I don’t how sterility connects the notion of consenting adult relationships with the notion of non-consenting relationships between a child and an adult. Moreover, your “natural sterility” claim is simply false: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
Wait… I asked what specific rights are granted to those who are permitted to marry, and you answer that they are granted the right to marry.
pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. By its very definition the relationship is sterile.
Now what is your logical reason to excluded pedophile couples from marriage but not same sex couples.
And yet, of your past 40+ posts, more than 80% are on the topic of homosexuality.…that despite 30 days of posting on this forum since you registered as a CAF user, 97% of your postings being on the topic of homosexuality, and 3% on “animal suffering.” Your questions have been meticulously and exhaustively answered, with both secular reasoning and religious argument.
Did you register so that you could persuade Catholics to agree with you? I ask because I would think someone genuinely interested in an answer (or an outsider merely curious) would stop asking the same question over and over, in the same manner, and with the same words.
Your persistence comes across as polemic, i.m.o., rather than intellectually curious.
I have no idea why discussion of the various specific rights associated with marriage (there are a lot) is at all relevant. What’s unclear about the phrase “the right to marry?”
No, because you know we’re both talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. I think you just want to dodge the substance of my previous post.
I don’t how sterility connects the notion of consenting adult relationships with the notion of non-consenting relationships between a child and an adult, and you still haven’t explained the connection. Moreover, your “natural sterility” claim is simply false: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of…_birth_mothers
You haven’t done either (a) or (b). Although I’ve shown that your “natural sterility” claim is false (see wikipedia), you insist on repeating it. Now why is that?
Puberty is when a person’s body develops to be capable of reproduction
You have shown me that you do not define terms
Not once have I mentioned religious marriage. (You think it becomes religious when I introduce the science of biology. Somewhat strange, since non-religious people are usually so quick to put science ahead of everything else.)
I personally don’t have a problem with civil contracts. I think that such people should be afforded rights under the law. As far as having a legal right to marry, it’s more a biological right than a legal one. Two men can’t get married because they don’t have the parts. Can they be given rights by the government? Yeah (and they should), but marriage implies a union which they fundamentally can not have.
You have to understand that the concepts of civil and religious can not be so easily separated. This results from the difference in language that I was trying to point out. When you say marriage you mean a piece of paper containing an agreement between two people. This is far removed from what we mean when we say marriage. When we say marriage we mean a full union between two people that is so complete that they can say, “This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone”. We say that marriage is a union that by nature makes a man and women into a family. The difference in our definitions is that in yours, the state institutes marriage, while in ours the state does not establish marriage, but only recognizes it.
This seems to be the difficulty. Biologically it is self evident that same sex couples don’t have the right parts for marriage. But when the issue is mentioned, the response is something like, what does having the right parts have to do with anything. I don’t know. Maybe they just have something against mother nature. Her design is inherently discriminatory somehow.
So the sexual union between a 40 yr old and a 10 yr old doesn’t count as a “pedophile couple?”
So clarify your “biology stance” for me. Your “ordered towards procreation” rationale sounds exactly like the “ability to procreate” rationale, which is susceptible to my op objection, but you claim that the two are entirely disconnected: a coupling can be “ordered towards procreation” even though procreation is impossible. So I have no idea what “ordered towards procreation” even means. It would be helpful if you would provide a sufficiently clear and rigorous definition of the term (since what you’re telling me doesn’t square with what other Catholics on here have said.)
You’re the one moving away from biology. If we’re talking about biology, we’re talking about procreation or the ability to procreation. But if we’re talking about “ordered towards procreation,” we’re no longer talking about either, so I have no idea why your concept (despite having the term “procreation” in it) has anything to do with biology.
And I keep explaining that this is the wrong question. The question is: are same-sex couples being treated equally under the law when they are excluded from civil marriage? A ‘yes’ answer assumes that there is a rational basis for the exclusion, which I have yet to see.
In other words, you endorse the “inability to procreate” rationale, but I dealt with this rationale in my op. How do you respond to it?
I made it abundantly clear over and over that the discussion was about "civil marriage,’ not “religious marriage.” Same-sex couples aren’t fighting for the right to get married in Catholic churches.
Actually, the response is something like my op. Why not address it?
I was not talking about ability to procreate, but rather unity. Two men or two women fundamentally can not have sex. They may be able to do many other different things, but they can never have sex.
Yes they certainly can – penis-vagina sex isn’t the only kind of sex that exists.
No, that isn’t rational. “Civil marriage” isn’t “religious marriage,” no matter how badly Catholics wish to equate the two.
No, they are not – that is simply a blatant misrepresentation of what we marriage equality proponents are advocating for.
No, but you have gotten through that some Catholics on here (perhaps yourself) wish to hijack language and claim that the term “marriage” can only be used religiously, which simply isn’t the case.
I defined the terms which will make it easy to answer your question. As we review the terms and apply them to your question, we see that you have not given enough information to provide an answer. Hint: age is not a factor but reproductive maturity is. Phrase your questions using the defined terms; for example: So the sexual union between a 40 yr old and a post-pubescent child doesn’t count as a “pedophile couple?” Or maybe: So the sexual union between a 40 yr old and a prepubescent child doesn’t count as a “pedophile couple?”
Wait a second: marriage between a 40 yr old and a 10 yr old counts as “pedophilia marriage” if the 10 yr old can’t reproduce but doesn’t if the 10 yr old can reproduce? So marriages between adults and children are okay so long as children have the ability to procreate? Is this what you’re saying?
They are called “reproductive organs” for a reason.
Marriage is marriage no matter how badly you want to differentiate the two. Of course you don’t define terms, so you haven’t been able to even differentiate the two.
