Help! Need refinement of gay marriage arguments

[CatholicTrekkie]

[SIGN]Beware! Here be VERY long posts.[/SIGN]
Hey there CAF! Hope everyone’s doing well. I come to you, once again, to seek your wisdom and guidance. Sorry, this will be a very long two part post. I just have to get everything down. If I be in violation of the rules, please let me know, that I may promptly begin the proper penance.

Today, I was in my college’s dining hall, when a friend of a friend joined a few of my friends for dinner. During the course of a conversation with another friend, the issue of marriage and the family came up. The friend of a friend (Let’s just call this person L for the sake of it) overheard me and a friend talking and wondered if we were talking about marriage. L then inquired if anyone was against gay marriage, and that she had wanted to discuss it with someone for a very long time. L was in support of gay marriage. I, of course, was against gay marriage (another friend of mine was also against it, but didn’t want to get involved). I was reluctant at first, but in the end, I agreed to discuss/debate it. NOTE: My memory (even short term) is very poor, and so I might not remember everything. I do remember key arguments though.

Knowing that this person was most likely not Catholic (or even religious, possibly atheist), I started by giving my best secular argument against gay marriage. First off, I asked L what they believed to be the purpose of marriage. L stated (paraphrasing here from my poor memory) that it was “so that people could get together with just one person…” Needless to say, it wasn’t something like “Because they love each other” or whatnot. Having that down, I then went on to describe what civil/legal marriage meant and what it entailed (tax breaks for the couple, visiting rights, powers of attorney, etc.). L agreed to this.

I then went on to describe the reasoning/philosophy behind this. I said that the government does this so that the married couple will have more resources with which to raise children. L agreed. Obviously, this led to the question of why gay couples couldn’t raise children as well as straight couples. I forget some of the smaller arguments and objections L raised, but the main crux of my argument was that the ideal familial environment was to have a biological father and a biological mother raising the children (looking back, I forgot to enforce the point that marriage, at least socially is not fundamentally about the couple, but about the children they raise, though most of our debate took place on that). I maintained that this is the scholarly consensus: that the best situation for a child is to be raise by a biological mother and father with a stable marriage relationship (I used some of what I learned from here: patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/12/why-gay-marriage-is-a-bad-idea.html). I maintained that this is the case, because sociological studies show that when we take away from this ideal situation, the child suffers: single parents, divorced parents, cohabitating parents. Children in these situations were more at risk for dangerous consequences, such as depression, suicide attempts, and risky behavior (alcohol abuse, unprotected sex, drug abuse). L, for the most part, agreed.

I then went on to explain that this is the case because of the complementary nature of a man and a woman. I said that a man, by his nature of being a male, provided discipline and assertiveness for the child. On the other hand, a woman, by her nature of being a woman, provided care, nurturing, and comfort to the child. Thus, the child got both from his/her biological parents: discipline, and nurture. L then objected by saying that a woman could provide discipline in a relationship, and a man could provide nurturing and care. Therefore, if both aspects were filled, why should it not be that a male-male homosexual relationship or a female-female relationship cannot provide these? I answered by saying that this confuses the child, who might see his/her lesbian mother acting assertively and be confused when he/she sees other mothers acting nurturingly. L answered by saying that this was simply a case of explaining to the child that people are different and that mommy and mommy are different from other mommies, essentially.

At this point, I could not answer such an objection. As such, I had to concede my secular argument. I said that (and please tell me if I’m being a bad Catholic for saying or believing this) SUBJECTIVELY, I would not strictly object to gay marriage as a civil institution, possibly with the stipulation that it not be called “marriage” anymore. However, I see it as OBJECTIVELY wrong and detrimental to society because of my religious beliefs and convictions.

L then pressed me on said beliefs and convictions. Although I completely did not want to use a religious argument, L was genuinely curious as to my religious beliefs and how they related to gay marriage. So, I relented and went on to explain. L initially mentioned something to the effect of “Well, if you believe that because of your religion, how do you know it’s right, there are alot of religions”. So, I decided I ought to begin at the beginning, to give some authority to my beliefs.

END OF PART 1!

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

PART 2!
I stated that I am a Roman Catholic and that my beliefs were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived around 33 A.D. and who passed his teachings onto the Apostles after his death and resurrection. He commissioned them to go out into the whole world and spread His teaching, and that it has been passed on through the apostles through an unbroken line of popes until the modern day. I also explained how his teachings were written down and compiled by witnesses into the Gospel.

I explained that one of the teachings that Jesus proclaimed related directly to marriage and is the center of Catholic theology on marriage. I related to L the passage where the Pharisees asked Jesus why Moses allowed husbands to divorce their wives and that Jesus’ response was that (and I paraphrased): "Because of the hardness of your hearts. But from the beginning God did not mean for it to be this way. It is written in the Scriptures ‘for a man leaves his mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh’ ". Jesus repeated the teaching that, fundamentally, the human relationship was to be one man and one women who would become as one flesh.

After this, I continued into a more theological argument, bringing up Church teaching on the matter. I said that for the marriage relationship (and the marital embrace, i.e. sexual intercourse) to be complete, that is to say, fulfilled, two aspects were involved: procreative and unitive. The procreative aspect means that the relationship must be fundamentally able to produce children (not that it has, but that it must be open to it). I said that fundamentally, as a result of the relationship, a gay couple could not procreate. This is simple fact. They just can’t, ever. L brought up the objection of infertile couples: were they not able to meet the procreative aspect, since they could not procreate, just as gay couples could not? Why then does the Church have an exception for infertile couples but not gay couples? I explained that the situation with infertile couples was different: their inability to procreate was not a direct result of the relationship itself, rather it was a result of one of them being unable to reproduce. Gay relationships have, as an intrinsic characteristic, the inability to reproduce, which comes as a direct result of the relationship, whereas the inability to reproduce for an infertile couple was not a direct result of the relationship, just a result of one of the members being unable to reproduce. L objected by saying that it doesn’t matter, that the inability to reproduce is still an intrinsic characteristic of the relationship. I reiterated my previous point, but L responded that it still doesn’t matter: the characteristic was that they were unable to reproduce, therefore it is absurd that an exception be given to infertile couples, but not gay couples. At that point, I could not think of a reply, and so I conceded by saying that at that point, I could not answer such an objection but that perhaps after further study, I could give L an answer to the objection. L said that was fine and at that point, I moved to the unitive aspect of the marriage relationship.

I said that the unitive aspect of the marriage relationship was that man, and woman, by nature of them being different, were naturally complementary to each other because “the two become one flesh”. L asked why they are considered complementary. I brought up the concept of the body-soul unity, that the human person is designed as a unity of body and soul, that they are interconnected by nature. I then went on to say that because there were inherent differences in the body (the whole body) between man and woman, there were differences of the soul between man and woman. These differences, biologically, show that they are complementary: “the parts fit”, the natures/personalities of men and women are complementary, and so on. Thus, if the body and soul are united, it follows that there must be some spiritual difference between a male soul and a female soul (though saying a soul is “male” or “female” is inaccurate and improper.). I went on to say that the marriage relationship completes the union of one man to one woman both biologically, personality-wise, and spiritually.

L objected by asking what happened if the person’s body was mutilated, such that they lose genitals. I responded by saying that though they might have lost part of their body, they are still a person, one which is still distinct from the other sex. I also reiterated the point that it is not so much the special cases, but the overall case that proves the rule: the very fact that men and women differ makes them complementary.

At this point, we ran out of time (we were kicked out of the dining hall haha), and had to part ways. I thanked L for the very stimulating discussion and debate and that I would be willing to take up the discussion again, perhaps when I am more learned on the subject.

And so, that brings me here. If you are so kind and generous, I would like someone to perhaps critique my argument and see where I went wrong. I don’t believe my secular argument was strong enough (though I am considering just giving L the link I posted above, since the man who writes that blog can probably make the argument 100 times better and more clear than I every could). In particular, I would like anyone who has an answer to the objection L raised about the infertile couple that I wasn’t able to answer, and where I should go with the unitive argument from here on out.

WOW! Too much writing! If you made it this far, you are truly blessed by the Lord with incredible patience. Thank you so much for your help!

In return, here is a video of some funny cats (because cats are always related): youtube.com/watch?v=nTasT5h0LEg

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

LOL cats.

You could not answer that question because it was amazing how crude the rational was. Shocking, really.

There are biological issues that affect the maturation of the brain, which naturally cause differences in the way in which men and women act.

webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ
That link is one of many informational sites on the brain.

Don’t forget DNA!
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/thenewgenetics/images/ch1_maledna.jpg
http://www.contexo.info/DNA_Basics/images/karyotypeX.gif

Children aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference between a man and a woman naturally. Just with perception. A male child with lesbian parents does not have a perceived-visual, or audible male role model. They can tell the difference between a male and female, so they are lacking the model they need in order to differentiate themselves from the female sex. The same goes for the opposite.

The problem with this debate is that it is highly possible that this person is set in his ways from a past event(s). It’s possible that it has become not only a spiritual peril for him aside from the psychological disorder.
It will be like telling a compulsive OCD hand-washer that there are no germs. It’s an uphill battle. It’s good to discuss, but don’t expect to change him without a lot of prayer.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

LOL cats.

You could not answer that question because it was amazing how crude the rational was. Shocking, really.

My rationale?

 

[Nate13]

One undeniable difference would be this:

Gay couples, assuming its legal for them to adopt, can never obtain parental rights over a child without being vetted first. They require societies help to end up with a child.

A heterosexual couple though can birth a child into the World and there is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop them from doing so legally. They have no way of directly making sure children are only born into loving families. Thus its imperative that the government works to make sure that heterosexual couples marry, and make life-long commitments to each other to provide the best homes possible for the children that are bound to come into the World no matter what.

Going back to gay couples though this is not the case. If a gay couple wishes to adopt a child, they will get their act together on their own accord to provide a loving family so they are allowed to adopt. I see no reason for the government to care whether gay’s marry. I have seen zero studies that show gays are happier within a faithful marriage as opposed to the opposite. I have also seen zero studies showing a gay couple provides the best circumstances to raise a child, and actually have seen many that show the opposite is the case. Common sense would dictate that a child is best served by being raised under the biologically complementary care of a man and woman who are married.

If the government is truly worried about kids that need families, they should stop working to destroy marriage and start promoting abstinence before marriage. The real tragedy in today’s society is not that gay people are not allowed to marry but rather that 33% of newborn babies are born to unwed mothers.

 

[Nate13]

I would ask them how much they know about American history as well and the philosophy on which this country was based on.

Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it

John Locke

I’d also ask that person whether they really believe the government gives out benefits and privileges to a couple because they love each other. The government does not have to do anything to promote people falling in love lol.

 

[couponfit]

If you want an argument for gay marriage then you must look to the source. Look to same sex divorces. Yes, the first same sex couple in america and many others have divorced and their lawyers tore apart the foundation of the legitimacy of their marriage to avoid paying child support, alimony, and splitting assets. No one can better explain why same sex marriage is invalid than a homosexual getting a divorce.

Best to always avoid these arguments types of arguments. Do you think Priests run around asking to debate those who believe in same sex marriage in a cafeteria with someone likely unprepared for such a debate. Rather put your time into other more productive efforts that support personal salvation and cultivate your spiritual growth.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

My rationale?

No, no. His.

 

[Safia]

I said that fundamentally, as a result of the relationship, a gay couple could not procreate. This is simple fact. They just can’t, ever. L brought up the objection of infertile couples: were they not able to meet the procreative aspect, since they could not procreate, just as gay couples could not? Why then does the Church have an exception for infertile couples but not gay couples? I explained that the situation with infertile couples was different: their inability to procreate was not a direct result of the relationship itself, rather it was a result of one of them being unable to reproduce. Gay relationships have, as an intrinsic characteristic, the inability to reproduce, which comes as a direct result of the relationship, whereas the inability to reproduce for an infertile couple was not a direct result of the relationship, just a result of one of the members being unable to reproduce. L objected by saying that it doesn’t matter, that the inability to reproduce is still an intrinsic characteristic of the relationship. I reiterated my previous point, but L responded that it still doesn’t matter: the characteristic was that they were unable to reproduce, therefore it is absurd that an exception be given to infertile couples, but not gay couples.

This is where the debate gets kind of tricky, because you’re getting into small details.

If you’ve not read The Theology of the Body, I highly recommend.

As for feedback:
A. Within the Church’s theological framework, the infertility of a particular couple as defining the relationship (in its inability to procreate) doesn’t matter in the way that L wanted it to matter. Remember:
(1) It is in the biological nature of the female and male bodies to come together to procreate, and it is the nature of the sexual act as open to procreation and ordered to procreation, that is critical to our understanding of marriage and sexuality. The goal is procreation, but the goal doesn’t preclude the means – the sexual act is still reserved to the female and the male bodies alone. Like you said, it’s biologically impossible for two people of the same sex to exist in a sexual place that is open to procreation, which makes their biological union inherently disordered. (Men have anal sex with each other, while women have oral sex.)
(2) The Church allows natural family planning (NFP) – each act doesn’t have to procreate, but it needs to be open to the possibility of life, and needs to be ordered sexually for that act (thus, a man’s ejaculating out of a woman’s body is considered a sin).
(3) In situations of infertile couples, those couples remain open to the miracle of life, as well as to medical options that do not require IVF or to options that “play God.” (I believe there are some medical options available to women that align with Catholic teaching.)
(4) Homosexuals have no natural options open to them.

These are minute subtleties, but they exist, and are critical.

I said that the unitive aspect of the marriage relationship was that man, and woman, by nature of them being different, were naturally complementary to each other because “the two become one flesh”. L asked why they are considered complementary. I brought up the concept of the body-soul unity, that the human person is designed as a unity of body and soul, that they are interconnected by nature. I then went on to say that because there were inherent differences in the body (the whole body) between man and woman, there were differences of the soul between man and woman. These differences, biologically, show that they are complementary: “the parts fit”, the natures/personalities of men and women are complementary, and so on. Thus, if the body and soul are united, it follows that there must be some spiritual difference between a male soul and a female soul (though saying a soul is “male” or “female” is inaccurate and improper.). I went on to say that the marriage relationship completes the union of one man to one woman both biologically, personality-wise, and spiritually.

I’d say this is pretty accurate.

L objected by asking what happened if the person’s body was mutilated, such that they lose genitals. I responded by saying that though they might have lost part of their body, they are still a person, one which is still distinct from the other sex. I also reiterated the point that it is not so much the special cases, but the overall case that proves the rule: the very fact that men and women differ makes them complementary.

The Church bars individuals who are physically unable to have sex – whether for procreative or unitive purposes (I imagine it’d apply in both cases) – to be married (and that inability to have sex is grounds for annulment).

Here’s an article that has helped me greatly in explaining the nature of the male-female “benefits” to marriage.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Thank you so much for your responses.

I would ask them how much they know about American history as well and the philosophy on which this country was based on.

I suspect L would dismiss something like that. I don’t want to use that kind of argument either, because although I would agree with it, L wouldn’t. Better to use arguments we can both agree with and continue with the argument at hand instead of trying to prove the nation was founded on the basis of Natural Law (MUCH harder to do).

If you want an argument for gay marriage then you must look to the source. Look to same sex divorces. Yes, the first same sex couple in america and many others have divorced and their lawyers tore apart the foundation of the legitimacy of their marriage to avoid paying child support, alimony, and splitting assets. No one can better explain why same sex marriage is invalid than a homosexual getting a divorce.

Best to always avoid these arguments types of arguments. Do you think Priests run around asking to debate those who believe in same sex marriage in a cafeteria with someone likely unprepared for such a debate. Rather put your time into other more productive efforts that support personal salvation and cultivate your spiritual growth.

First of all, if you can disprove gay marriage by divorce, then you can just as easily dismiss and disprove heterosexual marriage by divorce. “No one can better explain why straight marriage is invalid than a heterosexual getting a divorce”. See what I mean? Secondly, I didn’t go searching the argument. Rather, it came up, and while I was reluctant, I took the opportunity more to have a discussion and inform people about Catholic viewpoints.

No, no. His.

Oh, sorry, was a bit confused there. Care to explain more what you mean by their rationale being crude?

This is where the debate gets kind of tricky, because you’re getting into small details.

If you’ve not read The Theology of the Body, I highly recommend.

As for feedback:
A. Within the Church’s theological framework, the infertility of a particular couple as defining the relationship (in its inability to procreate) doesn’t matter in the way that L wanted it to matter. Remember:
(1) It is in the biological nature of the female and male bodies to come together to procreate, and it is the nature of the sexual act as open to procreation and ordered to procreation, that is critical to our understanding of marriage and sexuality. The goal is procreation, but the goal doesn’t preclude the means – the sexual act is still reserved to the female and the male bodies alone. Like you said, it’s biologically impossible for two people of the same sex to exist in a sexual place that is open to procreation, which makes their biological union inherently disordered. (Men have anal sex with each other, while women have oral sex.)
(2) The Church allows natural family planning (NFP) – each act doesn’t have to procreate, but it needs to be open to the possibility of life, and needs to be ordered sexually for that act (thus, a man’s ejaculating out of a woman’s body is considered a sin).
(3) In situations of infertile couples, those couples remain open to the miracle of life, as well as to medical options that do not require IVF or to options that “play God.” (I believe there are some medical options available to women that align with Catholic teaching.)
(4) Homosexuals have no natural options open to them.

These are minute subtleties, but they exist, and are critical.

I’d say this is pretty accurate.

The Church bars individuals who are physically unable to have sex – whether for procreative or unitive purposes (I imagine it’d apply in both cases) – to be married (and that inability to have sex is grounds for annulment).

Here’s an article that has helped me greatly in explaining the nature of the male-female “benefits” to marriage.

Reading the Theology of the Body is right on my list lol.
Thank you very much for the bit about individuals physically unable to have sex (as opposed to being infertile).

Can you please explain more about your feedback, particularly point (A) and point (1). What do you mean by “the infertility of a particular couple… doesn’t matter in the way that L wanted it to matter.”? What do you mean by “The goal is procreation, but the goal doesn’t preclude the means”?

Also, what is a simple explanation as to why the church doesn’t allow those physically unable to have sex to marry? Is it because it doesn’t fulfill either procreative or unitive aspects?

 

[Nate13]

Thank you so much for your responses.
I suspect L would dismiss something like that. I don’t want to use that kind of argument either, because although I would agree with it, L wouldn’t. Better to use arguments we can both agree with and continue with the argument at hand instead of trying to prove the nation was founded on the basis of Natural Law (MUCH harder to do).

Yes, but it is the most likely to succeed against someone who does not have faith. Which is easier: convincing someone to be a Christian first and accept the Bible and teachings of the Church, or convincing them that natural law exists and is important? I also think you would find it to be much easier to prove the country is founded on the principle of natural law then you think.

From the Declaration of Independence:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Natural law is the basis by which America declared its separation from British rule. This establishes that human law has to be in accord with a higher law i.e natural law. It would not be at all hard to show that America was founded on these principles. The idea of inalienable rights is also a notion that is heavily influenced by Locke. From there you just have to show that homosexual acts are in contradiction to that law.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Yes, but it is the most likely to succeed against someone who does not have faith. Which is easier: convincing someone to be a Christian first and accept the Bible and teachings of the Church, or convincing them that natural law exists and is important? I also think you would find it to be much easier to prove the country is founded on the principle of natural law then you think.

From the Declaration of Independence:

Natural law is the basis by which America declared its separation from British rule. This establishes that human law has to be in accord with a higher law i.e natural law. It would not be at all hard to show that America was founded on these principles. The idea of inalienable rights is also a notion that is heavily influenced by Locke. From there you just have to show that homosexual acts are in contradiction to that law.

Which law? Muslim sharia law? Jewish law? Hindu castes? Confucian teaching? Buddhist mantra?

My point is that even if this person does admit to a certain natural law, some sense that there are things humans ought to do and ought not do, they’re not going to say that homosexuality or gay marriage is contradictory to that natural law. The problem is distinguishing between a Natural Law and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which L is not going to necessarily distinguish.

It comes down to more a question of sexual morality and sexual ethics, really.

 

[Nate13]

Which law? Muslim sharia law? Jewish law? Hindu castes? Confucian teaching? Buddhist mantra?

My point is that even if this person does admit to a certain natural law, some sense that there are things humans ought to do and ought not do, they’re not going to say that homosexuality or gay marriage is contradictory to that natural law. The problem is distinguishing between a Natural Law and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which L is not going to necessarily distinguish.

It comes down to more a question of sexual morality and sexual ethics, really.

Natural law is known just by acknowledging the nature of things as they self-evidently are. Man inherently wants to live, and our bodies inherently do everything they can to live. If either of those is not the case, that means something has gone wrong. The norm is life. We recognize this as the right to life. If someone looks at our genitalia and the inherent purpose that is apparent this should lead to a recognition as to how they should be used.

The response most likely to come to this line of reasoning is either:

1. They deny there is an obvious purpose.
2. They deny the fact that the obvious purpose is important as to how we use what we have been given.

In response to that:

1. There are lots of correlations to draw from, but most people who know anything about our bodies can acknowledge what our genitalia are for. It’s called the reproductive system for a reason.
2. Ask them then why we should respect the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness which are based on similar reasoning. Our country was based on this philosophy though so if they are going to ignore it and embrace moral relativism you are a goner anyways until you get them to agree on that point. If someone believes rights come from our government instead of stemming our of our inherent nature (that was given to us by God) you have no hope. Most people probably have not conscientiously thought this through though.

 

[Safia]

Reading the Theology of the Body is right on my list lol.

Not only should you read it – you should give the person you debated with a copy, too!

Can you please explain more about your feedback, particularly point (A) and point (1). What do you mean by “the infertility of a particular couple… doesn’t matter in the way that L wanted it to matter.”?

L seems to be characterizing relationships within a functional framework that relies on the ends – it’s procreative because it creates children, and so, because infertile people can’t create children, homosexuals shouldn’t be excluded from marriage. But the way the Church understands procreation is on a different level; infertility’s exclusion from invalidity in the Church isn’t dependent on the ends, but rather, as I explained, on the function of the procreative act in general – it being intrinsically sexual as God intended it and thus ordered to the possibility of life. Children are always a blessing, and never guaranteed.

What do you mean by “The goal is procreation, but the goal doesn’t preclude the means”?

I was trying to say what I expounded upon above. Preclude wasn’t quite the right word here.

Also, what is a simple explanation as to why the church doesn’t allow those physically unable to have sex to marry? Is it because it doesn’t fulfill either procreative or unitive aspects?

Here is Canon law:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

A person must be able to perform the marriage act since this is one of the essential properties of marriage and an essential obligation of marriage.

This gets into deeper theological stuff, and minute details, but it might be helpful:

The marital act open to new life and seeking the good of the beloved is a sign and seal of the sacrament. The marriage covenant is consummated and renewed by it. Cognizant of our nature as bodily persons, the Church is also realistic and pragmatic enough to realize that marriages which shortchange sexual intimacy often fuel the fires of infidelity and alienation. The question here is not simply one of disability, but of the type of disability. Blindness, deafness, loss of certain limbs, etc. pose no such impediment to marriage. Even infertility does not negate the right of marriage if no deceit is present when the vows are made. However, can a person mentally deranged or seriously incompetent get married? No, not if they lack a conscious awareness of the nature and obligations of marriage. A paralyzed person, might be fully aware of the responsibilities of marriage, but be incapable of fulfilling them. The law of the Church in such cases is simply a reflection of the natural law. Having said this, once consummated, a tragic accident of such a nature would not abrogate the bond. The initial consummation, uncoerced and unimpeded by contraception, makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble.

What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph. (source)

 

[hazmat]

maybe you should just give your honest opinions whether she accepts them or not. who is this person that you feel the need to appeal to them? just say what you think. done.

 

[Safia]

maybe you should just give your honest opinions whether she accepts them or not. who is this person that you feel the need to appeal to them? just say what you think. done.

Her accepting them or not wasn’t the point, I don’t think – it was the ability to explain the Catholic argument to its fullest logical extent. And we have an obligation to this explanation and to the ability to evangelize, so it’s good that Trekkie’s asking these questions.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

maybe you should just give your honest opinions whether she accepts them or not. who is this person that you feel the need to appeal to them? just say what you think. done.

Well, I would be giving my opinion, if it wasn’t the objective truth. I’m not so much trying to convince L, more just try and get them thinking. If she doesn’t accept my reasoning, whether by my fault or not, is not my goal. It was really more of an intellectual discourse than a debate.

Not only should you read it – you should give the person you debated with a copy, too!

L seems to be characterizing relationships within a functional framework that relies on the ends – it’s procreative because it creates children, and so, because infertile people can’t create children, homosexuals shouldn’t be excluded from marriage. But the way the Church understands procreation is on a different level; infertility’s exclusion from invalidity in the Church isn’t dependent on the ends, but rather, as I explained, on the function of the procreative act in general – it being intrinsically sexual as God intended it and thus ordered to the possibility of life. Children are always a blessing, and never guaranteed.

I was trying to say what I expounded upon above. Preclude wasn’t quite the right word here.

Here is Canon law:

A person must be able to perform the marriage act since this is one of the essential properties of marriage and an essential obligation of marriage.

This gets into deeper theological stuff, and minute details, but it might be helpful:

Wow, that little passage was very good. So, essentially, the marital union (sexual intercourse) is so essential to the sacrament of matrimony, that to not be able to participate in physically it is to not fulfill the very essence of marriage, the very ordering of marriage? Is that a correct interpretation?

I’m still a little confused as to what you mean in relation to the infertility. I believe you are saying that L is characterizing the relationship (the procreative aspect of the marriage relationship) solely on the ends: the ability to procreate or not. That in order to be procreative, there must be the ability to procreate. I would agree with this, that L was indeed trying to do this. This is opposed to the church, who characterizes the procreative aspect of the marriage in a more general sense, and, one can say, in a more whole or complete sense: instead of considering just the ends, the Church considers both the ends, but also the ordering of the procreative aspect: that the heterosexual relationship is intrinsically ordered towards procreation, irregardless of whether or not procreation actually occurs. Is this a correct interpretation of what you said? If it is, I feel that in the course of the discussion with L, this is indeed what I was trying to stress and show as the central point, yet I either wasn’t getting the point through or L was not accepting the reasoning.

Perhaps I can present a hypothetical situation: Say a couple gets married in the Church. They are both perfectly healthy and physically fertile. During the course of their marriage, through either sheer coincidence or (possibly) through the will of God (I’ll leave NFP out of it, just to simplify the debate and not open myself up to more objections), they never get pregnant. They go to doctors and they say they are perfectly physically fertile. They just can’t get pregnant. Now, according to the Church, is this marriage not valid because they didn’t procreate? No, because irregardless of whether or not they actually procreate, their relationship is intrinsically ordered to procreate.

Thank you very much Safia. Your help is very much appreciated. As you said, this is where the argument gets extremely tricky, because you get into the little details or theology and canon law. I’ll try and stress that to L, that I am by no means a theological or canon law expert.

 

[Safia]

Wow, that little passage was very good. So, essentially, the marital union (sexual intercourse) is so essential to the sacrament of matrimony, that to not be able to participate in physically it is to not fulfill the very essence of marriage, the very ordering of marriage? Is that a correct interpretation?

Yes. (There are exceptions to this, but they’re rare, and let’s leave them out of this. )

I’m still a little confused as to what you mean in relation to the infertility. I believe you are saying that L is characterizing the relationship (the procreative aspect of the marriage relationship) solely on the ends: the ability to procreate or not. That in order to be procreative, there must be the ability to procreate. I would agree with this, that L was indeed trying to do this. This is opposed to the church, who characterizes the procreative aspect of the marriage in a more general sense, and, one can say, in a more whole or complete sense: instead of considering just the ends, the Church considers both the ends, but also the ordering of the procreative aspect: that the heterosexual relationship is intrinsically ordered towards procreation, irregardless of whether or not procreation actually occurs. Is this a correct interpretation of what you said? If it is, I feel that in the course of the discussion with L, this is indeed what I was trying to stress and show as the central point, yet I either wasn’t getting the point through or L was not accepting the reasoning.

Perhaps I can present a hypothetical situation: Say a couple gets married in the Church. They are both perfectly healthy and physically fertile. During the course of their marriage, through either sheer coincidence or (possibly) through the will of God (I’ll leave NFP out of it, just to simplify the debate and not open myself up to more objections), they never get pregnant. They go to doctors and they say they are perfectly physically fertile. They just can’t get pregnant. Now, according to the Church, is this marriage not valid because they didn’t procreate? No, because irregardless of whether or not they actually procreate, their relationship is intrinsically ordered to procreate.

Yes, that’s right on.

Good luck!

 

[tskrobacz]

No fault divorce benefits the person not keeping their marriage vows. It’s passage took away the notion of permanance in marriage.

Same sex marriage changes it from a child centered institution to an adult centered institution.

Children are entitled to a relationship with both of their biological parents - the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of the parents union.

The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and one another for the benefit of the children and society.

Marriage is an issue of justice for the child.

Principles:

1. Children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their mothers and their fathers. Adoption is child centric and deals with exceptions to this principle. Adoption exists to give kids the parents they need not to give adults the kids they want. With same sex union’s marriage will become the vehichle for seperating a child from 1 of their biological parents.
2. Mothers and Fathers are not interchangeable. Fatherlessness has a serious impact on child development. There is a higher probability of boys getting into trouble without a biological father present. Girls become sexually active at an earlier age in the absence of a father. In addition having a biological father in the home delays first period for girls. An unrelated adult male results in an earlier period for girls (Studies have shown). We lack a complete understanding of the biology of the family. Same sex unions further marginalize fathers from the family. Who needs a Father? Who needs a Mother? We all do.
3. Biology is the ordinary way we determine parenthood. At birth the husband is assumed to be the biological father. Marriage attaches the child to the father as strongly as to the mother. Advocates of same sex marriage seek to transform the presumption of parenthood to the presumption of parentage. In 100% of same sex marriages one of the partners is not the biological parent. Triple parenting will be unstoppable if we permit same sex marriages. (2 gay parents + 1 other biological parent)…This is not a wholesome family development.
4. The Law recognizes parenthood, but does not determine what it is. With Same sex unions, the state determines who the “parents” are - the state is reinventing parenthood. Courts are providing parental rights to “non-parents”. The scope of states power will be expanded greatly with same sex marriage. It will be required to interfere with the natural order of mother and father to something the state invents itself. Same sex union is an artificial creation of the state and has to be sustained by the state.

For more information see:

youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_114780&src_vid=ZdzCFMCsIb4&v=osCnn-ATrcI