Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And you don’t think that the access to the over 1000 rights and legal protections marriage grants has anything to do with it?
As far as I can tell, those are for the sake of encouraging people to get married and so have families. I certainly see an interest for the people involved to get married because of such legal protections and rights, but how does it benefit the state? Why is it helpful for the state for two people who can’t have children to be in a comitted relationship with each other? I just don’t see how that kind of relationship is particularly helpful for the state and so I see no reason for the state to offer incentives to encourage people to form such a relationship. 🤷
 
What does procreation have to do with marriage?

The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.
If it were we would be denying infertile people and the elderly from getting married

And if a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive because of male sterility uses artificial insemination that child will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

Just like if a heterosexual couples did the very same thing

What’s your point?
According to God and your Catholic faith…everything
Pax Christi

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes.** And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful** and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation:** "And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’"91**
  • The openness to fertility
1652 “By its** very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”**162
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.
 
As far as I can tell, those are for the sake of encouraging people to get married and so have families. I certainly see an interest for the people involved to get married because of such legal protections and rights, but how does it benefit the state?
Gay and lesbian couples don’t have families?
Why is it helpful for the state for two people who can’t have children to be in a comitted relationship with each other? I just don’t see how that kind of relationship is particularly helpful for the state and so I see no reason for the state to offer incentives to encourage people to form such a relationship. 🤷
You’re talking about infertile heterosexuals right?
 
Gay and lesbian couples don’t have families?

You’re talking about infertile heterosexuals right?
Like I said before, so long as they are actually sterile, and it is known beforehand, then I wouldn’t see a huge issue with the state disallowing them to marry. The state already has certain limitations on who can and who cannot legally marry, age limits, relatives etc. The question that needs to be answered is why does the state acknowledge marriages in the first place. All laws with respect to legal marriage must rest on an understanding of what the purpose is in having legally recognized marriages in the first place. Once you figure out what the purpose behind it is, then you can tailor the laws around it to aim for that end. I don’t see what purpose there is except to encourage people to procreate and, once they have, to stay together in a stable unit for the wellbeing of their offspring so that the state will be able to maintain itself. I see no reason why allowing same sex couples to marry will help further this end so I see no reason why the state should expand such benefits to same-sex couples. 🤷
 
The ability or even the willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage.
:ehh: Yes… I got that, Did you even read what I said?

If the ability or even willingness to have biological offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage, then what is YOUR argument AGAINST incest marriage?

That is assuming your against incest.
 
The state isn’t perfect, but God’s original plan for marriage is.
 
Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

If you say a lesbian couple can use the artificial insemination method, they could not have done it without a man donating his sperm to fertilize the female’s egg. And the child is and always will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

If you say two homosexual men can use a surrogate mother, again, they need the opposite sex for a baby to be produced by these artificial attempts at procreation.

If a homosexual couple adopts a child, that child is the product of the biological union of male to female.

Why can’t two sperm produce a child without a female egg? Why can’t two female eggs produce a child without a male sperm?
I like how gay supporters attempt to change the definition of marriage is also supposed to change a simple fact of life that it takes a man and a woman to create a child.

Oh yea, no amount of calling people who disagree wih their view, bigots, is going to change that fact. Who are they going to blame for discrimination against not being able to impregnate a man? Nature?
 
That would be bad.

But TracerBullet’s point stands. It still isn’t a prerequisite for marriage.
TracerBullet’s point is a red herring. It doesn’t change the fact that homosexual sodomy can never be equivalent to the marriage of a man and woman since men and women are made for each other and not for the same sex. Proof of this is the fact that homosexual unions never produce children.
 
Can you tell me why it always takes a man and a woman to have a baby? Why is this a universal norm in the world and always been so in human history?

If you say a lesbian couple can use the artificial insemination method, they could not have done it without a man donating his sperm to fertilize the female’s egg. And the child is and always will be his biological child whether the child ever knows him or not.

If you say two homosexual men can use a surrogate mother, again, they need the opposite sex for a baby to be produced by these artificial attempts at procreation.

If a homosexual couple adopts a child, that child is the product of the biological union of male to female.

Why can’t two sperm produce a child without a female egg? Why can’t two female eggs produce a child without a male sperm?
Remember in this discussion there are quite a few Catholic couples who use other men’s sperm and other women’s eggs (or they become surrogates) as well as in-vitro fertilization to have children. People who adopt are using “other people’s means” of having children and given them a home because biology alone doesn’t make a parent. Biology SHOULD make a parent but we live in fallen world and sometimes people don’t live the way we tell them to live. And sometimes that’s a good thing. There have been times when I KNEW what was best for someone and turned out I was wrong.

I think gay marriage becomes an issue because people become afraid that it change marriage in general and, that churches will be forced to perform such marriages. Nothing can be farther from the truth on either account.

I’m not taking a side, merely stating a few simple facts:
  1. No one can ever trash the sanctity of marriage more than the heterosexual community has done. Most of us as a result of sin and mistakes, but there are many who have deliberately done things that have made marriage a mockery.
  2. Churches are always free to accept or reject people who apply for marriage. Reasons do not have to be given and as long as it falls under religion you are free to state you will not marry any two people who are of the same gender. Most places where this is legal have avoided religion altogether. They have approved civil unions since the issue for most same-sex couples is inheritance and medical decision-making powers, property rights, etc. A government union can suffice without dragging churches into it.
  3. Since the Catholic Church has strict rules on what makes a union a “marriage” and sacramental, I really shake my head at the hype. Any such union done in a Catholic Church would be invalid by Church and Canon Law. So what if the entire nation has same-sex weddings, they aren’t considered valid. Just like the wedding I had in a banquet hall with a Jewish man. We divorced and that “marriage” wasn’t a marriage at all, it was invalid. Since these are not “marriages” why is everyone so worried? Today millions of people walk around saying they are “married” and in the eyes of the Catholic Church they are not for one reason or another. Is this really going to change the taste of your coffee or the quality of your internet service? Your day-to-day life won’t change at all and if you raise your children to be devout Catholics, it shouldn’t touch your corner of the world at all.
My son is gay. I love him and am very proud of who he is as a man. He walks picket lines for animal rights, he has a genius level IQ and he doesn’t run around picking up men. He has a college degree, works very hard, and is the most compassionate person I know. He doesn’t seek to change your faith. He doesn’t want to get in your face or push you (I know many on BOTH sides of this issue who do this) and he doesn’t care if you like him or not, agree with him or not.

Maybe when gays can contract civil unions the ones who are committed and feel that tug to live a better life will be drawn to God, and see things differently. The fastest way to get people to never darken the door of a Catholic Church is to tell them you know better than they do how they should live. Whether it’s true or not, it’s not welcome and I don’t like it when people do that to me.

If Catholics put 1/2 as much time into living the Catholic faith and building up their own community as they do tearing down the gay community they would probably win over a lot of the gay community. How about we put some of this wheel spinning energy into loving each other (have you read the attacking that goes on in these forums–the catcalling the judgement, the horrible attacking–is this Jesus?) and finding ways to become saints.

Mother Angelica said it best, “We are all called to become great saints. Don’t miss your opportunity.” :crossrc:

If we spend all our time focusing on what we hate and what makes us angry we will be consumed by rage and hatred. If we focus on becoming saints, we will be doing God’s will. The choice is simple.

Lorrie
 
Remember in this discussion there are quite a few Catholic couples who use other men’s sperm and other women’s eggs (or they become surrogates) as well as in-vitro fertilization to have children. People who adopt are using “other people’s means” of having children and given them a home because biology alone doesn’t make a parent.
It’s still an egg and a sperm and not an egg and an egg or a sperm and a sperm. The point here is that biology proves that men are made for women. By contrast, homosexual unions have absolutely no support from biology.
 
It’s still an egg and a sperm and not an egg and an egg or a sperm and a sperm. The point here is that biology proves that men are made for women. By contrast, homosexual unions have absolutely no support from biology.
And neither do unions of people who are sterile. “Be fruitful and multiply” So if you can’t have sex then you aren’t being fruitful.
 
honestly the Catholic reaction against civil gay marriages is ludicrous.
there is simply not one good argument why society shouldnt legalise same sex marriage. there is a separation of church and state, therefore any change in marriage laws within the state will not have any impact on religous marriage laws or customs.
i think the catholic church will eventually realise the error with their current stance on civil gay marriages, just like they did with separation of church and state.
there was a time when the catholic church stated that it was the moral responsibiity of catholic voters to vote for a catholic theocracy but eventually the church abandoned such a stance. i believe a similar concession will occur with civil gay marriages.
simply speaking its out of the church’s jurisdiction.
(however abortion is a different matter since it involves murder of an innocent child)
 
And neither do unions of people who are sterile. “Be fruitful and multiply” So if you can’t have sex then you aren’t being fruitful.
Red herring/apples to oranges. Most heterosexuals are not sterile. The sterile heterosexual couples are the exception to the rule. That’s why liberals are fighting so hard for contraception to be available everywhere. But all homosexual unions are sterile. Homosexual acts are the ultimate form of contraception since it’s the only kind of sexual activity that is always 100% effective for preventing conception. There’s no such thing as contraception for heterosexuals that’s 100% effective for preventing conception. But even if every heterosexual couple became sterile, they would still be made for each other since our sex organs only fit with that of the opposite sex organ.
 
Like I said before, so long as they are actually sterile, and it is known beforehand, then I wouldn’t see a huge issue with the state disallowing them to marry. The state already has certain limitations on who can and who cannot legally marry, age limits, relatives etc. The question that needs to be answered is why does the state acknowledge marriages in the first place. All laws with respect to legal marriage must rest on an understanding of what the purpose is in having legally recognized marriages in the first place. Once you figure out what the purpose behind it is, then you can tailor the laws around it to aim for that end. I don’t see what purpose there is except to encourage people to procreate and, once they have, to stay together in a stable unit for the wellbeing of their offspring so that the state will be able to maintain itself. I see no reason why allowing same sex couples to marry will help further this end so I see no reason why the state should expand such benefits to same-sex couples. 🤷
So you can’t marry if you can’t have children? If you’re gay, just cause you can’t get married doesn’t mean you’ll turn straight and start having babies.

You are missing the point of marriage. The purpose is not to have children. The purpose is to commit to someone you love.

Also, the government does not need to encourage people to have children. There is NOT a population crisis in the US.
 
So you can’t marry if you can’t have children? If you’re gay, just cause you can’t get married doesn’t mean you’ll turn straight and start having babies.

You are missing the point of marriage. The purpose is not to have children. The purpose is to commit to someone you love.

Also, the government does not need to encourage people to have children. There is NOT a population crisis in the US.
👍
 
So you can’t marry if you can’t have children? If you’re gay, just cause you can’t get married doesn’t mean you’ll turn straight and start having babies.

You are missing the point of marriage. The purpose is not to have children. The purpose is to commit to someone you love.

Also, the government does not need to encourage people to have children. There is NOT a population crisis in the US.
That is the argument of someone in grade five. Marriage is about “commiting to someone you love”… Really!? Then why is it state sponsored? Legal documents are not needed to love someone.
 
That is the argument of someone in grade five. Marriage is about “commiting to someone you love”… Really!? Then why is it state sponsored? Legal documents are not needed to love someone.
Good point.
 
Because that is how things work. What does this have to do with marriage though?
Why is it how things work? Children have to do with marriage because it’s why the state first got interested in marriage.
 
Why is it how things work? Children have to do with marriage because it’s why the state first got interested in marriage.
What state? When did the state get interested in marriage because of children?

Do two people have to be married to have children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top