How would a so-called same-sex 'marriage' be consummated?

[Sparkythedog]

Because those who want so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ say they want ‘marriage equality’. Equal means the same. But, as you have admitted, it’s not the same thing as what has always been the definition of marriage up until this sudden new attempt to redefine it.

Should people of color who want equality with “whites” bleach their skin. They want to be the same don’t they?

 

[livingwordunity]

Then why did you bother to get your marriage recognized by the state. If you feel the state is mocking your view of marriage.

The state’s definition of natural marriage being between one man and one woman is the same as the Catholic Church’s definition of natural marriage. There is no conflict there. Sacramental marriage is built upon the foundation of natural marriage. So-called same-sex ‘marriage’ not only goes against God but also goes against basic human anatomy, how our bodies are designed. Science is on the side of the Catholic Church with this one. The other side only has emotional arguments.

 

[RPRPsych]

And, on what basis would the state grant them an annulment if they wanted one? Also, there’s a practical and biologically logical reason why heterosexuals are most often in coupled relationships, it’s because it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. What is the reason for limiting the number to two for so-called same-sex ‘marriage’? Is it to mimic a heterosexual couple?

1. It can’t be “consummated” the way a true marriage can. The question is as absurd as my asking “how can I get pregnant?” (I’m a guy ) Homosexuals can engage in sexual acts, but none of these would strictly count as a consummation.
2. Probably on the other grounds (other than non-consummation) - psychological or physical incapacity (in this case, to perform a sex act), force, fraud, a prior marriage, etc. The question is moot, though, as gay “marriage” is oxymoronic (and just plain moronic )
3. Yes, it’s to mimic a man-woman marriage, but also because many homosexual men do form short- and long-term attachments to a particular partner (Elton John comes to mind), which they wish to legitimize as “marriages”.

 

[Viewer]

The state’s definition of natural marriage being between one man and one woman is the same as the Catholic Church’s definition of natural marriage. There is no conflict there. Sacramental marriage is built upon the foundation of natural marriage. So-called same-sex ‘marriage’ not only goes against God but also goes against basic human anatomy, how our bodies are designed. Science is on the side of the Catholic Church with this one. The other side only has emotional arguments.

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning sir but your approach is not going to help you grasp it. You cannot view this topic through rigid Catholic doctrine, instead you must set your own opinions to one side and objectively observe, a scholarly approach if you will.

Catholic doctrine regarding consummation is generally alien to the secular sphere and understanding, and to apply it’s logic to an area that does not adhere to it’s codes or systems and in many cases openly rejects them will not yield any answers. It would be rather like me trying to study Medicine from an Engineering textbook.

All that is required to grasp the reasoning has already been said, good luck if you to try and asses it this way.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Put your money where your mouth is and show everyone that you didn’t get married for the “perks”.

I really like this idea. It would be a great protest. People against gays being married by the state should renounce secular marriage by getting a secular divorce. It’s not about tax benefits, or insurance, or hospital visitations, or inheritance anyway. It’s strictly about the sacrament.

I’m gonna bet nobody takes me up on this. Why not?

 

[pensmama87]

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning sir but your approach is not going to help you grasp it. You cannot view this topic through rigid Catholic doctrine, instead you must set your own opinions to one side and objectively observe, a scholarly approach if you will.

Catholic doctrine regarding consummation is generally alien to the secular sphere and understanding, and to apply it’s logic to an area that does not adhere to it’s codes or systems and in many cases openly rejects them will not yield any answers.

All that is required to grasp the reasoning has already been said, good luck if you to try and asses it this way.

Well, at least you just came out and said it: If one is to think same-sex “marriage” is a possibility, then one must ignore the Truth as revealed by the Church Jesus Christ Himself established.

I’ll stick with the Truth, myself.

 

[Corki]

How do same sex partners have heterosexual sex? They don’t. **Why is this important? ** I’m straight and I can have intercourse anyway I like, vaginal and otherwise. (providing my partner’s consent of course) There is no law stating that married couples need to have vaginal intercourse in order to be married. (and if there were - I’d be curious to see how it is enforced)

The reason it’s important is stated in the OP. In a state where a civil marriage can be annulled, there are conditions. One of those conditions is usually that the marriage was not consummated. A heterosexual couple that engaged in any or all of the activities enumerated earlier could still have an unconsummated marriage if they never had intercourse after the wedding.

The reason this is an interesting question is that for a same sex couple, legally, you would have three choices a) assume ALL same sex marriages are consummated simply by contract b) assume that NO same sex marriages are consummated (since intercourse is not possible) or c) change the definition of consummation for all marriages - same sex and normal.

 

[Sparkythedog]

The state’s definition of natural marriage being between one man and one woman is the same as the Catholic Church’s definition of natural marriage. There is no conflict there.

Nope. Now it depends on what state that you live in. And that list seems to get smaller every couple months.

Sacramental marriage is built upon the foundation of natural marriage. So-called same-sex ‘marriage’ not only goes against God but also goes against basic human anatomy, how our bodies are designed. Science is on the side of the Catholic Church with this one. The other side only has emotional arguments.

So if the state is making a mockery of that why not renounce the states “so called marriage” law. Just be married sacramentally. That’s what true marriage is anyways.

 

[livingwordunity]

The reason it’s important is stated in the OP. In a state where a civil marriage can be annulled, there are conditions. One of those conditions is usually that the marriage was not consummated. A heterosexual couple that engaged in any or all of the activities enumerated earlier could still have an unconsummated marriage if they never had intercourse after the wedding.

The reason this is an interesting question is that for a same sex couple, legally, you would have three choices a) assume ALL same sex marriages are consummated simply by contract b) assume that NO same sex marriages are consummated (since intercourse is not possible) or c) change the definition of consummation for all marriages - same sex and normal.

Well said!

 

[Viewer]

Well, at least you just came out and said it: If one is to think same-sex “marriage” is a possibility, then one must ignore the Truth as revealed by the Church Jesus Christ Himself established.

I’ll stick with the Truth, myself.

Excuse me, where did I say that? To understand another point of view does not mean one accepts it, I understand why muslims visit Mecca but that does not mean I intend to undertake the Hajj.

While we acknowledge one truth, one must always remember the rest of the world does not pay it the same heed as we do. By understanding the logic behind another persons viewpoint we can better reason with them, and formulate effective counter proposals to convert them to our understanding and appreciation of the truth.

Unless of course I should have handled all of my theology studies by waving my crucifix and screaming “You’re dooooomed” at all the non-chrsitians in my theological debates rather than reasonable discussion?

 

[pensmama87]

I really like this idea. It would be a great protest. People against gays being married by the state should renounce secular marriage by getting a secular divorce. It’s not about tax benefits, or insurance, or hospital visitations, or inheritance anyway. It’s strictly about the sacrament.

I’m gonna bet nobody takes me up on this. Why not?

In the United States, at least, such an action would not be possible. If a couple wishes to be married in the Church, they have to obtain a marriage license.

(A person pursuing a declaration of nullity must also have been legally divorced.)

I have other reasons, as well, but that’s where I’ll start.

 

[livingwordunity]

So if the state is making a mockery of that why not renounce the states “so called marriage” law. Just be married sacramentally. That’s what true marriage is anyways.

Natural marriage between a man and a woman predates the Catholic Church and every other religion or government. It goes all the way back to the first man and woman who lived on the earth. As I said before, the Catholic Church accepts non-sacramental natural marriage (one man and one woman) as marriage. But, She requires that this natural marriage be blessed by the Church if it is a Catholic who is involved. Sacramental marriage is simply the Church giving her blessing to a natural marriage. Since so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ is the opposite of heterosexual marriage, it isn’t natural and therefore can’t ever be blessed by the Catholic Church. Our reasons for not redefining marriage are based on both theology and science. But, the ones arguing for so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ base their position solely on emotion and brute-force.

 

[pensmama87]

Excuse me, where did I say that? To understand another point of view does not mean one accepts it, I understand why muslims visit Mecca but that does not mean I intend to undertake the Hajj.

While we acknowledge one truth, one must always remember the rest of the world does not pay it the same heed as we do. By understanding the logic behind another persons viewpoint we can better reason with them, and formulate effective counter proposals to convert them to our understanding and appreciation of the truth.

Unless of course I should have handled all of my theology studies by waving my crucifix and screaming “You’re dooooomed” at all the non-chrsitians in my theological debates rather than reasonable discussion?

You said it right here:

Viewer:

You cannot view this topic through rigid Catholic doctrine

I used to be a same-sex marriage advocate myself. I was president of our LGBTQ student alliance. I get the secular arguments.

They are bad arguments.

I still have lots of compassion for people afflicted with SSA. But I know that condoning their sin is the wrong thing to do. Your argument does not sound like you wish to convert people to the Truth, but that you wish to tell Catholics that they need to stop being so biased, already. It is absolutely false that a completely “non-biased” person would conclude that same-sex “marriage” is correct, possible, and good, though it’s widely believed that this is so. I argue that these people who believe they are so objective have a lot of biases they haven’t bothered to make themselves aware of, two of the biggest being “I’m smarter because I live now rather than 500 years ago when everyone was Christian and stupid,” and “I love doing things that are wrong for me, so I will pretend that they are good.”

I’m no stranger to the latter, either, but at least I can catch myself in it now.

 

[Sparkythedog]

In the United States, at least, such an action would not be possible. If a couple wishes to be married in the Church, they have to obtain a marriage license.

(A person pursuing a declaration of nullity must also have been legally divorced.)

I have other reasons, as well, but that’s where I’ll start.

People can get a marriage license. Get married in the church. And then get a civil divorce. I’ve been on these forums long enough to learn that civil divorce does not invalidate a catholic marriage. I’m not asking that they seek nullity. Just renounce the mockery of civil marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

People can get a marriage license. Get married in the church. And then get a civil divorce. I’ve been on these forums long enough to learn that civil divorce does not invalidate a catholic marriage. I’m not asking that they seek nullity. Just renounce the mockery of civil marriage.

Civil marriage is only a mockery of marriage if it is redefined to include something other than a natural marriage (i.e. one man and one woman). Never before in the history of mankind did we have to specify that we are talking about a man and a woman when we use the word for marriage. The world is so confused.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Natural marriage between a man and a woman predates the Catholic Church and every other religion or government. It goes all the way back to the first man and woman who lived on the earth. As I said before, the Catholic Church accepts non-sacramental natural marriage (one man and one woman) as marriage. But, She requires that this natural marriage be blessed by the Church if it is a Catholic who is involved. Sacramental marriage is simply the Church giving her blessing to a natural marriage. Since so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ is the opposite of heterosexual marriage, it isn’t natural and therefore can’t ever be blessed by the Catholic Church.

I don’t really care about the minutia. My point is:

Some people here are claiming that marriage not about the “perks” offered by the state. If that’s so, renounce the states “perks” and prove to me that’s the case.

 

[pensmama87]

People can get a marriage license. Get married in the church. And then get a civil divorce. I’ve been on these forums long enough to learn that civil divorce does not invalidate a catholic marriage. I’m not asking that they seek nullity. Just renounce the mockery of civil marriage.

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that Catholics are required to get legal documentation in the United States to be married sacramentally. I don’t know how it works elsewhere. I pointed out, additionally, that legal action was required before the marriage could be declared null by the Church, as well.

So American Catholics, at least, would not be able to get married at all as the rules stand now.

There’s a good reason for nations to recognize marriage, namely that marriage provides an excellent foundation for the creation and raising of the next generation of citizens. Interestingly, same-sex couples are, by definition, incapable of doing that.

 

[Sparkythedog]

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that Catholics are required to get legal documentation in the United States to be married sacramentally. I don’t know how it works elsewhere. I pointed out, additionally, that legal action was required before the marriage could be declared null by the Church, as well.

So American Catholics, at least, would not be able to get married at all as the rules stand now.

There’s a good reason for nations to recognize marriage, namely that marriage provides an excellent foundation for the creation and raising of the next generation of citizens. Interestingly, same-sex couples are, by definition, incapable of doing that.

Please see my response to livingwordunity above. It explains my case.

 

[Corki]

People can get a marriage license. Get married in the church. And then get a civil divorce. I’ve been on these forums long enough to learn that civil divorce does not invalidate a catholic marriage. I’m not asking that they seek nullity. Just renounce the mockery of civil marriage.

For a Catholic, getting divorced civilly is a grave matter. It would be sinful to do what you describe here - especially to do so just to make a point.

 

[livingwordunity]

I pointed out, additionally, that legal action was required before the marriage could be declared null by the Church, as well.

This is always a neglected point. The Catholic Church doesn’t accept every heterosexual civil marriage as being valid. That’s why Her position does not single out homosexuals for discrimination when She says that a civil ‘marriage’ is not valid. Except that every homosexual ‘marriage’ will be invalid because it is unnatural and the exact opposite of real marriage. Thanks for bringing it up.