G
Generic_Man
Guest
A point I’m arguing is that gay marriges are fake because hey have no creation. Someone said that this must be so too with a marrige that has someone who is infertile. What is the response?
- Status
B
Bishopite
Guest
A response to that is that just because a few marriages between a man and woman have infertility issues doesn’t detract from the reality that most all of them Do produce life. They not only have the “parts” that enable them TO conceive, but that a man and a woman CAN produce life and DO produce life and that same sex marriages never do shows which one is valid and which one that is not. Man/woman couples do produce life because it is part of the natural law or the natural moral law of God.
Homosexual marriages can NEVER produce life. A woman and a woman can’t produce a life, neither can a man and another man; it is for certain that 100% of same-sex couples can not ever by their own sexual act, produce another life; they are sterile 100% of the time.
Juxtapose that with a “normal” heterosexual pregnancy and the same-sex argument is wanting.
C
CARose
Guest
In a marriage where one (or both) member(s) of the couple are infertile, if they remain open to the possibility of children and they act in accord with the natural manner by which children are conceived, they have a valid marriage. And I can’t tell you how many “infertile” couples are now called “Mom” and “Dad”. 
It’s a matter of their nature. Man and Woman were created, in the natural order of things, to become mother and father through their union, one with the other. The same cannot be said of a same sex couple.
Also, regardless of how much many in our culture seek to deny it, men and woman are different. Just give a 4 yr old boy and a 4 year old girl each a banana. The girl thanks you for the snack while the boy turns and shoots you with his new weapon.
We are different, and we have different natural gifts to offer our children. Children deserve an attempt at being brought up in an intact family, consisting of a mother and a father. Unfortunately, not all families remain intact, either through death or divorce, but it remains the healthiest family life for a child, regardless of the fact that it is becoming less the norm.
Our society needs to put a greater emphasis on our future, and cliche’ as it is, Children truly are our future. This means, sometimes you need to sacrifice for the good of your children, a concept that, if taken seriously, would result in far more marriages working through their difficulties, and reducing divorce.
And, from what I understand, same sex attraction is frequently the result of failing to establish a strong and healthy relationship with your same sex parent when growing up, typically because that family member wasn’t present either physically or emotionally. So, same sex couples raising kids could result in greater numbers of same sex attracted kids. And those who act on these attractions have a shorter life span. That’s not a prejudice, just a sad reality of life.
CARose
It’s a matter of their nature. Man and Woman were created, in the natural order of things, to become mother and father through their union, one with the other. The same cannot be said of a same sex couple.
Also, regardless of how much many in our culture seek to deny it, men and woman are different. Just give a 4 yr old boy and a 4 year old girl each a banana. The girl thanks you for the snack while the boy turns and shoots you with his new weapon.
We are different, and we have different natural gifts to offer our children. Children deserve an attempt at being brought up in an intact family, consisting of a mother and a father. Unfortunately, not all families remain intact, either through death or divorce, but it remains the healthiest family life for a child, regardless of the fact that it is becoming less the norm.
Our society needs to put a greater emphasis on our future, and cliche’ as it is, Children truly are our future. This means, sometimes you need to sacrifice for the good of your children, a concept that, if taken seriously, would result in far more marriages working through their difficulties, and reducing divorce.
And, from what I understand, same sex attraction is frequently the result of failing to establish a strong and healthy relationship with your same sex parent when growing up, typically because that family member wasn’t present either physically or emotionally. So, same sex couples raising kids could result in greater numbers of same sex attracted kids. And those who act on these attractions have a shorter life span. That’s not a prejudice, just a sad reality of life.
CARose
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
Infertile couples have no control over their infertility, while homosexuals do: they choose to enter homosexual relationships. Moreover, infertile couples are open to the idea new life, in that they are having normal sexual relations under normal conditions. Often, couples don’t even realize that they are infertile until they start trying to have children.
We also have to look at the fact that men and women are physiologically complementary; their sexual organs were designed to enter into each other. The same can’t be said of homosexual couples, whose relations are quite dangerous–the average lifespan of a homosexual male in 38, only 2% live past 60, and their “lifestyle” comes with a long list of venereal diseases.
Let me just assure you that there are no good arguments in favour of gay marriage. To find out how to refute them all, you should follow the link of the Catholic Answers main page that deals with this subject. It is very thorough.
We also have to look at the fact that men and women are physiologically complementary; their sexual organs were designed to enter into each other. The same can’t be said of homosexual couples, whose relations are quite dangerous–the average lifespan of a homosexual male in 38, only 2% live past 60, and their “lifestyle” comes with a long list of venereal diseases.
Let me just assure you that there are no good arguments in favour of gay marriage. To find out how to refute them all, you should follow the link of the Catholic Answers main page that deals with this subject. It is very thorough.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Where are these facts coming from? Would you cite the source? Are you suggesting that heterosexuals never contract/transmit venereal diseses?
I think that if you’re going to defend the Church’s tenets, you probably should have good facts to go on.
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
Your initial premise is flawed. A marriage is “fake” if it is not a Sacramental convenant before God. You don’t need to provide reasons, just that God established marriage, God established the Church, and the Church says “No,” to the validity in God’s Eyes of ALL civil marriages regardless of whether they are straight or gay. That is the bottom line. No more explanation is needed. Baring children is an attempt to justify the Church’s stance, but the Church needs no “worldly terms” justification, as we answer to God, not the world.
1
1ke
Guest
Frank, this is entirely fasle. The Church absolutely affirms non-Catholic and non-Christian marriages as valid. Such marriages are not “fake”.
Failure of individuals to live out their marriage committment does not invalidate marriage.
Same-sex “marriage” is in no way equivalent.
Frank, sometimes you seem to be very knowledgeable of Church teaching, and then sometimes you seem to just be completely mixed up and confused. This is one of the cases where you are confused.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Hear, hear! What an excellent point! For me it raises the whole “take the log out of your eye” issue. We focus way too much on what gays “might” be doing instead of noticing that now more than 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce.
I remember that Our Lord, Jesus Christ never said word one about homosexuality, but he was very clear about divorce. So, in my mind that sets up an order of priority. We need to support marriages that are already in danger right now and help them to thrive, and THEN once those evils are dealt with, then we can focus on “gay marriage.”
Marriage is in crisis because of the actions of heterosexuals.
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
Perhaps, “fake,” a term I borrowed from the OP, was not the best choice of words. Nevertheless, if the Church considered civil marriages to be valid covenants before God, then how come they can be so easily annulled? An annulment can only be granted in a situation where the Church has determined that no true marriage has existed in the first place, thus making the civil “marriage” invalid.
I never said that failure to live out marriage commitments invalidates marriage. My point was that adulterous remarriage is just as invalid in the Church’s eyes as gay marriage.
If I am wrong in either of my assertions, I will admit it, but please provide some sort of documented(from the Catechism or elsewhere) proof that the Church considers civil marriages between pagans to be valid(and therefore inseparable) Sacramental covenants before God.
1
1ke
Guest
A declaration of nullity is neither easier nor more difficult to obtain since the same Church Law applies to them as to Catholic marriages, excluding Catholic form.
There is not a one-to-one correspondence between civil marriage and nullity. It seems you are implying that a civil marriage is null by virtue of *being *a civil marriage, you are incorrect.
Civil marriages can, and many are, valid. If they take place between two baptized non-Catholics they are also sacramental.
This is accurate. But, a civil marriage is neither adulterous nor invalid.
.
Valid does not mean Sacramental. Those terms are not synonyms. A marriage does not have to be sacramental to be valid.
A marriage between baptized persons is valid *and *sacramental. A marriage between two non-baptized or a baptized and non-baptized person is valid, but not sacramental. It is called a good and natural marriage. I suggest you read Canon Law on the subject.
An excellent book that explains church teaching on marriage is Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. There is an entire chapter on validity and natural marriages.
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
This sounds inaccurate to me. I am under the impression that a civil marriage is automatically annulled(provided that a civil divorce also took place) in that the Church never granted that marriage. There may be exceptions to that, although I am unaware of them. How are you defining the term, “valid?” A civil marriage is only “valid” to the Church in the sense that someone who is currently in a civil marriage is NOT free to marry in the Church, unless said person is marrying the same spouse as in the civil marriage. Valid is a Sacramental covenant in God’s Eyes. To have a civil marriage is to take God out of the marriage. How could the Church possibly consider that to be valid, when the very definition of marriage is a sacramental covenant before God between one man and one woman, that no man may separate until death due them part? It is not two people who appear before a judge and make a civil contract. Marriage is a covenantal union before God, not a legal contract before an Earthly judge.
If non-Catholic Christian marriages were automatically considered valid by the Church, then why do Catholics who marry Protestants in Protestant churches by Protestant ministers first need a letter of authority from their Catholic Bishop in order to make the marriage valid in God’s Eyes? Why, if such a letter is obtained does it later make an annulment that much more difficult than if no letter was sought or granted?
1ke, no offense, but I think you are totally off on this one. Again, provide me a statement from the Catechism that says I’m wrong, and I’ll admit it, but otherwise, I think I’m right on this.
1
1ke
Guest
That is only true for a Catholic, as only Catholics are required to marry in the Catholic form.
We are not talking about Catholics. We are talking about non-Catholic Christians and the unbaptized.
The same way that the Church defines it.
Ask the Church. The man and woman confer the Sacrament on each other-- therefore two baptized persons who give consent are in a valid marriage. The same holds true for non-baptized persons, they marry validly. They do not marry sacramentally.
You are confusing two things.
(1) Two non-Catholic Christians marrying. They marry validly, as I have just said they confer the sacrament, not the priest, pastor, or judge.
(2) A Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. They must receive a dispensation from FORM because they are Catholics. Non-Catholics are not bound to this form, therefore they marry validly when they marry in their own denominations or in front of a judge.
Because canonical form is a requirement of Catholics to marry validly.
Um, no I am not wrong.
Please read Canon Law on the Marriage.
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
Where can I acquire this “Canon Law on the Marriage,” that you are referring to? Is there an internet link?
So, are you suggesting that according to the Catholic Church, if two baptised protestants marry, get divorced, and then one of them remarries, the remarriage places that remarried couple in a perpetual state of adultery, even if their denomination doesn’t teach that??? I thought such rules only applied to validly married, divorced, and then invalidly remarried Catholics.
1
1ke
Guest
Here is a great post explaining the concepts and applicable canon law. It is by cameron_lansing who is a canon lawyer.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2660455&postcount=9
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2660455&postcount=9
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, Canon Law is available on the internet on the Vatican website.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Nope.
1
1ke
Guest
The “the” is a typo. The Code of Canon Law has a section on Marriage and a section on the tribunal nullity process.
1
1ke
Guest
That is why I recommended the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was, by Michael Smith Foster. It is an explanation in layman’s terms.
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
I appreciate this information you’ve provided as I thought that the Catholic Church made no comments or distinctions on marriages outside the Church (other than Catholics marrying in Protestant churches with officially granted permission.)
So now, the million dollar question. How does one go about telling remarried Protestant friends that they are living in a perpetual state of adultery and their children are thus illegitimate?
Is there a charitable way to phrase that?
So now, the million dollar question. How does one go about telling remarried Protestant friends that they are living in a perpetual state of adultery and their children are thus illegitimate?
Is there a charitable way to phrase that?
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
Well, I stand corrected. Not that I would marry someone who was already married anyway, or had kids, but that is interesting.
Now, if a Baptised but non-practicing Catholic marries another Baptised but non-practicing Catholic OUTSIDE the Church, THAT is automatically invalid. Correct?
Now, if a Baptised but non-practicing Catholic marries another Baptised but non-practicing Catholic OUTSIDE the Church, THAT is automatically invalid. Correct?
- Status