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

[JimG]

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.

I thought your point was about infertility, not impotence. Permanent impotence preceding the marriage means that conjugal union can never happen. Infertility, however, does not preclude conjugal union.

Impotence is an impediment to marriage in the Church. And it is a reason for granting nullification in a civil marriage. If the couple is permanently impeded from marital intercourse, there can be no marriage. But that is seldom the case.

Men and women, if they are not impotent, can engage in specifically marital intercourse, whether they are fertile or not. Same sex couples can never engage in marital intercourse. That’s why marriage is impossible to them. It has nothing to do with sacramentality.

 

[Incomplete]

From a secular viewpoint, I do think I understand what the OP is saying. If we say that a reason homosexuals can’t get married is because they can’t have children, why allow people who are known to be permanently infertile to marry?

First, to understand that the government doesn’t have a vested interest in love. Love is not a requirement for marriage. The institution of marriage is beneficial to the government in populating it’s geographical area. In instituting marriage, the government is essentially giving it’s blessing to a sexual relationship. That’s why there is no similar government institution for best friends, roommates, siblings, or others who don’t intend to consummate, and why you can get an annulment through the government if you do not consummate. (Of course, homosexual couples cannot consummate their relationship.) Now, you can argue that we have a population problem (note: I don’t agree with that, but for the sake of argument) and that it is no longer of benefit to the government to see it’s members have children, but that would be an argument against any kind of civil marriage, not an argument for homosexual marriage.

But to be of benefit, the laws can’t be overwhelmingly difficult to manage. So, for example, we allow anybody over a certain age to vote…with caveats, of course, such as that they must be a citizen of our country. But even though it would seem important to have voters informed, we don’t make them take some kind of test to prove it, or be a high school graduate, or show that they have not become senile…this would prove to be very costly and cumbersome to society. After awhile, voting wouldn’t work at all if we had to all prove we were informed to some degree.

The same can be said of infertility. If we say that knowingly infertile couples can’t marry, how do we enforce it? The only way would be to make people prove it, maybe by sending in medical records (though I suppose there might be some other way)…and even then, we have to decide how infertile IS infertile?

And with today’s technology, and with IVF being legal, the state can’t even say that women past childbearing age can’t be married. (Obviously, men could be married at any age.) Older women do try to get pregnant with IVF, and who knows what will happen with technology in the future.

And since technology DOES change, even if we found a way, we’d have to be constantly revising the law. It would be way to cumbersome. Civil marriage would have to go away altogether.

So from a government point of view, it is to the advantage of the government to allow a man and woman to marry each other (at least, while they still value childbearing), but not to the advantage of the government to say that only fertile couples can marry.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

Not the same union, but a union of the same type. I’m not actually sure if Adam and Eve’s marriage was a sacrament or not - I would think not, but am not sure if there was something odd about the garden state that would make it so. Note that Catholics don’t think that all marriages are sacramental, but that even non-sacramental (natural) marriages are good things worthy of being defended.

As for the last part, it may be that the law is incapable of distinguishing between impotent and non-impotent people for the purpose of marriage. This does not stop the law from being able to distinguish between men and women. The two distinctions are different enough (in publicity, in nature) that we cannot say that the law should ignore one difference if it ignores the other.

Further, as far as I understand, for impotence to be a barrier to marriage it must be clearly and (nearly) certainly permanent and incurable. Impotence is an inability to engage in a certain act, and may be fixed. In doubtful cases, my understanding is that it is not to be considered a barrier, so there is enough fuzziness that it would probably be a bad idea to write that into the cudgel that is civil law for that reason alone (and there are other reasons as well).

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

A good presentation of your–the Catholic–view. Question: If a heterosexual couple marry with absolutely no intention of engaging in the sexual act, would they still be considered to be open to life? Would the marriage even be a valid Catholic one?

 

[JimG]

A good presentation of your–the Catholic–view. Question: If a heterosexual couple marry with absolutely no intention of engaging in the sexual act, would they still be considered to be open to life? Would the marriage even be a valid Catholic one?

That’s what is called a “Josephite” marriage. It would be very rare, and yes, the marriage would be valid, if I recall correctly. But the vow of abstinence would have to be mutual. If either party desired marital relations, the other party would have to consent.

But I’m sure there may be others more knowledgeable in the moral theology of Josephite marriages.

For example, it is my understanding that when Joseph took Mary as his wife, he knew that she was a vowed virgin. Yet their marriage was valid. Were they open to life? Yes! Jesus was born into this family.

 

[fix]

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.

Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. The Church recognizes valid marriages outside the faith.

 

[jonathan_hili]

“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?

Catholics hold that marriage is not fundamentally about having intercourse to derive children, but rather that it is an institution which binds complementary opposites (male and female) for the natural procreation and rearing of children. The opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the fact that (i) two individuals of the same sex are not complementary, (ii) two individuals of the same sex cannot by nature procreate and consequently (iii) two individuals of the same sex cannot rear children, that is, be natural mothers and fathers.

That is why, all things being equal, marriage can only apply to male-female relationships. Certainly, there may be conditions which inhibit one of these purposes to marriage but these are not inhibitors inherent in the sex (nature) of either of the individuals. Here’s an analogy. Ordinarily, eat carrots is healthy for a person. Eating carrots has the purpose of providing energy, vitamins and contributing to the overall welfare of a person’s body. However, this particular carrot you are eating has been poisoned or grown in toxic chemicals and consequently will make you ill. Does that therefore mean that carrots are not healthy for you to eat? Obviously not. However, eating a rock or glass is always unhealthy by nature. There’s nothing you can do to it, whether you coat it in vitamins or chocolate, that is going to make it healthy.

 

[sw85]

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)

No; concealment of infertility would be grounds for annulment, but infertility that is disclosed in advance would not be.

Male/female couples can marry regardless of accidental fertility because it is at least in principle possible for them to conceive and bear children, a capacity which is utterly lacking in same-sex couples.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You can’t be serious.

I know this is totally and crazy hypothetical, but given the choice of not allowing gays to marry by having the above stipulations placed on real marriage that this troll proposes, I would would choose them. I would choose almost anything to stop gay “marriage”. It is totally unnatural and wrong.

 

[rfournier103]

“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 don’t really see the point of this, because your whole premise is based on the possibility that two people of the same gender CAN get married. No matter what the state or the couple says, they aren’t married. All the dog-and-pony shows (“weddings”) doesn’t make it any more real than if you declared yourself the King of Nebraska.

The government can pass a law that declares a month-old banana smells as good as a rose, but that doesn’t make it so. And passing a law trying to make us think a month-old banana smells as good as a rose doesn’t make it any more real, either.

If we look to the Bible, I don’t recall any mention of same-sex “marriage” at all. Adam and Eve? Man and woman. The wedding at Cana? Man and woman. Husbands and wives are mentioned NUMEROUS times, while gays are never mentioned in a positive light.

God created Adam and Eve, not Bob and Steve, right?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know this is totally and crazy hypothetical, but given the choice of not allowing gays to marry by having the above stipulations placed on real marriage that this troll proposes, I would would choose them. I would choose almost anything to stop gay “marriage”. It is totally unnatural and wrong.

You would support anything to stop gay marriage? The Muslims use almost anything to stop it. Do you support their methods? Think about what you’ve said you’d support. Would you support laws against pregnancy to stop abortions?

God could force His will, but doesn’t. People cannot do a better job of what God could, but does not do Himself.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Not the same union, but a union of the same type. I’m not actually sure if Adam and Eve’s marriage was a sacrament or not - I would think not, but am not sure if there was something odd about the garden state that would make it so. Note that Catholics don’t think that all marriages are sacramental, but that even non-sacramental (natural) marriages are good things worthy of being defended.

As for the last part, it may be that the law is incapable of distinguishing between impotent and non-impotent people for the purpose of marriage. This does not stop the law from being able to distinguish between men and women. The two distinctions are different enough (in publicity, in nature) that we cannot say that the law should ignore one difference if it ignores the other.

Further, as far as I understand, for impotence to be a barrier to marriage it must be clearly and (nearly) certainly permanent and incurable. Impotence is an inability to engage in a certain act, and may be fixed. In doubtful cases, my understanding is that it is not to be considered a barrier, so there is enough fuzziness that it would probably be a bad idea to write that into the cudgel that is civil law for that reason alone (and there are other reasons as well).

Adam and Eves marriage was sacramental, as they were both married by God Himself.

As for the OP, i would not support this law because a heterosexual sterile couplebis the natural order. If they were somehow now able to conceive, that would change everything. There is nothing in a homosexual union that could change to restore the natural order because it is not in order to begin with.

 

[manualman]

“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?

Typical materialist thinking. There is only the physical world and it bears no relation to anything deeper.

Is a woman really no different than a man except for some fairly minor plumbing issues? That’s what you’re asserting, essentially.

If a woman has an emergency hysterectomy, she doesn’t stop being a woman. That I have to even say that boggles me. Her NATURE doesn’t change and therefore the NATURE of her relationship with her husband doesn’t change. Or in catholic verbiage, her “substance” is not altered if there are problems with her “accidents” (physical features).

Two men who feel affection for each other don’t just have incompatible plumbing not able to create children. They possess natures that are fundamentally not complementary to the point of being capable of creating children. Their physical incompatibility (by nature, not accidental circumstance) points to deeper realities in which they are not made for sexual union together.

Taking physical sex out of the discussion for a moment, pause to reflect on the heterosexual married couples you know. Of those married for more than 7 years, how many have deliberately chosen to never have children? Pretty few, I bet. The NATURE of marriage orients people towards parenting (which is rather more than just baby manufacturing). It takes a stubborn and persistant act of will in most cases (short of physical disability) for marriage NOT to result in children.

Now contrast that to gay couples. What percentage have any interest in having children? I’d suggest that it’s similar to the percentage of hetero couples that don’t want children and for the same reason: it takes an extraordinary act of will to achieve an outcome from which the relationship itself is not oriented.

And since society has established the perks of marriage in the first place precisely to offset some of the burdens of parenthood, there is no rational reason to extend those perks to relationships that are NOT fundamentally oriented towards creating and properly raising children. There is no need to put a “baby” test on hetersexual couples before allowing them the title. The nature of their relationship itself innately inclines them in that direction. In Vegas terms, “the house never loses!”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You would support anything to stop gay marriage? The Muslims use almost anything to stop it. Do you support their methods? Think about what you’ve said you’d support. Would you support laws against pregnancy to stop abortions?

God could force His will, but doesn’t. People cannot do a better job of what God could, but does not do Himself.

I said almost anything. Gay “marriage” is spiraling out of control. It needs to be stopped. How do you propose to stop it?

 

[manualman]

I said almost anything. Gay “marriage” is spiraling out of control. It needs to be stopped. How do you propose to stop it?

Live life faithfully as a catholic and be prepared to step in and help the people who mangle themselves horribly in the process of trying to reinvent human sexuality.

The light shines brightest in the darkness. Yes, they are going to win for a while. But sin begets suffering. People can only ignore reality for so long. Things will reach a stage when people widely notice that everybody is wretchedly miserable except those insufferable religious people with the gaggle of kids, the old beater cars and the same old spouse they’ve always had. Weird folks, those. What’s up with them? It really starts there. It will get bad, but then it will get better. Just stay faithful.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Live life faithfully as a catholic and be prepared to step in and help the people who mangle themselves horribly in the process of trying to reinvent human sexuality.

The light shines brightest in the darkness. Yes, they are going to win for a while. But sin begets suffering. People can only ignore reality for so long. Things will reach a stage when people widely notice that everybody is wretchedly miserable except those insufferable religious people with the gaggle of kids, the old beater cars and the same old spouse they’ve always had. Weird folks, those. What’s up with them? It really starts there. It will get bad, but then it will get better. Just stay faithful.

well, it’s not going to happen soon. It will get much worse before it gets better.

 

[JimG]

I know this is totally and crazy hypothetical, but given the choice of not allowing gays to marry by having the above stipulations placed on real marriage .that this troll proposes, I would would choose them. I would choose almost anything to stop gay “marriage”. It is totally unnatural and wrong.

Well, the bolded part is certainly true. But I wouldn’t change marriage laws in such a way simply to try to prevent same sex marriage, which is in any case a contradiction in terms.

Sexually complementary couples who are able to unite in marital intercourse have a natural right to marry. Couples who are not sexually complementary are not able to unite in marital intercourse and marriage is impossible to them.

Whether or not we can prevent the notion of marriage from being completely eviscerated is unknown. Certainly, equating fake marriage with real marriage will not be good for the society or civilization as a whole.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, the bolded part is certainly true. But I wouldn’t change marriage laws in such a way simply to try to prevent same sex marriage, which is in any case a contradiction in terms.

Sexually complementary couples who are able to unite in marital intercourse have a natural right to marry. Couples who are not sexually complementary are not able to unite in marital intercourse and marriage is impossible to them.

Whether or not we can prevent the notion of marriage from being completely eviscerated is unknown. Certainly, equating fake marriage with real marriage will not be good for the society or civilization as a whole.

I was only answering in a “what if this was the only choice” mode. However, I do think there is some logic to what the OP is proposing.

Marriage really is for the regeneration of the family. If a couple isn’t producing children, it really isn’t benefiting society, and shouldn’t really get tax breaks just because two people are married.

I know many people who chose not to have children after they were married. And there are many many more who are not open to having children after they have had one or two, and get fixed. Therefore they cannot have children and sex is totally non-procreative. I realize the Catholic Church’s position on this, (and true practicing Catholics) but this is NOT how most people in our society live.

Therefore what the OP is proposing is not all that far-fetched. If a marriage is non-procreative, (good intentions or not) it really shouldn’t get the sanctions and privileges that go with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said almost anything. Gay “marriage” is spiraling out of control. It needs to be stopped. How do you propose to stop it?

I certainly wouldn’t prevent what God approves of. We can do no evil, so that good may come of it. It would be wrong to separate what God has joined.

The Church is clear on how we are to treat homosexuals.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

We might try to approach people with the traits of compassion the Church calls for. Only then can we show them , we are of a faith of love, mercy, and forgiveness; as opposed to judgmental, condemning, and unforgiving. If they cannot see love in what we express as a faith of love, the less likely they will be to accept fraternal correction. If they stay astray because of our actions, are we also culpable in their remaining in error from that point on?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

well, it’s not going to happen soon. It will get much worse before it gets better.

Christ commanded the Apostles go out and preach the Gospel to all nations. He told them if a household rejected, dust their feet and move on. No where did Christ command to go out and FORCE them to Himself.

What you are saying is spiraling out of control, has always existed. I would dare say it always will, until God has enough. He doesn’t force, and could. We cannot do better than He can, but doesn’t.