In a society such as ours, arguments can be made on those bases, and, out of respect for those who hold those positions, those arguments must be received with courtesy. Those arguments are not, in my opinion, sufficient to direct public policy.
Please note that children were the first item on my list. I presumed that those seeking an answer to this question would also notice that society has an interest in the care and nurture of children and that many laws benefit couples for that purpose, but that the question implied that society did not have other interests so laws did not benefit couples for any other purpose than raising children.
Courts have ruled that consummation need not entail vaginal penetration. On another tack for this question, I assume you have no problem holding that Mary and Joseph were married. If so, was she a perpetual virgin?
And as was brought up by a Supreme Court justice yesterday, neither does the state benefit in this way from the marriage of couples over 55 (her example). The procreation argument doesn’t work for this discussion.
No, I don’t make that claim. One distinction that the Church clings to is the difference between orientation and action upon that orientation. The urging of homosexuals to be celibate is a demonstrable change.
What child doesn’t want both of their parents? I don’t know you or your life story, but if you’re going to say that in your heart you never wanted your father around while you were growing up…I’m sorry but I have a hard time believing that.My mom raised me. She never told me anything about being a man. I turned out pretty darn awesome if I do say so myself.So we already know a single mom can raise a boy and a single dad can raise a daughter. Are you saying that TWO women raising a boy or TWO men raising a girl would screw it up?
Three replies and you still never answered my question.
Sure, they can remarry. And then possibly have half brothers or sisters if its in the Lord’s will.
Sorry dandingo, I though I did answer your question. What Have I missed?
The difference in our positions is, I think, based on what is sinful.
No! Any irresponsible over-sexed idiot can sire a child. Parenting is an act of sacrificial love. Society is already burdened by many children from heterosexual relationships (married and unmarried) in which one or the other parent is absent. The mere increase of the population is not in the best interest of society.
No problem. I asked if you were OK with redefining the legal age of consent so that a 50 year old man could marry any girl, and as many girls as he wanted that were able to procreate and were willing and able in order to be consistent with marriage equality? Or # 50 year old man marring as many similarly-aged boys, for that matter?
I see Aquinas a a genius for his time, but I don’t base my life on his teaching. He had a cosmology that doesn’t work with current understanding of the world, and he is bound by Aristotelian logic that doesn’t translate well into contemporary thought processes.
No I would not Vote for that.
I was adopted. That was a good thing for me. Certainly better than being raised in the foster system.
There is a huge difference between the two. The deadbeat dad creates not only the absence of a male influence, but also creates poverty and the absence of a second adult to meet physical and emotional needs.
So, you’re not for marriage equality.
I am for homosexuals having the right to marry, just like heterosexuals.
The topic is actually “Marriage”RevDon
**It still appears that your focus is on the bedroom. My experience of married couples is that the sex may be important the first few years, but the relationship does not last because of the sex. **
Well, here’s the problem with your objection. Look at the title of this thread. Then look at two words: heterosexual and homosexual. Both words have “sex” in them. So what are we talking about if not sex?
Please don’t try to make an argument on the basis of what Jesus doesn’t say. That can lead us far from a productive conversation.
O.K. Then let’s talk about what Jesus DOES say.
“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14
To be unfavorably compared with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as to the evil they were famous for, is certainly not an endorsement of sodomy, nor a plea that sodomy be sanctified as a sacrament.
Let me get this straight: You as a Catholic priest endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage and the sodomite sexual relations it is based upon?
Yes or no?