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

[CompSciGuy]

“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 think that the church is committed simply to the idea that all sex has to be able to produce children. It teaches that marital commitment has to be between one man and one woman, for a lifetime. The act of sexual intercourse must be ordered toward procreation even if for health reasons it is not possible to procreate. In the case of an elderly couple, the marital act is ordered toward procreation even though the man’s sperm count is probably not sufficient and the woman’s uterus is probably rendered ineffective through menopause. In the case of gay marriage, the sexual act is not ordered toward procreation in any way shape or form whatsoever. The benefits of marriage are intended to lay the groundwork for the creation of a family (which is the building block of society). Gay marriage serves no ultimate purpose in this equation.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I don’t think we’re communicating or something. I don’t understand exactly what point you seem to disagree with, taking the tone of your post to me?

Fraternal correction should include respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Some demand a right to ‘admonish,’ through condemnation, name calling, separating, etc. That lacks respect, compassion, and sensitivity. You’ve heard, ‘you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar.’ You could approach someone wrongly, and entrench them in the error of their ways. That could possibly attribute some of their wrong to yourself, because we are to beware not to cause a brother to stumble.

I have spoken against homosexual marriage, yet approach it through the teaching of the Church. Then you tell me I need do more research? I’m not the one saying hypothetically, ‘let’s split men and women apart, who have no children and disqualify their marriage.’ That is against the very Gospel message Christ taught.

Why should we even consider splitting a man and woman’s joining before God? Would you also agree a solution to abortion would be to hypothetically outlaw pregnancies? It’s the same principle as being discussed in this thread.

Please explain what exactly you disagree with.

Im not sure I know what you seem to.be arguing about either?

Perhaps revisit thw original post of yours which I responded to?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Im not sure I know what you seem to.be arguing about either?

Perhaps revisit thw original post of yours which I responded to?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

But not all know Truth, yet all are called to the Father’s table. Legalizing gay marriage will further scandalize those who dont know Truth.

This is me responding to what you said. You implied that its ok if its legal because it doesnt mean theyre married anyway, right?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is me responding to what you said. You implied that its ok if its legal because it doesnt mean theyre married anyway, right?

Oh, that’s not what I meant. I couldn’t justify hypothetically separating a legitimately married couple because someone else states they are married, when we know the truth. It wasn’t meant as an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I think I articulated it better in my latter posts.

 

[Lord_Keynes]

That’s what is called a “Josephite” marriage.

I don’t know why, but this type of marriage just appeals to me, so much.

There’s something beautiful about it that I can’t quite put my finger on.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Oh, that’s not what I meant. I couldn’t justify hypothetically separating a legitimately married couple because someone else states they are married, when we know the truth. It wasn’t meant as an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I think I articulated it better in my latter posts.

oops, my bad then lol

 

[Wampa]

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children

Incomplete did a really good job of addressing this from a secular viewpoint. Others handled the sacramental/religious angle well.

I think I have a simplified expression that gets at the idea in secular terms.

The OP’s suggested law might make sense if we were arguing that all couples should have children, but we are not. We are arguing that all children should have a mother and father. The state has a vested interest in allowing only heterosexual couples to marry because then all children that are put into families (whether that be from intercourse or adoption) will have a mother and father. If we normalize homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, then not all children will have a mother and a father and that’s not in the best interest of society.

Under this premise, allowing infertile couples to marry is of no concern, because that will not result in children lacking a mother or a father. In fact, it is good because many of those couples will go on to adopt children and give those children a mother and a father.

And like others have pointed out, infertility is not permanent. My wife was born long after her parents were declared infertile and they had adopted two children. Lucky for me infertile doesn’t mean what OP thinks it means

Here’s a moving argument against gay marriage from a man brought up with two lesbian mothers. This really gets at why everyone needs a mother and a father:

marriagematters.mncc.org/2013/02/brushing-aside-a-childs-right-to-a-father-and-mother

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

I was thinking about the parents of the Little Flower. They married with the intention of remaining celibate, but were convinced otherwise after their priest said they must raise children for God. (It worked! )

 

[JimG]

I was thinking about the parents of the Little Flower. They married with the intention of remaining celibate, but were convinced otherwise after their priest said they must raise children for God. (It worked! )

Yes, that’s an interesting story. They had both intended not to use the marital privilege. But their pastor convinced them otherwise, and they raised some great children!

 

[gnfd92]

After seeing all of the anti-SSM rhetoric from differing Catholic sources, I have to wonder: why do I never see Catholics mobilizing in protest of Protestant marriages? Or non-religious marriages? Or Jewish marriages? If the only valid marriage is a properly structured Catholic marriage (and all others false), then are not heterosexual individuals living in mortal sin, copulating and calling their documents from the government and non-Catholic churches “marriage?”

Are Protestant marriages killing Catholic marriages? Are Catholics who get divorced damaging the sanctity of that marriage institution?

Why make the biggest marriage-related outrage over SSM when there are far greater threats to the institution of Catholic marriage? Is it only acceptable to acknowledge the (extant in law only) religious and personal freedoms and rights of equality to those whose behaviors are similar “enough” to the Catholic Church that they do not ruffle the feathers of the flock? Or did the Church forget that there are fake marriages being made every day by Protestants, leading to what is in effect pre-marital relations (according to the RCC)?

In regards to the original topic, if I accepted that the Church had the right to define law and that I had to call them out on making loopholes to include heterosexuals who should be excluded from the original, procreation-involved form of marriage, I would have to support such folly of a bill.

 

[RobbyS]

“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 buy your premise . Generally speaking,I think, a man and a woman, of whatever age and fertility is better suited to nurture a child than a male or a female “couple.” or a single man or a single woman. Of course ONLY a man and a woman can produce a child.

 

[RobbyS]

After seeing all of the anti-SSM rhetoric from differing Catholic sources, I have to wonder: why do I never see Catholics mobilizing in protest of Protestant marriages? Or non-religious marriages? Or Jewish marriages? If the only valid marriage is a properly structured Catholic marriage (and all others false), then are not heterosexual individuals living in mortal sin, copulating and calling their documents from the government and non-Catholic churches “marriage?”

Are Protestant marriages killing Catholic marriages? Are Catholics who get divorced damaging the sanctity of that marriage institution?

Why make the biggest marriage-related outrage over SSM when there are far greater threats to the institution of Catholic marriage? Is it only acceptable to acknowledge the (extant in law only) religious and personal freedoms and rights of equality to those whose behaviors are similar “enough” to the Catholic Church that they do not ruffle the feathers of the flock? Or did the Church forget that there are fake marriages being made every day by Protestants, leading to what is in effect pre-marital relations (according to the RCC)?

In regards to the original topic, if I accepted that the Church had the right to define law and that I had to call them out on making loopholes to include heterosexuals who should be excluded from the original, procreation-involved form of marriage, I would have to support such folly of a bill.

“Gay marriage" is the reduction ad absurdum of the Sexual Revolution. It shows what happens if one tolerates the modern attitude toward marriage and the family. In extremis, one is forced to make a “choice,” When we get to gay marriage we see people insisting that what we know to be false is true. One way we know this to be true is when they refuse to listen to our objections.

 

[RobbyS]

“Gay marriage" is the reduction ad absurdum of the Sexual Revolution. It shows what happens if one tolerates the modern attitude toward marriage and the family. In extremis, one is forced to make a “choice,” When we get to gay marriage we see people insisting that what we know to be false is true. One way we know this to be true is when they refuse to listen to our objections.

 

[adrift]

sounds moronic to me

It definitely is a straw man fallacious argument.

 

[adrift]

After seeing all of the anti-SSM rhetoric from differing Catholic sources, I have to wonder: why do I never see Catholics mobilizing in protest of Protestant marriages? Or non-religious marriages? Or Jewish marriages? If the only valid marriage is a properly structured Catholic marriage (and all others false), then are not heterosexual individuals living in mortal sin, copulating and calling their documents from the government and non-Catholic churches “marriage?”

.

You do realize that Catholics regard Protestant, Jewish, and non-religious has having a valid marriage? It is because you do not understand what marriage is that you make such ignorant remarks.

 

[Incomplete]

If the only valid marriage is a properly structured Catholic marriage (and all others false), then are not heterosexual individuals living in mortal sin, copulating and calling their documents from the government and non-Catholic churches “marriage?”

The Church does not say that non-Catholic marriages are not valid. That’s why, for example, my husband had to get his first marriage annulled before we married, even though he was Protestant at the time.

 

[gnfd92]

Someone should definitely notify the Catholic schools that I attended; I was always told that only marriages granted by the Catholic Church were valid and sacramental, and I was warned that other marriages performed by other entities did not make sexual relations any less sinful than pre-marital sex. Then again, I did go to the cheaper Catholic schools in my area, so I should have known better than to believe they taught marriage doctrine correctly given the many other mistakes I saw teachers make there…can’t get a good education in the deep South, even in private school.

Your discourteous assessment of my understanding of the man-made “institution of marriage” is short-sighted; I could just as easily claim that your moral suppositions of an ordered universe created with attentive planning by a benevolent deity arise from a perceived lack of understanding of reality. The arguments which support such theories have more holes than the finest Swiss cheese. No offense intended, I just find it fitting to respond to a dismissive response with equally dismissive thoughts. The spirit of your reply was lacking in charity.

Another musing: if a permissive relationship between homosexuals and the government encourages further societal disorder, should not homosexuality be more actively discouraged? Perhaps legalized (and actively encouraged) discrimination in the workplace and housing market will make them think twice before acting on (or admitting to) SSA. What lengths are you willing to go in order to prevent the sins of people who hold an entirely different moral value system than yours?

If I were Catholic, I would not hold that marriages created outside of the Church are equally valid; they lack the relationship with the Bride of Christ (and God) that is integral to the sacrament of marriage (at least in my opinion based on what my low-budget Catholic high school taught me). I would also say that persons who marry but wish to not have children (and given the alarming population growth worldwide, I would encourage a little prudence in reproduction) should not be considered married. But, alas, I am not Catholic nor do I believe that “marriage” should have anything to do with the government. It is a word and concept loaded with religious symbolism and context, not fitting for a secular institution.

 

[adrift]

I am so sorry if you think I was rude. But you write with a lack of understanding of what Marriage is and what constitues a marriage. I of course only have your word of what your were taught and if you understood correctly what was said in your classes. I have class mates who have claimed things about our mutual classes in Catholic School that I know were do to there lack of attention and not truly what they were taught.

 

[gnfd92]

I appreciate the apology; I have a soft spot for manners. Most of my religion teachers in school were…less than intelligent, even in their own subject (though quite nice people). My school also took minor issue with the fact that some of our teachers were in heterosexual Protestant marriages, so perhaps it is a local distortion of Catholic doctrine. It is quite likely that I was given a distorted description of Catholic marriage teachings, but, as I was an honor student and graduate, it seems more likely that either there was a misunderstanding of doctrine on the part of the teacher(s) or an inability to properly articulate their intended thoughts to an attentive (and more than scholarly) student.

I do wish that you would be a bit more specific when you criticize my remarks, as my problematic perception of Catholic marriage doctrine is not the same as my perception of the various definitions of marriage that exist in the world, nor does my lack of knowledge of the specifics of Catholic marriage doctrine necessitate that my overall understanding of the human concept of marriage, of the sociobiological origins of (often, semi-)monogamous human sexual relationships and overall sexual behavior as practiced by primates is in actuality inferior to your own. Improved examples of the same sentiment would be “but you write with a lack of understanding of what Catholic marriage is and what constitutes a doctrinal Catholic marriage” or “but you write with a different opinion…”. Otherwise, your assessment appears as if written from within a box containing only carefully selected values that were passed down to you through scientifically-identifiable sociological mechanisms while keeping the rest of reality and logic outside.