NONSENSE. All people deserve to be treated like individuals, but these weird impossible sexual laisons are not recognizable under the law or in the Church. The laisons are nothing. The sexual events that they are supposed to be composed of don’t exist except as biological accidents.
That is the best post I have seen this whole day. It is like trying to explain three year old concepts to adults!!!There are males and there are females. Got that? Look around you. GOT IT???
There is a reason there are males and females.
So that they can MATE and make small males and females.
But human beings, unlike DOGS, have spiritual needs and a potential for a relationship with the Divine which we call God.
So we don’t just rut in the street like the dogs, we marry like human beings, the point being to unite a MALE and a FEMALE in a blessed relationship under GOD.
This takes care, not only of our ability to MATE, but our religious needs.
This is how it works. I hope you’re not older than 8 years old because I’d hate to think I’m explaining the most basic mechanics of family life to an adult.
The whole business about getting a marriage license from, the state and all that is recent nonsense that post-dates modernity historically. This is where all the difficulty with definitions comes from. Getting a piece of paper from the government is just that. It means that your insurance works and so on. But it’s NOT REALLY MARRIAGE, and it’s NOT really sacramental. It’s just a piece of paper.
YOu can’t marry someone who’s the same sex as you. It’s a contradiction in terms.
Do you think it’s not showing equal respect that a mother can’t marry her son?
Do you think anything that exists outside the norm is necessarily invalid and a defect? Is being double-jointed a defect, being a twin, being left-handed, are these all moral failures to be derided or mourned over. Why can’t we accept that anomalies exist and normality/ conventionality is not morality. Being hostile to non-norms says more about you than anything.
And it appears that mine went over yours. You made the claim that the only type of union that can produce children is one consisting of a male and a female. But your understanding of “type” is too broad. Rather, the only type of union that can produce children is one consisting of a male and a female who aren’t impotent or sterile.
And I gave two objections to this: 1) the whole concept of “ordered towards procreation” is a distinctly Catholic requirement, which should not be imposed on secular society, and 2) **impotent **couples can get married even though they aren’t “ordered towards procreation.”
You are wrong because you don’t know what marriage is. You want to hold a civil discussion about something which you are unable or you are unwilling to define. You are in good company, almost no same-sex marriage proponents are able to rationally define it either. Odd, demanding to engage in something which you don’t know what it is.
Look, I"m a scientist and some things are incompatible with survival and life. Being born with 2 heads is one of them.
You haven’t made an argument as to why anything that exists outside a norm is necessarily destructive or a threat to the norm. Are left handed people a threat to right-handedness, or our twins a threat to single -birthness.
But this ignores the objection in my OP, which is that you seek to impose the non-requirement of procreation on same-sex couples. **So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement?
But it is, because we’re talking about civil marriage (not “religious marriage”). You appear to have the two concepts confused.
If same-sex marriage is impossible, then why are you trying to fight it? Why fight something that can’t possibly exist? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Impossible? I don’t know what you mean. Sexual activity between same-sex couples are very possible, I can assure you.
No one said “anything that exists outside the norm” is destructive. You have constructed a straw man.
Being left-handed is considered a variant in our culture because a) it occurs in a certain fairly large segment of the population, and b) it’s not a threat to survival in our society. If it were a threat in our society, it would be a serious matter. BTW, there is no RITE of LEFT-handedness and it’s not sacramental. It’s a different kind of thing altogether.
Incest is a separate issue and should be assessed on its own terms. The topic here is SSM.
No, you’re twisting my words. Here’s how it goes down:
No. The subject is sexual morality. Do you believe incest is morally wrong, yes or no?
So you don’t think incest should be celebrated? Why?
Sorry, that is your claim, not mine. I just don’t want to waste time defining concepts that are well-understood by everyone in this debate (even those who pretend not to understand them).
Stephen is correct, Spencelo. You don’t appear to comprehend what marriage is at all.
So is sex between a man and a chain saw. People get these goofy ideas and figure they’re just going to rig something up, right? It’s usually a mistake and hospital emergency rooms occasionally see real medical emergencies like this. But I assure you that some people are stupid and these are biological accidents.
