Homosexual Marriage

[rossum]

Which has exactly nothing to do with anything.

Which refutes the non-procreation argument.

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

Not what I said. I was refuting the claim that arms were relevant. Procreation is not relevant to marriage.

So clearly you are thinking about “essences” wrong.

I do not accept the existence of Essences. They are a form of reification, and all reification is incorrect.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

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

:whacky:

God saw it was not good for Adam to be alone, so she was created from his rib. Male and Female He created them, the prototypical humans. (did they have belly buttons?) Their biological design produced offspring. God told them to go and fill the earth. God’s first marriage.

And why did God have to create Eve? Adam was not compatible with the animals.

 

[buffalo]

Alright. Therefore, it is wrong for both sides.

Very dangerous and anal reconstructions have been rising. In addition, the epithelial wall is only 1 cell thick. Disease is an issue.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

I disagree.

Both the infertile and childless couple have (or have had) the potential to naturally consummate and procreate. I can’t see how you can say that a homosexual union can possibly be analogous to a normal marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Procreation is not relevant to marriage.

rossum

Since the PURPOSE of marriage is procreation, I would say there may be a little spark of relevance somewhere in there…

 

[Godric2]

What about another form of blessing or union other than ‘marriage’ - which seems to have a more specific purpose and history.

I mean could a different term be used, and the church’s prayer and blessing be given in certain circumstances?

Solvitur Ambulado

 

[edwest2]

The purpose of the male and female sex organs is for the procreation of children. The fact that some people can’t is not the issue, the majority can and do. We’re just past the 7 billion mark. We should all respect homosexual persons but a legal fiction is not justice. All the benefits could have been gained by other means. By making statements that comprise a one to one comparison between gay and straight marriage ignores certain facts about the male and female body.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

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

You’re a very funny guy! . Do you write a blog or anything I could read?

 

[Rau]

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

Right. And one of a pair of lesbians is analogous to an impotent man. And one of a pair of gay men is analogous to a woman born with no vagina. A productive line of reasoning ?

 

[RedFox0456]

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

I see you took the advice and just ignored that bit. Would you mind, though, giving me the play-by-play on why Jesus was wrong?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What about another form of blessing or union other than ‘marriage’ - which seems to have a more specific purpose and history.

I mean could a different term be used, and the church’s prayer and blessing be given in certain circumstances?

Solvitur Ambulado

I think this is a great idea

I cannot understand why the gay community does not just call their relationships something like “Rainbow Connections” or whatever.
I cannot understand why they then don’t pressure for a change in legislature that grants “Rainbow Connections” benefit rights that are equal to marriage.
I cannot understand why they insist on offending Catholics and the majority of Americans with this redefinition of marriage.

 

[edwest2]

I think this is a great idea

I cannot understand why the gay community does not just call their relationships something like “Rainbow Connections” or whatever.
I cannot understand why they then don’t pressure for a change in legislature that grants “Rainbow Connections” benefit rights that are equal to marriage.
I cannot understand why they insist on offending Catholics and the majority of Americans with this redefinition of marriage.

Definitely not.

Man + Woman does not equal
Man + Man
Woman + Woman
Previous Man with some female attributes plus man or woman or previous female with some male attributes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Since the PURPOSE of marriage is procreation, I would say there may be a little spark of relevance somewhere in there…

So, all marriages where the wife passes her menopause, and so can no longer procreate, are automatically terminated? I wasn’t aware of that part of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could refer me to the appropriate Church document.

Valid heterosexual marriages exist where procreation is not possible. Hence, procreation is not essential for marriage. Hence your “PURPOSE” is not always relevant. I agree that it is often relevant, but it is not always relevant. Hence, the absence of that PURPOSE is not an absolute bar to marriage. A woman who has had a hysterectomy can make a valid marriage.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I see you took the advice and just ignored that bit. Would you mind, though, giving me the play-by-play on why Jesus was wrong?

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, not Christian. If I thought Jesus was right, then I would be Christian.

Jesus is right where He agrees with the Buddha; Jesus is wrong where he disagrees with the Buddha:

“Love your neighbour as yourself.” – Jesus.

“Love others as you love yourself.” – The Buddha.

Buddhists have the same liberal/conservative split as Christians over how to deal with same sex marriage. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that I am on the liberal side.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Buddhists have the same liberal/conservative split as Christians over how to deal with same sex marriage. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that I am on the liberal side.

Do you understand same sex ‘marriage’ to be, by its nature, a sexual relationship?

 

[RedFox0456]

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, not Christian. If I thought Jesus was right, then I would be Christian.

Jesus is right where He agrees with the Buddha; Jesus is wrong where he disagrees with the Buddha:

“Love your neighbour as yourself.” – Jesus.

“Love others as you love yourself.” – The Buddha.

Buddhists have the same liberal/conservative split as Christians over how to deal with same sex marriage. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that I am on the liberal side.

rossum

But you are arguing here with the morality of same-sex marriage with Catholics on a Catholic forum. Therefore, if you want to convince me you should probably do so by appealing to my faith, as the tenets of yours are not going to hold sway. I mean no offense, but if I thought that your religion overrides mine then I don’t think I should be calling myself Catholic.

 

[rossum]

Do you understand same sex ‘marriage’ to be, by its nature, a sexual relationship?

I do not accept your, “same sex ‘marriage’”. I do accept the existence of same sex marriage, without the scare quotes.

Same sex marriage is defined in civil law in many places, and in religious law in a few places. There is no requirement that a marriage be sexual in civil law. Religious laws vary.

rossum

 

[Rau]

I do not accept your, “same sex ‘marriage’”. I do accept the existence of same sex marriage, without the scare quotes.

Same sex marriage is defined in civil law in many places, and in religious law in a few places. There is no requirement that a marriage be sexual in civil law. Religious laws vary.

rossum

Marriage with no sex or possibility of producing children. That’s like a contract for asset sharing and the like is it? Not actually marital at all.

 

[rossum]

Marriage with no sex or possibility of producing children. That’s like a contract for asset sharing and the like is it? Not actually marital at all.

It is a legal civil marriage. There are many legal civil marriages that do not meet the criteria for a Catholic marriage, for example when two divorced people marry.

There are many different versions of marriage.

rossum

 

[RedFox0456]

It is a legal civil marriage. There are many legal civil marriages that do not meet the criteria for a Catholic marriage, for example when two divorced people marry.

There are many different versions of marriage.

rossum

And yet the OP was asking about the morality of same-sex marriage on a **Catholic **forum.

You see, something could be legal and immoral. Like cheating on your spouse. It’s not illegal. You won’t get thrown in jail for it. And yet it is immoral in the Catholic faith. As well, something could be acceptable to one religion and still be immoral. It may even be considered fine by a rationalistic standard since nobody gets hurt, even if they do think it is cooky. For instance - worshipping the sun god, Ra. Totally fine in some religions, totally harmless by a secular standpoint, and also totally immoral in the Catholic faith.