Exactly, what if a homosexual loves more than one person? Than they couldn’t marry whom they love. Doesn’t sound much like marriage “equality” to me. those who do not support multiple spouse marriages are not pro marriage “equality”, because there would still be limitations on marriage.
We traveled through the looking glass a long time ago, we have just ventured further. Wait until you see what is next!
How is that the same as how heterosexuals consummate a marriage? There never was any such thing as so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ until the idea was recently concocted by the left. Even as recent as the 1990’s, there was no country in the world that legally recognized such an idea. In ancient Rome and Greece, the leaders of government practiced homosexuality and homosexuality was widely and officially accepted. But it was never considered marriage by anyone in these ancient societies where the behavior was common. Why all of a sudden now do some people insist that it has to be called ‘marriage’ when not calling it ‘marriage’ never bothered anyone before? When they got it to be called ‘civil unions’ they had the same legal benefits as married couples, but that still wasn’t enough for them. Why?
catholicnews.org.uk/content/download/32881/238622/file/briefing-marriage-same-sex-couples-bill.pdf
What sparks these types of questions? This almost feels rhetorical at this point. I feel like you must have come across the reasons why two people of the same sex would want to be married by now.
The secular world does not work from the Churches perception of marriage, the sex act is not essential (presumed perhaps, but not required).
It’s usually not for want of knowing, but to disprove or discredit an idea condemned by the Catholic Church.
You are missing the question. How is the way same-sex partners ‘consummate’ the same as the way heterosexuals do? Because isn’t the ‘gay’ lobby’s argument that there isn’t a difference?
Signing the dotted line in the registry office.
What about polygamy? Polygamists aren’t affecting our lives in any negative way, so why be opposed to that? and abortion isn’t affecting me in any negative way, because I’m already born, but am strongly opposed to it.
All these things are available without being married. Just need to work a little harder.
That’s not how consummation has been defined in heterosexual marriages. A man and a woman who get married on an impulse but who regret signing on the dotted line immediately afterward can get a state-granted annulment if they didn’t consummate the marriage. So, how is the way that homosexual partners ‘consummate’ the same as the way heterosexuals do if there is supposedly no difference between heterosexual marriage and so-called same-sex ‘marriage’?
When people speak of redefining marriage, they talk about what is favorable to society, and society has always seen monogamy as ordered to the common good. Hence, people would make polygamy illegal.
Society has always seen marriage as being between a man and a woman and has seen sodomy as being against the common good. One can’t use the common good argument after throwing out what had always been understood by everyone as the common good. If the common good can change to whatever on a whim it has no meaning. One can’t use a moral argument right after throwing out the concept of morality. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
Whenever the SSM laws have been passed around Europe the legal definition of hetrosexual marriage was changed as well. Sex wasn’t always a required component in most countries but it is now consumatted by hetrosexual and homosexual couples in the same way, signing the dotted line.
It can, and it has repeatedly including within the past 150 years within the church. Marriage formerly used to be more based around the formation of dynastic ties and producing offspring of a set standard of pedigree rather than affection which was deemed largely irrelevant, and now we are taught to marry for love rather than material gains or social prestige which formerly was the highlight of marriage.
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)
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.
Then why did you bother to get your marriage recognized by the state. If you feel the state is mocking your view of marriage then why not renounce this state sanctioned abomination. You would still be married in the church and in the eyes of your god. Put your money where your mouth is and show everyone that you didn’t get married for the “perks”.