Homosexual Marriage

[JimG]

Fertility or infertility has nothing to do with the question of marriage validity.
What makes same sex marriage impossible is that same sex couples can never have marital sex. They are fundamentally sexually non-complementary. There can be no conjugal union. It is impossible by the nature of the parties to the union. It can never be a marriage.

 

[LaLaLa49]

No, actually. Catholic couples are supposed to be ‘open to life’. In addition, from a strictly medical perpsective, anal sex is a bad idea.

Alright. Therefore, it is wrong for both sides.

 

[rossum]

How does that imply that one is not inherently open to life? I believe I already posted about Scripture and Sarah believing she was too old to have a child and then God asking if anything is too marvelous for Him.

If you are going to cite miraculous intervention by God as a possibility, then a same sex couple can also have children, given a miraculous intervention by God.

This is a very weak argument you are making here, since it justified any any all relationships. A man and an armadillo could have a child if God intervened. An omnipotent God can do a great many things.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Because God has already made his will known regarding how procreation happens.

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

And since God is both omnipotent and omniscient, it is impossible that he should have made a mistake in that regard that needs correcting; and since he is omnibenevolent, it is impossible that his actions in designing human nature this way should conduce to anything less than the perfection of the human person.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. Procreation is not essential to marriage.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But He didn’t design it that way.

He did initially. There was just Adam initially. Adam was in a same-sex, same-person relationship with Adam. That single sex relationship produced offspring – Eve. Neither the first nor the second humans were the product of a heterosexual marriage.

rossum

 

[RedFox0456]

If you are going to cite miraculous intervention by God as a possibility, then a same sex couple can also have children, given a miraculous intervention by God.

This is a very weak argument you are making here, since it justified any any all relationships. A man and an armadillo could have a child if God intervened. An omnipotent God can do a great many things.

rossum

While you may be correct in what God can do, I am not sure you grasp the common sense distinction between restoring the natural function and warping the natural function.

 

[rossum]

The norm is that most couples are fertile.

Agreed. But there are valid marriages that do not conform to that norm.

The norm is that a person is right handed. There are people that do not conform to the norm.

Using that or age is not a good argument for trying to redefine marriage.

I am not redefining marriage. I am pointing out the weakness of the “marriage is for procreation” argument. There are valid heterosexual marriages which either do not, or cannot, involve procreation.

rossum

 

[kozlosap]

The norm is that most couples are fertile. Using that or age is not a good argument for trying to redefine marriage. Our biological design and purpose of our reproduction parts are designed for procreation, aka real marriage.

I know several couples who suffered from the pain of infertility from even before they were married. Guess what, their marriages were sturdy and honored God. Do any of you here in the Western World really believe that a majority of priests wouldn’t perform a marriage ceremony for two quadriplegics? I’m hoping that, as the Church begins looking at the Family/Parish life survey this fall, that such dogma is swept away - slowly, but swept away. The entire annulment situation is so out of control, especially when there is money involved.

 

[kozlosap]

Agreed. But there are valid marriages that do not conform to that norm.

The norm is that a person is right handed. There are people that do not conform to the norm.

I am not redefining marriage. I am pointing out the weakness of the “marriage is for procreation” argument. There are valid heterosexual marriages which either do not, or cannot, involve procreation.

rossum

EXCELLENT short explanation of the invalid “procreation argument”. Thanks!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. ** Procreation is not essential to marriage.
**
rossum

That is true…Procreation is not essential to marriage.

Procreation is the PURPOSE of marriage. If not…you wouldn’t be here.

 

[RedFox0456]

EXCELLENT short explanation of the invalid “procreation argument”. Thanks!

That’s actually not a great explanation. A left-handed person still accomplishes the same tasks as a right-handed person. So while, yes, something fell outside of the norm (welcome to statistics), a homosexual couple is not analogous to a left-handed individual.

 

[RedFox0456]

"rossum:

Agreed. But there are valid marriages that do not conform to that norm.

The norm is that a person is right handed. There are people that do not conform to the norm.

I am not redefining marriage. I am pointing out the weakness of the “marriage is for procreation” argument. There are valid heterosexual marriages which either do not, or cannot, involve procreation.

rossum

EXCELLENT short explanation of the invalid “procreation argument”. Thanks!

That’s actually not a great explanation. A left-handed person still accomplishes the same tasks as a right-handed person. So while, yes, something fell outside of the norm (welcome to statistics), a homosexual couple is not analogous to a left-handed individual.

 

[marymary1975]

Hello, today I was talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage, I argued that the purpose of sex is to form a loving bond between two married adults and to procreate, anything other than this would be contrary to the natural purpose.

Just like an axe is used for the purpose of chopping down tree, if he attempt to break a rock with it, it will be dulled and the purpose for which that axe was made will no longer exist.

The person in response said, “Wouldn’t that mean that infertile men shouldn’t be able to marry either?”

I read in the Catechism that infertile couples may still be lawfully married…How would I respond to the persons claim?

An infertile person can get married because they have the capacity to perform the procreative act. Despite one person being declared by doctors to be “infertile” that person still can perform the act and still there is always a possibility that despite unfertile a person can produce children. Remember Abraham and Sarah? They were infertile but through God’s grace they still produce a child. Even an infertile person by God’s grace can produce a child as long as it is capable to perform the act.

Now the second point you have to make on this topic is, (which would be the equal comparison) a man who suffers from impotency cannot be validly married. Impotency is grounds for annulment. The reason why an impotent person cannot be married validly is the same as why homosexual couples can’t. Because they can’t perform the procreative act. It is plain impossible. The act in and of itself cannot be done in any way, neither by an impotent nor by a homosexual couple, hence there is no marriage. Hope that helps.

 

[marymary1975]

An infertile person can get married because they have the capacity to perform the procreative act. Despite one person being declared by doctors to be “infertile” that person still can perform the act and still there is always a possibility that despite infertility a person can produce children. Remember Abraham and Sarah? They were infertile but through God’s grace they still were able to produce a child. Even an infertile person by God’s grace can produce a child as long as it is capable to perform the act. The issue here is whether the person/couple can perform the act not whether current medicine considers the person infertile. Basically infertility is not an impediment to procreation as long as the reproductive act happens, there is always a possibility, even if that possibility is low it still exist. Same sex is an impossibility. Two people of the same sex will never be able to perform an act that produces a child. Same se. Will always have a 0 possibility, total impediment. That is not the case with an infertile couple.

Now the second point you have to make on this topic is, (which would be the equal comparison) a man who suffers from impotency cannot be validly married. Impotency is grounds for annulment. The reason why an impotent person cannot be married validly is the same as why homosexual couples can’t. Because they can’t perform the procreative act. It is plain impossible. The act in and of itself cannot be done in any way, neither by an impotent nor by a homosexual couple, hence there is no marriage. Hope that helps.

 

[marymary1975]

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. Procreation is not essential to marriage.

rossum

The problem with your argument is that is solely based on fertility. Fertility has nothing to do with marriage validity. What has to do with marriage validity is ability to perform heterosexual intercourse. As I pointed out for example impotency causes a marriage to be null precisely because if the lack of capacity to perform the act. Same sex couples are also unable to perform. Same sex couples have nothing to do with infertile couples. In all case their situation is similar to impotency.

 

[RedFox0456]

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. Procreation is not essential to marriage.

rossum

And then God goes and says something like this.

Matthew 19:4 [NABRE]

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…”

Now, on its own that may not seem like too much, and surely you could argue that God intends for everyone to marry and love each other, etc. I mean, God never said anything to the contrary, right?

Matthew 19:12 [NABRE]

“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Wait. What? No way. You mean to tell me that Jesus would say such a thing? Better just ignore that bit.

 

[marymary1975]

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. Procreation isituation in ential to marriage.

rossum

The problem with your argument is that is solely based on fertility. Fertility has nothing to do with marriage validity. What has to do with marriage validity is ability to perform heterosexual intercourse. As I pointed out for example impotency causes a marriage to be null precisely because if the lack of capacity to perform the act. Same sex couples are also unable to perform. Same sex couples have nothing to do with infertile couples. In all case their situation is similar to impotency.

 

[sw85]

But procreation does not always happen. There are childless heterosexual marriages.

Which has exactly nothing to do with anything.

Since God does not intervene to ensure that all heterosexual married couples have children, we can see that it is God’s expressed will that children are not essential for marriage. God could cure all infertility, but He does not. God could ensure that every condom failed, but He does not. We can see God’s will directly in God’s actions. Procreation is not essential to marriage.

Since not all people have arms, therefore arms are irrelevant to the human condition, right?

Ahh but no, that’s deranged. So clearly you are thinking about “essences” wrong.

 

[rossum]

That’s actually not a great explanation. A left-handed person still accomplishes the same tasks as a right-handed person. So while, yes, something fell outside of the norm (welcome to statistics), a homosexual couple is not analogous to a left-handed individual.

But a homosexual couple is analogous to an infertile heterosexual couple. In many places they are also analogous to a childless heterosexual couple who have adopted.

rossum

 

[rossum]

And then God goes and says something like this.

God is consistent. His actions are consistent with His words. I observe His actions. From His actions, non-procreation is not a bar to marriage.

By all means argue against same sex marriage, however I would avoid using the non-procreation argument. It is very weak and easily refuted.

rossum