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

[pensmama87]

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

Well, it’s a bad case.

I wouldn’t necessarily get a legal marriage certificate if I wasn’t required to, if I could still marry my husband sacramentally. But I had to, and so I did.

Still, I am explaining why those “perks” exist - namely, the promise of future taxpayers. It is a burden to raise and provide for children, but if we are to continue as a nation, somebody has to do it. So the government makes it easier for us by recognizing kin relationships established by marriage - because marriage is about family and the creation of new people, not about warm fuzzy feelings and who we decide to get naked with.

Why on earth would the government care who we get naked with, if that’s all this is? What’s in it for them?

 

[Sparkythedog]

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.

Man… there is just no way around it then. You guys are just forced into receiving those perks.

 

[marymary1975]

Obviously a same sex ‘marriage’ cannot be consummated because there is no sexual complementarity. There can be no marital act, and thus no marriage.

But, like the Red Queen explaining the workings of wonderland to Alice, “a word means just what I want it to mean.” So marriage can mean its opposite. It can mean the impossible. We’ve gone through the looking glass.

This is right. A same sex marriage just cannot be consummated. And it is not true that, at least in the US, that consummation is irrelevant for Courts or the law because impotency legally renders a marriage as non valid. In the UK the element of consummation has been eliminated from marriage but in the US this is a big time contradiction however US is the land of contradictory and no sense laws so that is how they get away with it. If it is convenient for gays then is a marriage but if it is not convenient for others then is not.

 

[kozlosap]

For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a sacramental marriage and a civil union. if you want to live where gay people are marginalized, then first world civilized countries are not places you should live. We have been asked by the Holy Father to live by the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy, and continually bashing gays and their wish for civil unions doesnt fit that bill by any means. I think SparkeytheDog brought up a great idea - if you live in a state that recognizes civil marriage between two consenting adults, then leave the state or denounce the civil part of your marriage. Obsession is sometimes a joking matter, in this case it is just ludacris.

 

[Corki]

Man… there is just no way around it then. You guys are just forced into receiving those perks.

The thing you are missing is that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman was valued for **one and only one **perk - to create a stable environment for the having and raising of children. Every other “perk” was added on later in order to encourage the institution.

To seek marriage** because of** civil perks is backwards.

 

[Viewer]

You said it right here:

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.

Excuse me, you are realy taking this the wrong way . I never said I support SSM or being a non biased person. I suggested studying the objectable principle from a standpoint and logic it itself rests upon. It is through this you can convert others to your line of thought.

By your thinking, I should use the catechism when working out measurements in baking a cake. I do not dissent, I merley try to understand the oppositions leading points.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Well, it’s a bad case.

I wouldn’t necessarily get a legal marriage certificate if I wasn’t required to, if I could still marry my husband sacramentally. But I had to, and so I did.

Still, I am explaining why those “perks” exist - namely, the promise of future taxpayers. It is a burden to raise and provide for children, but if we are to continue as a nation, somebody has to do it. So the government makes it easier for us by recognizing kin relationships established by marriage - because marriage is about family and the creation of new people, not about warm fuzzy feelings and who we decide to get naked with.

Why on earth would the government care who we get naked with, if that’s all this is? What’s in it for them?

A married couple can receive these “perks” regardless of whether or not they have kids.

But lets say you did need to have kids to receive them. Gay couples can have kids, as well, through adoption. So they need them just as much as you do.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is right. A same sex marriage just cannot be consummated. And it is not true that, at least in the US, that consummation is irrelevant for Courts or the law because impotency legally renders a marriage as non valid. In the UK the element of consummation has been eliminated from marriage but in the US this is a big time contradiction however US is the land of contradictory and no sense laws so that is how they get away with it. If it is convenient for gays then is a marriage but if it is not convenient for others then is not.

If the state eliminates the requirement for consummation, this also has an impact on heterosexuals who marry since it makes it harder for them to get an annulment if they foolishly rushed into marriage. They won’t be able to get a state-granted annulment anymore based on the fact that they never consummated. But, if the state keeps the requirement for heterosexuals to consummate but only takes away the requirement for homosexuals (since it is always impossible in their case) then this would be an admission by the government that there is a difference.

 

[pensmama87]

For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a sacramental marriage and a civil union. if you want to live where gay people are marginalized, then first world civilized countries are not places you should live. We have been asked by the Holy Father to live by the Gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy, and continually bashing gays and their wish for civil unions doesnt fit that bill by any means. I think SparkeytheDog brought up a great idea - if you live in a state that recognizes civil marriage between two consenting adults, then leave the state or denounce the civil part of your marriage. Obsession is sometimes a joking matter, in this case it is just ludacris.

I have no issue with same-sex couples designating each other as heirs or visiting each other in hospitals, etc.

I think other non-related people in non-sexual relationships should be able to do the same thing. Roommates, friends. Why not? It would make a much easier legal time of things.

What bothers me is that what same-sex “marriage” advocates want is a special recognition of their specifically sexual relationship, and assert that it is somehow equivalent to the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. It is not, and the state has a good reason to discriminate between them, as I have said earlier in the thread, the production and raising of children.

Interestingly, in some places, including my home city, proposals have been drafted to eliminate the legal red tape (or provide the “perks” as Sparkythedog says) for legal recognition of relationships between two people, any two people. But since the relationship didn’t have to be sexual in nature, LGBT advocates cried foul.

 

[pensmama87]

A married couple can receive these “perks” regardless of whether or not they have kids.

But lets say you did need to have kids to receive them. Gay couples can have kids, as well, through adoption. So they need them just as much as you do.

Until sex was (IMO rather stupidly) separated from its primary purpose of having children, the on-purpose childless couple was a rarity. It still is fairly rare - most married people have children eventually. A couple who does not have children due to infertility has a medical problem that sadly in some cases cannot be remedied.

Gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. When a child cannot be cared for by his or her mother and father, he or she should be allowed to have a mother and a father, instead of being intentionally deprived of one.

 

[Corki]

Exuse me, you are realy taking this the wrong way. I never said I support SSM or being a non biased person. I suggested studying the objectable principle from a standpoint and logic it itself rests upon.

By your thinking, I should use the catechism when working out measurements in baking a cake. I do not dissent, I merley try to understand the oppositions leading points.

Excuse me but you seem to reject the idea that after “studying the objectable principle from a standpoint and logic it itself rests upon.” it is perfectly acceptable to reject it. In fact, as Catholics, if that principle is same sex "marriage"we are to not only reject it but to work against it.

 

[Sparkythedog]

The thing you are missing is that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman was valued for **one and only one **perk - to create a stable environment for the having and raising of children. Every other “perk” was added on later in order to encourage the institution.

For hundreds if not thousands of years marriage was an institution between one man and one woman…and one man and several women…and one man owning one woman…and one man and one woman and a bunch of other women on the side as concubines…and so on…

Who cares what we did in the past. For hundreds of thousands of years we would keep others as slaves, rape people, torture and burn them. We don’t need to do something just because we’ve been doing it for a long time.

To seek marriage** because of** civil perks is backwards.

I don’t believe you. Show me that this is not the case.

 

[pensmama87]

For hundreds if not thousands of years marriage was an institution between one man and one woman…and one man and several women…and one man owning one woman…and one man and one woman and a bunch of other women on the side as concubines…and so on…

Who cares what we did in the past. For hundreds of thousands of years we would keep others as slaves, rape people, torture and burn them. We don’t need to do something just because we’ve been doing it for a long time.

I don’t believe you. Show me that this is not the case.

I already told you earlier in this thread that I would not have received a legal marriage license if it was not required.

So there’s one. I suspect you’ve already made up your mind to not believe me, though.

Interestingly, fewer people are getting married now, but they are shacking up. If these perks are so great, why isn’t everybody getting married?

 

[livingwordunity]

Interestingly, fewer people are getting married now, but they are shacking up. If these perks are so great, why isn’t everybody getting married?

Excellent point!

 

[Sparkythedog]

Until sex was (IMO rather stupidly) separated from its primary purpose of having children, the on-purpose childless couple was a rarity. It still is fairly rare - most married people have children eventually. A couple who does not have children due to infertility has a medical problem that sadly in some cases cannot be remedied.

I always wondered about this. If the primary purpose for sex is to have children, why does our species hide our fertility period? I’ve heard religious people say that if we have sex for pleasure any time we want then we’re no better than animals. But most animals don’t actually have sex whenever they feel like it. They have sex at a specific time of the year for the sole purpose of procreation. They get together and do their thing (which to me often seems like a pitifully short insemination session) and then they’re on their merry way. That is what sex looks like when it’s primary purpose is for having children.

Gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. When a child cannot be cared for by his or her mother and father, he or she should be allowed to have a mother and a father, instead of being intentionally deprived of one.

Which is why we don’t allow single parents. We don’t want to deprive a child of a mother and a father.

 

[livingwordunity]

I always wondered about this. If the primary purpose for sex is to have children, why does our species hide our fertility period?

If fertility is so rare and unusual among heterosexual couples, why does the left say that they can’t live without the pill and abortions? They speed-shift into reverse gear with their argument depending on if the subject is this or abortion/contraception.

 

[pensmama87]

I always wondered about this. If the primary purpose for sex is to have children, why does our species hide our fertility period? I’ve heard religious people say that if we have sex for pleasure any time we want then we’re no better than animals. But most animals don’t actually have sex whenever they feel like it. They have sex at a specific time of the year for the sole purpose of procreation. They get together and do their thing (which to me often seems like a pitifully short insemination session) and then they’re on their merry way. That is what sex looks like when it’s primary purpose is for having children.

Weird. My sex life doesn’t look like that at all. :ehh:

Which is why we don’t allow single parents. We don’t want to deprive a child of a mother and a father.

There is a world of difference between a child simply coming into the world in less than ideal circumstances, and deliberately manufacturing less than ideal circumstances and declaring it “just as good.” It’s not.

 

[JimG]

It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church does not approve of or accept the notion of “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” between same sex couples, any more than it accepts same sex marriage.

“No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable.”Source: usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#d14

 

[livingwordunity]

There is a world of difference between a child simply coming into the world in less than ideal circumstances, and deliberately manufacturing less than ideal circumstances and declaring it “just as good.” It’s not.

Well said!

 

[Sparkythedog]

I already told you earlier in this thread that I would not have received a legal marriage license if it was not required.

So there’s one. I suspect you’ve already made up your mind to not believe me, though.

This was a reply to Corki, not you, but I’ll address you here as well. If you do not want your civil marriage license, you are free to break it and still be sacramentally married in the church. Corki explained that this was a serious matter in the church but I think if you explained your reasons it could be worked out.

So I say again, if benefits are not important (as has been stated over and over in this forum) get a civil divorce and prove it. Otherwise, stop standing in the way of others who want the same. Gay family adoption is legal in this country. Let them have the same benefits that you have.

Interestingly, fewer people are getting married now, but they are shacking up. If these perks are so great, why isn’t everybody getting married?

More are trying to get married, it’s just not legal for them yet in some states.