If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, are you willing to push for this law?

[Fairwinds]

If you believe that non-procreative straight people should be allowed to marry, and not gays, what is your rational argument for that position, since the idea of leaving both groups out of marriage is so “preposterous” and “ridiculous”? Citing “the briefs” is too vague. If you want to point me to a specific brief that addresses this point directly, I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise, you haven’t actually made any kind of opposing argument.

I’m neutral on gay marriage. if gays can swing the votes, hey, its a democracy. I don’t wish them well, and certainly ridicule them and the idea on general principles, but, its a democracy. I think conservatives are going to lose this battle and need to pick better ground.

the only argument I’m advancing is that your proposed law is patently ridiculous and would have no chance of becoming law, or staying law, so as a jump off point for serious debate, it falls flat.

here’s a link to the USSC docket, briefs are linked there.
supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx

brief of the city and county of frisco is probably a good place to start.
supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/Brief_of_Respondent_City_and_County_of_San_Francisco.pdf

then look at the brief on the merits for the House of Rep.
supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/12-307_Brief_on_the_Merits_for_Respondent.pdf

 

[StudentMI]

By definition, an infertile couple is not open to the production of children. That’s what it means to be “infertile”. They also do not have “the right stuff” to produce children. It may be different right stuff they are lacking, but they lack it nonetheless.

Is it really so difficult to understand the traditional position on marriage? What’s more, is Catholic doctrine cloudy in some area? I understand you disagree, but at least grant the consistency of the position.

 

[sw85]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

I never cease to be amazed at how you lefties peddle the same lines over and over again that have already been addressed, over and over again. It’s like all your just speakers hooked up to the same microphone!

I wonder who’s holding the microphone…?

 

[runningdude]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Marriage is about the complementary nature of the male and female genders. You have presented a theoretic bill that is wholly incompatible with natural law and Catholic teaching.

 

[Durnford]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Please try and not feed the troll.

 

[stephe1987]

Another person who is ignorant of the Catholic position on marriage, and proud of their ignorance. This is a straw man attack…

Nobody is advocating that infertile or older (post-menopausal women) heterosexual people should not be allowed to marry. The complementarity is still there and a lot of people change their minds, technology advances so they can become fertile, they adopt kids providing an orphan or abandoned child with a mother and a father, etc. The spouses lead each other to heaven by helping each other grow in virtue and glorifying God in their lives.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Troll alert. This person presents an irrational comparison and attempting to make it relevant. No amount of logic will get through, because they believe in an illogical construct.

To the OP. The necessity is being OPEN to life, gays cannot be open to life because no amount of gay fornication will -ever- produce a child. Infertile couples are still open to life through their act, even if they are not successful. You cannot compare something which ignores the intended use of the sexual organs with something that puts them to proper use but fails in the intended purpose.

If you think these things are comparable, then you are deluding yourself. That’s all I’m saying on the subject. Learn to debate like a real man (or woman) and to not rely on fallacy-laced hypotheticals. (straw man fallacy and apples and oranges fallacy, jsut to name two)

 

[latin_rite]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Marriage isn’t just about having kids. And not being pro gay marriage isn’t just about gays not being able to produce kids. Homosexuality is a sin. It is a sin not just because they can’t have kids. It is a sin because it is against Gods law.
You put forward a good (yet old ) troll argument which unfortunately had a few here taking the bait.
Maybe you’re just confuse. The whole “gays can’t produce children” isn’t really about gay marriage. But about homosexuality being unnatural etc.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

“Openness to children” is what Catholics share as our beliefs to follow Gods boundaries.

Now, there are many honored marriages which have chastity in marriage. The most notiable is the “Holy Family”: Joseph, Mary, & Jesus. We have books of saints who also did not conjugate marriage in order to offer celibacy to God. In marriage we see how Adam had to experience loneliness before Eve was introduced. The whole basis of marriage is that men and women are created equal but different. It is the juxtaposition of these that allow the union to see God. Our traditions & history still do not promote same sex unions as a path leading to God: regardless of reproduction - same sex acts are still selfish and take us away from God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

sounds moronic to me

Reminds me of the Nazi’s experiments, which was also moronic.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

By definition, an infertile couple is not open to the production of children. That’s what it means to be “infertile”. They also do not have “the right stuff” to produce children. It may be different right stuff they are lacking, but they lack it nonetheless.

But you are asking your question to People that believe That God can make the overies that does not produce eggs and make it produce as he did for Sara. Or the infertal Male produce fertile sperm again if he chooses to do so. If God wanted Sam to bare a Child he would have made Sam / Samantha at birth. Sam does not have overies to ever produce the need egg. Samanthat does not have the needs Testies to produce the needed sperm.

The fact that the organs are not working does not stop God from making them work, That is why the Church only says you have to be open to it. Could God do something that would produce a Child from a gay union? NO. Because does not break his own laws and the laws of procreation and for humans and all mammals is that a male and a female is needed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

There is a difference from inability to impossibility. Can I bring a gun with no trigger into a bank? Does it cease being a gun just because it cannot be used?

A heterosexual couple has the necessary “tools” to procreate. Whether each one can actually do it or not is another case. Gays can’t 100% of the time. By nature, they don’t have the necessary tools as a couple.

 

[Lord_Keynes]

Time to get the popcorn…

 

[fix]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Unequals should be treated unequally. Married people who cannot conceive children have nothing in common with homosexual persons. They are not like issues.

 

[PietroPaolo]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Sex between a man and a woman is ordered to procreation. That doesn’t mean every sex act will result in pregnancy, it doesn’t even mean each and every male-female couple can procreate, but each sex act is ordered to procreation (this remains true of infertile male-female couples). No sex act between two males or two females is ordered to procreation. Thus, any male-female couple (yes, even infertile ones) can marry, while no same sex couple can. Your proposed law confuses whether a sex act is ordered to procreation with whether a sex act is functionally able to fulfill the end of the sex act (i.e. it results in pregnancy). Everyone for all of human history, in every culture, for thousands of years, has understood this very simple distinction.

If you prefer I can make this into two very simple syllogisms for you:

All couples whose sex acts are ordered to procreation are able to marry.
All couples composed of a man and a woman are couples whose sex acts are ordered to procreation.
Therefore, all couples composed of a man and a woman are able to marry.

AND

No couples whose sex acts are not ordered to procreation are able to marry.
All couples composed of either two men or two women are couples whose sex acts are not ordered to procreation.
Therefore, no couples composed of either two men or two women are able to marry.

 

[MidnightSun12]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

The purpose of the sexual act is not to create new life, rather its procreative purpose is to be open to the possibility of life (these are two are very different things).

As long as the sexual act does nothing to preclude the possibility of life, it is morally valid. It is absolutely irrelevant whether something unrelated to the sexual act (such as natural infertility) makes conception impossible.

The homosexual act, on the other hand, purposely closes the sexual act itself to the possibility of life. Even if both participants are completely fertile, a new life can never be created during the homosexual act. That is why homosexual acts are immoral whereas a naturally infertile man and woman marrying and having sex is not.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Sex between a man and a woman is ordered to procreation. That doesn’t mean every sex act will result in pregnancy, it doesn’t even mean each and every male-female couple can procreate, but each sex act is ordered to procreation (this remains true of infertile male-female couples). No sex act between two males or two females is ordered to procreation. Thus, any male-female couple (yes, even infertile ones) can marry, while no same sex couple can. Your proposed law confuses whether a sex act is ordered to procreation with whether a sex act is functionally able to fulfill the end of the sex act (i.e. it results in pregnancy). Everyone for all of human history, in every culture, for thousands of years, has understood this very simple distinction.

If you prefer I can make this into two very simple syllogisms for you:

All couples whose sex acts are ordered to procreation are able to marry.
All couples composed of a man and a woman are couples whose sex acts are ordered to procreation.
Therefore, all couples composed of a man and a woman are able to marry.

AND

No couples whose sex acts are not ordered to procreation are able to marry.
All couples composed of either two men or two women are couples whose sex acts are not ordered to procreation.
Therefore, no couples composed of either two men or two women are able to marry.

Very succinct explanation. Well written ^^

 

[april32010]

Time to get the popcorn…

and a chair , http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/popcorn_chair.gif

 

[ChurchSoldier]

By definition, an infertile couple is not open to the production of children. That’s what it means to be “infertile”. They also do not have “the right stuff” to produce children. It may be different right stuff they are lacking, but they lack it nonetheless.

While I think this is a troll thread I want to point out one thing. There is an example of God waiting until a couple was far past procreation age to give them a child with Abraham and Sarah who were 100 and 90 respectively. So if you would like to adjust the time frames to those ages it would be more appropriate.

It still would not correlate to relationships other than marriage, but would be more logical.

 

[Son_of_Jonah]

It never ceases to amaze me how few people on the side supporting gay “marriage” fail to understand even the basic principles underlying the concept of teleology. And as it hasn’t yet been addressed here, please allow me:

The Church’s position on marriage has nothing to do with any perceived primacy of the procreative function of the conjugal embrace over it’s unitive function. It does not extend from some non-existent necessity that couples be able to procreate. It extends from the idea that the conjugal act is only valid - and, thus, a marriage is only real - when the act is ordered toward procreation.

Now this is where most pro-gay “marriage” advocates get tripped up. To be “ordered toward” something simply means that, in general, it would achieve a certain end. The eye, for example, is ordered toward sight. The teleological purpose of the eye is to enable the persons with eyes to see. The eyes of the blind person are still ordered toward sight, because blindness is an exception to the rule that the abstract and general organ the eye is ordered toward sight. In the particular instance of the blind person, the eye is incapable of sight, except by the miraculous intervention of God. However, insofar as the eye of the blind is a particular instance of a universal concept, a universal concept, no less, that is ordered toward sight, it is still itself ordered toward that teleological end!

Now apply this to intercourse. The abstract, universal concept of heterosexual intercourse is ordered toward procreation. That is it’s teleological end. The fact that particular instances of said relations are infertile does not change it’s teleology. Much like the blind person, the existence of those cases represent exceptions that do not violate it’s end. And, like the eyes of the blind, God could intervene to make an infertile couple fertile, because their intercourse is still ordered toward procreation.

Homosexual sex, however, is not ordered toward procreation, just as the nose is not ordered toward sight. Homosexual sex is a perversion and violation of natural law because it divorces the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse, as it cannot by nature be ordered toward procreation at all! God could not intervene miraculously to enable homosexuals procreative, because to do so would violate Natural Law, an extension of Divine Law. In other words, it represents a logical impossibity, given that God cannot contradict Himself. Homosexual intercourse is not ordered toward procreation, so the deliberate use of the genitals to attempt to “unite” in this fashion is gravely sinful as it is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the naturally ordered functions of the sex organs, seeking only to derive pleasure totally apart from the very possibility of procreating.

As another note, this is why the Church teaches that impotence is an impediment to marriage: erectile dysfunction, for example, renders the conjugal act impossible, and so a couple known to be impotent cannot marry, as they cannot engage in the consummation of their wedding vows. Any activity that they CAN achieve cannot by definition be ordered toward procreation. Ergo, heterosexual or not, impotent couples are equally prohibited from marriage as homosexuals.