The individual. Should a man find himself a homosexual, how does the Church advise him to proceed?
All people are called to chastity, regardless of their state in life (single, engaged, married). For married persons, this means leaving the marital act open to new life. For unmarried persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual, this means abstinence. There are probably as many heterosexual people who will never get married as there are homosexuals, considering that homosexuals account for only 2-3 percent of the population, so there are probably just as many heterosexuals who will be called to lifelong abstinence as homosexuals.
I think you’re confusing the argument. I was married. What would a gay married couple get that I wouldn’t?
Your argument is confusing. Who said that gay couples would get something that you wouldn’t? The point is that the things a heterosexual couple gets they get because it is assumed that they will start a family and thus contribute in a very important way to the growth of society (namely through procreation/child rearing.)
If I’m reading this correctly, you’re kinda saying that marriage itself should be reserved purely for couples who wish to procreate. Those couples who marry otherwise are moreso stamping a seal of approval on their romance.
This is, in affect, how you would be describing my marriage.
Almost like “We’ve already degraded the idea of marriage this far, I won’t accept one step further”
acceptable reasoning.
That’s correct. If there is no intent to start a family, there is no logical reason for the state to recognize your relationship. However, it is also unfeasible and intrusive to expect the state to police every married couple, so there will unavoidably be cases of such marriages.
Homosexual unions, on the other hand, are intrinsically sterile, so they are
prima facie of no interest to the state.
This is where you and I will have to decide to change subjects, or concentrate purely on homosexual marriage.
My position is: It IS what it is, we can’t go back to where it should be. Exclusion of one particular class of people then, is wrong
Re: the bolded statement. This smacks of many negative things: pessimism, defeatism, fatalism. Moreover, it’s a complete non sequitur. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they cannot change. I defer once again to the inexhaustible wisdom of G.K. Chesterton:
“There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they are always saying, “You can’t put the clock back.” The simple and obvious answer is “You can.” A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstructed upon any plan that has ever existed.”
Pagan societies, of which the modern West certainly meets the description, have been converted to Christian morality before; there is no reason they cannot, through education and evangelization, be restored to such a foundation again. We can see it happening already in various places throughout the world that became, for a time, extremely atheistic/secular and have since begun massive migrations back towards their traditional faith roots.
Re: the italicized statement. There’s an old saying you’ve probably heard all your life that goes something like, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” By your logic, where there’s any kind of loophole in a law, rather than try to limit the damage, we should just loosen the law ever more to allow those who don’t get through the loophole free reign as well. The logical conclusion of this approach is complete anarchy.
It makes more sense to try to limit the damage and restore it as much as possible, rather than just throwing more gas on the fire. Unless, of course, your goal is to burn the entire building down.
What I cannot do, is defend the current state of marriage or divorce. It is far too easy to do either. But that is reality. I’m working off it, nothing else I can do
Sure there is something else you can do: educate yourself; talk to your friends; talk to your family. Change happens one person at a time.
In my eyes, to hold your view is to shout at the rain. What marriage should be, will never come to pass.
Are you familiar with the term, “self-fulfilling prophecy?” If we just sit around saying “We can’t do anything about it,” then we’ll just prove ourselves right.
If you’re going nowhere, you’ll probably get there.
ALSO, what would that mean if a couple has a child outside of wedlock, should they marry (if marriage went to only being done for couples who procreate)
Not everything is so black and white. In certain circumstances, I would say yes, they probably should. In others, it’s probably not the best, or possibly even the worst, idea. Honestly, my own parents got married for just that reason when they were very young (my mother was still in high school.) In their case, being both very mature and responsible, and having compatible values, they married, and I believe that was the right thing for them to do. They are now still very happily married 40 years later. Not everyone who gets pregnant out of wedlock is in the same position as my parents though. One may be too immature too commit, have no intention of committing, may be morally incompatible with the other, etc.
But really this has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is as to whether marriage can be understood apart from procreation, not whether procreation can be understood apart from marriage. That kind of logic reversal doesn’t work. It’s like saying “If ‘dog’ cannot be understood apart from ‘animal’, does that mean ‘animal’ cannot be understood apart from ‘dog’?”
He gave us free will, & God loves us no matter what 
