Homsexual Marriage question about infertility

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrsbrosky
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chrsbrosky

Guest
Hello everyone,

I am currently in a discussion on another website under the post “To Christians: Whats wrong with gays and gay marriage?”

I replied with this:
"There is nothing wrong with gays (we are all God’s children), but the act of homosexual intercourse is among the grave sexual sins.

We as Christians believe that homosexual marriage goes against one of the two main natures of sex: to create a union between two people, and to give forth life by reproduction. It obviously affects the latter. There is no power to give forth life and thus a human soul in a homosexual union.

Of course, as stated by others, the only way to agree with the Christian view is to believe sex is something sacred between man and woman. It all depends on that main point.

Sadly, many Christians do condemn homosexuals instead of just homosexual marriage, so of course they are feeling attacked by Christianity. I myself have a friend who is bisexual, and I know for a fact that she feels awkward around me because of how she’s seen others handle those with her sexual orientation."

I have gotten two responses, and I need help replying back:

“Should infertile people be allowed to get married? Should a heterosexual couple who simply doesn’t want children be allowed to get married? Because they currently are.”

“No we don’t. There’s no such thing as two main natures in sex. Sex is not sacred as in ‘union and children’ but a very important part of a relationship. Love, friendship and sex are the three cornerstones of a good relationship and by turning one part “sacred” and “special” is twisting the house, turning it crooked. Sex in itself is not a problem. Sex used to discriminate, penalize etc. is a problem.”

“Care to point to the relevant verses backing up this claim?”

Sorry for the long post, but I would love all the help I could get. thanks 🙂 And also, if I said anything wrong, feel free to correct me 😛

God bless.
 
A couple need not actually conceive for their union to be ordered toward procreation. But they must be willing to and have the complimentary body parts. A heterosexual couple who wants to get married but never wants children should NOT get married. This will become evident as you define marriage as recommended above.

To support homosexual unions, sex must necessarily be reduced to ONLY a unitive aspect…and a loosley defined one at that. So, make the connection for them. IF sex need not be ordered toward procreation (man + woman and intravaginal ejeaculation) then ANY sex becomes okay. Man+man, man+animal, woman+animal,…these naturally become licit if sex need not be procreative in nature.
 
Should infertile people be allowed to get married?

That particular question always puzzles me…does that imply that we should all be tested for infertility prior to marriage, trusting the gods of medicine over the one true God?

From what I hear about the medical profession, it is already overwhelmed and could not take the influx of testing anyhow. Plus most people couldn’t afford/wouldn’t have insurance that would cover such testing. And the morality behind much of it is questionable at best. The Church wouldn’t and the State shouldn’t force us to have unnecessary, invasive testing in order to be free to marry.

I personally know two “infertile” couples, one of which took 9 years to conceive and went on to have 3 children. The other took 10 years with one…so far! And no fertility treatments!

We cannot naturally know we are infertile before marriage if we are following God’s plan for our state in life (i.e. living chastely).

The Bible has examples of supposedly infertile couples who have children.

Don’t know if any of this helps your argument but I know you’ll find the right answers!
 
chrsbrosky said:
Hello everyone,

I am currently in a discussion on another website under the post “To Christians: Whats wrong with gays and gay marriage?”

I replied with this:
"There is nothing wrong with gays (we are all God’s children), but the act of homosexual intercourse is among the grave sexual sins.

We as Christians believe that homosexual marriage goes against one of the two main natures of sex: to create a union between two people, and to give forth life by reproduction. It obviously affects the latter. There is no power to give forth life and thus a human soul in a homosexual union.

Of course, as stated by others, the only way to agree with the Christian view is to believe sex is something sacred between man and woman. It all depends on that main point.

Sadly, many Christians do condemn homosexuals instead of just homosexual marriage, so of course they are feeling attacked by Christianity. I myself have a friend who is bisexual, and I know for a fact that she feels awkward around me because of how she’s seen others handle those with her sexual orientation."

I have gotten two responses, and I need help replying back:

“Should infertile people be allowed to get married? Should a heterosexual couple who simply doesn’t want children be allowed to get married? Because they currently are.”

“No we don’t. There’s no such thing as two main natures in sex. Sex is not sacred as in ‘union and children’ but a very important part of a relationship. Love, friendship and sex are the three cornerstones of a good relationship and by turning one part “sacred” and “special” is twisting the house, turning it crooked. Sex in itself is not a problem. Sex used to discriminate, penalize etc. is a problem.”

“Care to point to the relevant verses backing up this claim?”

Sorry for the long post, but I would love all the help I could get. thanks 🙂 And also, if I said anything wrong, feel free to correct me 😛

God bless.
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s important to recognize that there is no Constitutional right to marriage.

In fact, family law, like all other matters not specified in the Constitution, are reserved to the individual states.

The Catholic Church, as a private institution, may say its members have a right to marry, but even that requires discernment on both the part of the priest and couple and the Church does not have to marry someone simply because they want it.

Regarding sterile couples: Some people who think they are sterile may not be and vice versa.

It’s already been pointed out on here that required sterility tests are too expensive.

As for couples who say they don’t want kids, well, it can and does happen anyways in a heterosexual relationship but not in one that is exclusively homosexual. In fact, many of the kids that homosexuals have come from previous heterosexual relationships.

Historically, the role of the state in regulating marriage is provide an incentive for the healthy rearing of children, not to try and make someone feel bad.

Laws by their nature discriminate, and discrimination is not always a bad thing. I discriminate every time I pick one product over the other in the store. It’s called free market capitalism.

Homosexual activists have yet to offer a good reason why the state should invest in their relationships. They want to make marriage not about children and the greater good of society but for their own selfish pleasures.

Government + emotion = disaster.
 
ExGratia said:
We cannot naturally know we are infertile before marriage if we are following God’s plan for our state in life (i.e. living chastely).
Click to expand...
That isn’t always true. If a woman has a hysterectomy, and has her ovaries removed as well, it is impossible for her to get pregnant. I have known of women who needed this surgery in their late twenties.

Should such women, who are incapable of sexual reproduction, be banned from marriage? They are not currently, not even by the Church. If a woman has this done after marriage, but before having children, should her marriage be declared void by the government?

The argument that fertility is necessary for a legal marriage is a claim which I don’t think can be defended. I am not aware of any country which makes fertility a requirement of marriage.
 
Dale_M said:
That isn’t always true. If a woman has a hysterectomy, and has her ovaries removed as well, it is impossible for her to get pregnant. I have known of women who needed this surgery in their late twenties.

Should such women, who are incapable of sexual reproduction, be banned from marriage? They are not currently, not even by the Church. If a woman has this done after marriage, but before having children, should her marriage be declared void by the government?

The argument that fertility is necessary for a legal marriage is a claim which I don’t think can be defended. I am not aware of any country which makes fertility a requirement of marriage.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose my arguments may not be helpful for the OP after all! Just to clarify, I do believe marriage between infertile couples is valid. I know a post-menopausal woman who just married for the first time (to a widower). I hope you weren’t questioning my motives…I was just trying to help the initial poster. I am in full communion with Rome and support all of Her teachings.
 
It’s not about infertility. Infertility is not a barrier to marriage.

But permanent and irreversible impotence is a barrier to marriage. Because if permanent and irreversible, it means that no marital intercourse can take place. No conjugal relations can occur. And marriage is marital. Marriage is conjugal.

And same sex couples are inherently and permanently not capable of marital intercourse. They may engage in other sorts of sexual activities, but they cannot engage in conjugal relations. Thus, there can be no marriage.
 
chrsbrosky said:
Hello everyone,

I am currently in a discussion on another website under the post “To Christians: Whats wrong with gays and gay marriage?”

I replied with this:
"There is nothing wrong with gays (we are all God’s children), but the act of homosexual intercourse is among the grave sexual sins.

We as Christians believe that homosexual marriage goes against one of the two main natures of sex: to create a union between two people, and to give forth life by reproduction. It obviously affects the latter. There is no power to give forth life and thus a human soul in a homosexual union.

Of course, as stated by others, the only way to agree with the Christian view is to believe sex is something sacred between man and woman. It all depends on that main point.

Sadly, many Christians do condemn homosexuals instead of just homosexual marriage, so of course they are feeling attacked by Christianity. I myself have a friend who is bisexual, and I know for a fact that she feels awkward around me because of how she’s seen others handle those with her sexual orientation."

I have gotten two responses, and I need help replying back:

“Should infertile people be allowed to get married? Should a heterosexual couple who simply doesn’t want children be allowed to get married? Because they currently are.”

“No we don’t. There’s no such thing as two main natures in sex. Sex is not sacred as in ‘union and children’ but a very important part of a relationship. Love, friendship and sex are the three cornerstones of a good relationship and by turning one part “sacred” and “special” is twisting the house, turning it crooked. Sex in itself is not a problem. Sex used to discriminate, penalize etc. is a problem.”

“Care to point to the relevant verses backing up this claim?”

Sorry for the long post, but I would love all the help I could get. thanks 🙂 And also, if I said anything wrong, feel free to correct me 😛

God bless.
Click to expand...
Not only is marriage possible only between a man and a woman, but parenthood is properly ordered only with a married man and woman.

This is not just a religious reality but a societal one as well. The procreation of the human race and the raising of children perpetuate all societies. All societies must value the emphasis and priority that must be applied to ordering both marriage and parenthood to its greatest good.

The complementary natures of men and women are best suited to rearing children and raising a family. Children deserve the opportunity to be raised by a Mom and a Dad, not two Moms or two Dads. This simply too important a topic to be resolved by social experiment. And, it has nothing to do with homophobia (really not even sure what that is).

What about the divorced, widowed or single parents…? How about infertile couples? We are a flawed people. Not every situation works out as designed, but at least the laws and mores are ordered toward the good and the perfect even though it does not always turn out that way.

So, all societies should properly order both marriage and parenthood to involve a man and a woman as husband, wife and parent.

Let’s stop pretending we are compassionate and progressive people and realize we are playing with fire.
 
Relevant Scripture verses

Gen 1:27-28 … “male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply’”

Gen 2:24 … “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”

This is, in a nutshell, the basis for the Church’s claim of the twofold purpose of marriage. Be fertile and multiply (the fruit of marriage), the two become one body (or one flesh), the uniting aspect of marriage and also the offspring are that “one body”. The problem with argument that infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is that this would be not of their own choice. The married couple that does not wish for children and chooses not to have them is not really married in the eyes of the Church (not a valid marriage, & actually grounds for annulment). The Sacrament of Marriage is actually the Conjugal Union of the Marital Act. Meaning, a couple is not technically Married until they consumate it on their marriage bed. The Sacrament of marriage is not received at the ceremony, the Sacrament’s physical form is the conjugal union of the marital act. In essence for Catholics (& I would argue biblical followers), Marriage = Conjugal Act, or as our culture calls it “sex”. The problem lies in the fact that our culture has accepted “casual sex” rendering marriage virtually pointless (in the eyes of the culture). We cannot win the argument with pro homosexuals because we (as a culture) have failed to argue against heterosexual “sex” outside of marriage.
Another problem, you said that this was the “Christian” view of marriage and not all Christians share the Catholic view.
Thanks, Nick
weightofthewood.blogspot.com
 
I accept the Church’s teaching on marriage, and on why same-sex unions cannot be real marriages, but this line of reasoning—however valid—will never persuade someone who rejects the authority of Scripture, the Church’s interpretation of it, and who sees same-sex marriage as a “right.”

Aquinas understood that you can’t use Scripture to convince people who reject Scripture. You use reason. (See his “Summa Contra Gentiles.”) A good place to start is with the question, “what is marriage?” (I posted a link to a brilliant paper addressing this question. It is a strong, reasoned argument for the conjugal view of marriage and it does NOT appeal to religious authority. (This is not because the authors reject religious authority but because they know many in their audience do.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top