This is false. Human law defines what is, and what is not “criminal”. In the USA and much of Europe, same sex marriage is not criminal, it is as legal as opposite sex marriage.
Do you understand what the word “primary” means. You seemed to have confused it with the word “only”.
You need to think about my point more fully here. When a husband has intercourse with his already pregnant wife, is that sexual act open to its “primary” purpose? No it is not, because the wife is already pregnant. Similarly for the other situations I mentioned, such as a post-menopausal wife. Hence we can see that a sexual act that is not open to its primary purpose is not necessarily sinful. The absence of primary purpose does not equate to sin.
T do you see these benefits as ordinary rights (and therefore some relationships are discriminated against) or as a privelege accorded to some relationships in order to favour them for a benefit they provide society?I’m sure that marriage does make the lives of many gay folks better. It gives them legal protections that are not always easy to replicate by other means without the help of lawyers. Legally married gay folks also qualify for spousal and survivor benefits from Social Security and the military, health care benefits, etc. Perhaps you think that wanting all these protections and benefits is just being selfish on the part of gay folks, but do you also consider straight married folks who want these kinds of protections and benefits to be selfish?
The secular world would argue that the notion that cloitus is the only natural form of sex is an inaccurate understanding of human sexuality. Someone who is arguing that it’s okay because we use phones, lamps, etc, it just trying to point out that even IF they give you that it is unnatural, you personally don’t actually believe that things that are unnatural are immoral.
As a lawyer I can tell that, unless you are a lawyer that does estate planning,( which I am sure you are not because any lawyer knows that marriage.does.not mean that your legal issues are fixed) you do not.know.more than me of the real.legal situations involved in the subject. So yes, you are repeating without knowing because as I said that belief that marriage is going to guarantee all these legal protections without having to go to a lawyer is erroneous.And as a gay man, I know quite a bit more than the real situation of LGBT people than most people here on CAF.
So are you saying that marriage confers no protections or benefits?
Read again my post. I gave you the answer clearly there.
No I wouldn’t.
What should be noted is that the multiple meanings or purposes of the sexual act are all bound together in its nature. The mutual enjoyment, closeness and emotion of the act contribute to binding the couple, but this is **integrated **with the procreative nature of the act. In no sense does this mean that the act is to be limited to intended (willed) procreation, but it makes evident the intended context for the act.
There are multiple purposes. The Church only says they should not be torn asunder by man. It is taking steps to “tear apart” the purposes (or meanings) that the Church finds sinful. That is why sex with one’s pregnant wife is not sinful (despite no chance of producing a(nother) pregnancy) but sexual activity between two men is sinful.
These “protections” might be entirely reasonable things. Granting them to a married couple makes sense. But making the sexual relationship of marriage the only threshold to access them may be questionable. And they are or course a deplorable reason to marry. This puts the cart before the horse. Thus, they are no basis for “SSM”.I’m sure that marriage does make the lives of many gay folks better. It gives them legal protections that are not always easy to replicate by other means without the help of lawyers. Legally married gay folks also qualify for spousal and survivor benefits from Social Security and the military, health care benefits, etc. Perhaps you think that wanting all these protections and benefits is just being selfish on the part of gay folks, but do you also consider straight married folks who want these kinds of protections and benefits to be selfish?
Not at all. If a same sex couple are going to be together for the rest of their lives and live as a couple and getting married has both financial and legal benefits, why would such a couple not want to get married? I know of situations where a gay man died or was incapacitated, and his estranged biological family barred his partner from visiting him in the hospital or attending the funeral. I’m not even sure that legal paperwork beforehand without marriage could easily have prevented this kind of thing from happening in the cases I know of.
Anything that is contrary to the law is criminal. Homosexual acts are directly contrary to the natural law, which is indeed a true law. Hence those acts are criminal, even if not punished by human law.
As I said, the various rights you mention may well be deserved by persons other than those married. But it puts the horse before the cart to marry to secure rights. But your position is certainly a rational next step given the starting position you assume.