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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NowHere This,

I believe your questions is COMPLETELY valid and logical. Actually a person who KNOWS they are infertile has no right to enter the institution of marriage. I believe it would actually be grounds for annulment of that marriage (marriage within the Catholic Church can only be ended by the death of one party - however Annulment is the finding that sacrament of marriage actually never happened)

The reason it becomes a bit grey is become there is often room for hope even if it is very slim. For example a man who has had a vasectomy and tried to have it remedied by surgery. So no matter how slim the hope, you are entitled to have that hope and enter a marriage in good faith.

But a man who had a vasectomy and made no move to correct that vasectomy for instance has no right to marry, and within the Catholic Church his marriage could be invalid. Same as a woman who has had both ovaries removed. No matter how painful this knowledge may be to them, they are now called to a different life.

If it happens AFTER the marriage, it is okay. Because the marriage was entered into in good faith by both parties. Even if the man intentionally gets a vasectomy after marriage. He has sinned greatly, but he is still married. The purpose of marriage is also to help bring your spouse to heaven, and God doesn’t give all couples children, but he does by natural law require them to be open to life. By entering into marriage in the knowledge you are 100% infertile you are not being fair on your partner, even if they acknowledge it.

The area of elderly people marrying is perhaps a bit grey, because of examples in the bible like Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Sarah (Abrahams wife). Not enough knowledge to speak with authority on that one. But I do think I have grasped this accurately enough to know that its unfair that you have been accused of trolling 😦

As to laws, I think we should leave those to the state. Civil unions have never been sacramental marriages, heterosexual or not. It is our job as Catholics to pray and live by example. We can cast our vote in the democracy, but we have not be praying enough or living a good enough example to others if society has moved this far away from our understanding of marriage. We have only ourselves to blame. We can’t decry people for not being perfect when we are so imperfect! We have to fight this sort of thing by praying more, loving more and living more like Christians. Not by just shouting in the street about how wrong it is.
 
NowHereThis said:
Wouldn’t that be allowing your personal feelings to take precedence over preserving the institution of marriage and its most fundamental function?
Click to expand...
Marriage has the primary function of procreation and the secondary function of a mutual, morally regulated satisfaction of the sexual drive. It is more than just procreation, and much more than just sex. If for whatever reason a couple cannot procreate despite their openness to life, they may still enjoy the bond of the marital embrace in a morally regulated way, as it is proper to do according to Scripture.

Now, take into consideration that according to Canon Law, a man or woman who suffers impotence, either physically or psychologically, cannot enter into marriage because he or she cannot physically consummate the marriage. However, infertility (inability to conceive a child) does not prevent the couple from expressing their conjugal love to each other, and therefore according to Canon Law it does not prevent a person from validly entering into marriage.

Appreciating the suffering of an infertile couple, the Catechism states, “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice”.
 
Gliggle said:
NowHere This,

I believe your questions is COMPLETELY valid and logical. Actually a person who KNOWS they are infertile has no right to enter the institution of marriage. I believe it would actually be grounds for annulment of that marriage (marriage within the Catholic Church can only be ended by the death of one party - however Annulment is the finding that sacrament of marriage actually never happened)
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind that the Church has no issues with naturally infertile people entering into marriage because their sexual act can still remain open to the possibility of life. In other words, an infertile couple’s sexual act is not closed to the possibility of new life but, rather, it is something unrelated to the sexual act that is preventing new life from being conceived.

That is why naturally infertile people can marry in the Church, but impotency is an obstacle to marriage. In the case of impotency, the sexual act itself is made closed to the possibility of new life.
 
NowHereThis said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am considered infertile. I was considered infertile even before I got pregnant. Infertile doesn’t mean “never”. The medical definition of infertile is that a couple is unable to conceive after a year of trying to conceive. I was certainly open to conceiving, even though I was (and am) infertile.

I met a man who was the oldest of ten children. He was adopted after his parents were told they would never have children. After he was adopted, his mother was pregnant 9 times. Obviously she was open to conceiving children, too.
 
Gliggle said:
Actually a person who KNOWS they are infertile has no right to enter the institution of marriage. I believe it would actually be grounds for annulment of that marriage (marriage within the Catholic Church can only be ended by the death of one party - however Annulment is the finding that sacrament of marriage actually never happened)
Click to expand...
As another poster has stated, this is not true. Notice that women past childbearing age, or women who have had hysterectomies, are allowed to marry within the Church.
 
MidnightSun12 said:
Please keep in mind that the Church has no issues with naturally infertile people entering into marriage because their sexual act can still remain open to the possibility of life. In other words, an infertile couple’s sexual act is not closed to the possibility of new life but, rather, it is something unrelated to the sexual act that is preventing new life from being conceived.

That is why naturally infertile people can marry in the Church, but impotency is an obstacle to marriage. In the case of impotency, the sexual act itself is made closed to the possibility of new life.
Click to expand...
Thanks, 👍 yes I can see how this is so.
 
Incomplete said:
As another poster has stated, this is not true. Notice that women past childbearing age, or women who have had hysterectomies, are allowed to marry within the Church.
Click to expand...
I believed that in the case of hysterectomy that they weren’t allowed? hmmm this calls for a question in the apologetics thread…
 
Gliggle said:
I believed that in the case of hysterectomy that they weren’t allowed? hmmm this calls for a question in the apologetics thread…
Click to expand...
Hysterectomies themselves aren’t allowed if it is for birth control. However, people do change…just as some have vasectomies and are allowed to marry, you can have a hysterectomy and marry. Remember also that hysterectomies are for other things, such as cancer treatment.

As others have said, infertility is not an impediment to marriage.
 
Gliggle said:
I believed that in the case of hysterectomy that they weren’t allowed? hmmm this calls for a question in the apologetics thread…
Click to expand...
more than you want to know
IMPOTENCE AND STERILITY
Thomas J. O’Donnell, S.J.
Click to expand...
A Recent Decision of the Holy See
Implications for Medical Practice
Click to expand...
A recent decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (May 13, 1977) suggests a review of the ecclesial concepts of male potency and impotence with regard to marriage in order that the physician dealing with the Catholic patient may more easily coordinate the canonical concept of impotence with the medical meaning and thus be in a better position to advise and counsel the patient when questions arise in this regard. … .
Click to expand...
 
Incomplete said:
Hysterectomies themselves aren’t allowed if it is for birth control. However, people do change…just as some have vasectomies and are allowed to marry, you can have a hysterectomy and marry. Remember also that hysterectomies are for other things, such as cancer treatment.

As others have said, infertility is not an impediment to marriage.
Click to expand...
To me there seems a bit of a difference between someone who has difficulty conceiving for unknown reasons and someone who has no womb, but you may be right of course, have posted the question to an apologist.

I think its awesome you fell pregnant after being described infertile =) 👍
 
Gliggle said:
To me there seems a bit of a difference between someone who has difficulty conceiving for unknown reasons and someone who has no womb, but you may be right of course, have posted the question to an apologist.

I think its awesome you fell pregnant after being described infertile =) 👍
Click to expand...
Thank you!

There is no difference, because infertility is different from impotence. It is no different then the man with a vasectomy, or the 80-year-old couple who won’t get pregnant. I only mention this because I have read that the apologists sometimes take awhile to answer questions.

In fact, here’s Jimmy Akins’s response on that subject: jimmyakin.com/2006/02/marriage_after_.html
 
NowHereThis said:
Yes, it would. They cannot perform what “pro-marriage” advocates argue is the most fundamental function of marriage.
Click to expand...
The most fundamental act of marriage is the act of marital intercourse–conjugal union–which may or may not be fertile, and may or may not ensue in conception in any given instance. Married men and women can engage in the act of marital relations which precedes any possibility of conception.

Same sex couples cannot ever engage in the marital act. Thus, marriage is impossible to them.
 
Thanks all, I read the first link, and I stand corrected… will check out the others too when I get a chance.

😃
 
Having read your posts, I think I understand where the disconnect is. For you, marriage is a sacrament, one of seven. Specifically, it is the making present of the original union of Adam and Eve (just as the eucharist is the making present of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross). And just as the priest has to be male (because he’s acting as Jesus), the parties to the marriage have to be male and female because they are acting as Adam and Eve. If the function of marriage is instead seen to be love and commitment, that leaves a blank in your sacramental line-up, and you don’t have any other sacraments that bring forth the original union of male and female, with it’s procreative potential.

Good so far?

If so, there’s still a problem relating back to my original point: impotent heterosexual marriages can still be valid in the eyes of the law.
 
NowHereThis said:
Having read your posts, I think I understand where the disconnect is. For you, marriage is a sacrament, one of seven. Specifically, it is the making present of the original union of Adam and Eve (just as the eucharist is the making present of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross). And just as the priest has to be male (because he’s acting as Jesus), the parties to the marriage have to be male and female because they are acting as Adam and Eve. If the function of marriage is instead seen to be love and commitment, that leaves a blank in your sacramental line-up, and you don’t have any other sacraments that bring forth the original union of male and female, with it’s procreative potential.

Good so far?

If so, there’s still a problem relating back to my original point: impotent heterosexual marriages can still be valid in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...
 
NowHereThis said:
If so, there’s still a problem relating back to my original point: impotent heterosexual marriages can still be valid in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...
That’s not quite right. You can get an civil annulment if your marriage is not consummated.
 
NowHereThis said:
“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?
Click to expand...
Per SCOTUS, that would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. So no. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top