage?Not in civil marriage.
Remember that this thread is about marriage “outside of the Church”. Your restriction is irrelevant to a discussion of non-Catholic civil marriage.
Civil marriage allows couples to marry with no chance at all of children, for example after a hysterectomy.
As does the Church, so what’s your point?rossum