You reference post #73, which says:
That supports my position. Inability to procreate applies to many heterosexual married couples, so it is not a good argument against same-sex marriage. This thread is looking for good arguments, and inability to procreate is not a good argument.
The inability to procreate experienced by some heterosexual couples is not ordained by the nature of the couple, but by mere circumstances of illness, age, etc.
I disagree. It is in the nature of all humans to age, and for females, ageing naturally brings infertility. Given that the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce, then it is in the nature of Catholic marriage that some marriages will be unable to procreate.
Agreed. I am assuming that the arguments are to be directed at people who currently accept the validity of same sex civil marriages. A good argument is one which works from the perspective of the person you are discussing with. There is no point is assuming that they already agree with you on the points in contention. Those are not good arguments.
It is in our nature to to procreate when our age and health is naturally so attuned, and not to do so otherwise. That naturally fits with our lifecycle. SSM runs fundamentally counter to that nature.
Those who embrace SSM need to answer the question “what is marriage?” The discussion proceeds based on their answer.
Does a childless couple automatically get an annulment from the Church? No they do not. The absence of children is not a grounds for annulment. Failure to procreate does not invalidate or annul a Catholic marriage. Again, you need to find a better argument here. This one can be countered too easily.
That is a better basis for discussion. However, you need to expect a different definition from the one the Catholic Church uses, obviously.
That is irrelevant. The question I posed assists one to understand “what is marriage?” Note that siblings are “explicitly denied” marriage (and civil unions) by statute.
Rossum, please connect my posts - I was not making an argument as I already stated that fertility is not a hurdle for marriage. I was passing an observation on the difference between infertile heterosexual couples and homosexual couples as that pertains to procreation, as you suggested there was no difference. One works with or accepts the natural order, the other is in conflict with it.
Very likely. One can anticipate an array of self-serving definitions, which ignore biology and history.
How terrible that we should ignore history.
This makes you sound erudite and well-read Thor, but, alas, your remarks appear utterly disconnected from the substance of th thread.How terrible that we should ignore history.
It’s not like it once was in colonial America, for example, where a wife could not own or acquire property, enter into a contract or write a will without her husband’s permission. In 17th century New England, a woman might be referred to not as “Mary Brown” or even as “Mrs John Brown” but as “John Brown his wife.” A widow was often referred to as her husband’s “relict” which has the same etymology as the word “relic”.
As Sir William Blackstone says in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769), 1: 442:
I’m only responding to your statement that redefining marriage ignores history and is self-serving (“One can anticipate an array of self-serving definitions, which ignore biology and history”). But the historical example of marriage by which, as Blackstone say, the wife’s “very being or legal existence…is suspended” doesn’t seem all that great.This makes you sound erudite and well-read Thor, but, alas, your remarks appear utterly disconnected from the substance of th thread.
Blackstone points to the legal framework going awry, which we see repeated in the idea of SSM.
The difference is not that an opposite sex couple can procreate. The difference is that a man and a woman can have sex. A man and a woman can have marital sex. A same sex couple can never have marital sex. They may do other things, but it is not conjugal sex and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be conjugal–regardless of procreation or fertility.
And what makes our system better?How terrible that we should ignore history.
It’s not like it once was in colonial America, for example, where a wife could not own or acquire property, enter into a contract or write a will without her husband’s permission. In 17th century New England, a woman might be referred to not as “Mary Brown” or even as “Mrs John Brown” but as “John Brown his wife.” A widow was often referred to as her husband’s “relict” which has the same etymology as the word “relic”.
As Sir William Blackstone says in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769), 1: 442:
The one thing I want to emphasize here, and in this I do share with the traditionalists their concern for the way many modern Catholics think about marriage, is that, the two goods, union and procreation, are not equal in importance. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation; union is secondary and subordinate to it. That isn’t to say it’s not important - it certainly is. But the procreative aspect is the primary purpose of marriage. Cf. Holy Office Decree of 1944.
Strictly speaking, unity and procreation are combined into the one act. Husband and wife are physically united, and procreation may result. Physically speaking, the two aspects cannot be separated, (except artificially, and this is contrary to the nature of the marital act.)
No doubt. But, conceptually, the procreative aspect is the principal one. If you think about, it would not be necessary to have a special union, sanctioned in law, for the unitive aspect, but the procreative aspect does require this.