Homosexual Marriage

[Stephen168]

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?

It seems that “talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage” is talking to a fellow about the morality of something that doesn’t exist; like talking about the care and feeding of a unicorn.
A broken axe is still an axe. Claiming a spoon is an axe because it can chop wood as well as a broken axe seems irrational.
The purpose of swinging a bat at a baseball is to hit the ball. While we fail at it most of the time, it is still the purpose of the swing. I don’t think swinging a bat at another bat is still called baseball.

 

[rossum]

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

And the OP specifically referred to that argument that an infertile man can make a valid Catholic marriage. The bulk of my posts in this thread have been in support of that argument. Procreation is not necessary to a valid marriage, hence that particular argument against same sex marriage does not work.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

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

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

You cannot base a general argument on a subset of cases.

 

[Stephen168]

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.
Rau;12306580:

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 ?

Yes, impotent is the better analogy. Infertile couples can engage in a reproductive act while same-sex couples and impotent men; can not.

 

[CarmelJerome]

As one poster on another question pointed out, the discussion of what the ‘sexual relations’ in same-sex unions consist of is glossed over – at least the old Gay Pride parades put them on much more public display to show what they meant by “Pride”.

What they mean by pride is the deliberate and perpetual desecration of a sacrament which is entirely on par with the desecration of the Host during a Black Mass. This may be well the reason that Satanists have lost some of their shyness, because in abortion and now in the legalization of same-sex unions by judicial fiat have made the deliberate mockery of our Creator has been made a cornerstone of the contemporary social order.

Let’s be clear: even support for same-sex unions is in fact formal collaboration with evil; acceptance of desecration of the image of God in the name of a false compassion & a false prudence.

 

[Rau]

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

No, just an asset sharing deal. You’ve eliminated the marriage and left the adjunct legal terms.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So, all marriages where the wife passes her menopause, and so can no longer procreate, are automatically terminated?

Of course not. Women marry, have children and then reach menopause all the time. Perfectly valid and happy marriage till death do they part.

I wasn’t aware of that part of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could refer me to the appropriate Church document.

It’s not part of Catholic doctrine as far as I know.

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

The PURPOSE (procreation) of marriage is always relevant. Otherwise it is not a marriage. More like “shacking up”. The PURPOSE of marriage is vital. Otherwise you would not be here.

I see where you are going with your argument. You are attempting to equalize a gay relationship with a normal marriage by arguing that because some marriages are unable to produce children a gay relationship should therefore be called a marriage.

The trouble with that idea is that there is NO equivalency of homosexual relationships and marriage… because there is no equivalency of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Homosexual sex is abnormal. Heterosexual relations are natural.

To admit that homosexual relations produce no children while a few normal marriages are also childless is reason to grant marital status to homosexual relationships is…absurd.

 

[Rau]

I see where you rossum] are going with your argument. You are attempting to equalize a gay relationship with a normal marriage by arguing that because some marriages are unable to produce children a gay relationship should therefore be called a marriage.

The trouble with that idea is that there is NO equivalency of homosexual relationships and marriage… because there is no equivalency of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Some arguments for same sex ‘marriage’ rely on noting that a small % of Marriages are not generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that the thing the unions have in common is that which makes them Marriage, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant. It prefers to view Marriage as whatever the State says it is, rather than what it inherently is. If the State gets to decide, well clearly there is nothing to discuss, since the matter is rendered arbitrary.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Some arguments for same sex ‘marriage’ rely on noting that a small % of Marriages are not generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that the thing the unions have in common is that which makes them Marriage, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant. It prefers to view Marriage as whatever the State says it is, rather than what it inherently is. If the State gets to decide, well clearly there is nothing to discuss, since the matter is rendered arbitrary.

Well…heck!

I wish I could have have explained it that way. Way to go…Rau Very well said!

When the state decides on this issue and defines marriage as between two people…it is bowing to a very loud minority and basing its opinion on opinion.

Even more dangerous is the fact that by being permissive, the state is encouraging and promoting homosexual behavior. That may be fine for the hard core gay activists, who want to shift public knowledge away from the serious health dangers of homosexual behavior…but it makes things difficult for those who really want to help in a positive way.

 

[marymary1975]

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

Your second paragraph is not correct either at least in most of the USA. Most of the States do establish the lack of sexual intercourse as grounds for legal nulity so yes legally speaking there is a requirement that a marriage is of sexual nature. What happens is that the person who should bring this to the court is the spouse and in reality no same sex partner is not going to bring such action, and second in current times it is very off to bring such action as thanks to no fault divorce, a no fault divorce is much quicker and easier. However from am immigration standpoint, they do enforce it as to heterosexual couples. In fact immigration in this area is working on a double standard as they will enforce it with heterosexual couples but they won’t with homosexuals.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

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

What you call the “procreation argument” is not invalid, and her argument completely misconstrued what that argument actually is.

.