The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Rau]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Therein lies the biggest dilemma. If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

Any loving couple can RAISE a child, not produce one. There are no homosexual relationships that can produce a child.

 

[theCrow]

Any loving couple can RAISE a child, not produce one. There are no homosexual relationships that can produce a child.

Then what about heterosexual couples who cannot produce a child? Should they not be allowed to get married?

 

[LoganBice]

Then what about heterosexual couples who cannot produce a child? Should they not be allowed to get married?

The concern of government intervention in marriage is because heterosexual couples produce children therefore contributing to the growth or our society and another citizen. They do not regulate whether people are fertile or what sexual acts they do in the bed room. The issue with same sex marriage is that no same sex couples can produce children.

Furthermore according to Catholic teaching if a coueple cannot consecrate their marriage (example: someone who is paralyzed) then they cannot enter into a valid marraige.

So the couple must be of opposit sex, be able to engage in the marital act to consecrate their marriage, thus validating the marriage. This is what I heard from Trent Horn

 

[theCrow]

The concern of government intervention in marriage is because heterosexual couples produce children therefore contributing to the growth or our society and another citizen. They do not regulate whether people are fertile or what sexual acts they do in the bed room. The issue with same sex marriage is that no same sex couples can produce children.

Furthermore according to Catholic teaching if a coueple cannot consecrate their marriage (example: someone who is paralyzed) then they cannot enter into a valid marraige.

So the couple must be of opposit sex, be able to engage in the marital act to consecrate their marriage, thus validating the marriage. This is what I heard from Trent Horn

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

 

[Joe_5859]

The concern of government intervention in marriage is because heterosexual couples produce children therefore contributing to the growth or our society and another citizen. They do not regulate whether people are fertile or what sexual acts they do in the bed room. The issue with same sex marriage is that no same sex couples can produce children.

Furthermore according to Catholic teaching if a coueple cannot consecrate their marriage (example: someone who is paralyzed) then they cannot enter into a valid marraige.

So the couple must be of opposit sex, be able to engage in the marital act to consecrate their marriage, thus validating the marriage. This is what I heard from Trent Horn

I think you mean “consummate” not “consecrate”.

 

[KP3243]

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

You are thinking of this in a purely secular manner, Catholics do not define marriage as only two people who love each other, marriage is so much more and so much deeper. The Church also does not allow castrated men to become priests, I am not sure how they go about verifying this but renouncing marriage for the sake of the Kingdom means you are giving up marriage and the marital act to serve God and deny yourself to serve your brothers and sisters, and become married to the Church, just like Jesus did. If you have ever been to a priestly ordination, the man being ordained goes though the same emotions as any other person getting married.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

The Catholic notion of marriage depicts ONE way of loving another person. It doesn’t depict the only way, or even the only romantic way. There’s nothing wrong with romance or passion between two straight paralyzed people. It’s not marriage, because it doesn’t include the sexual component.

 

[LoganBice]

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

First sex isn’t the defining point if love. Second 2 paralyzed people can love one another and live together as brother and sister and care doe eachother. The secular world like to think sex means love yet at the same time they promote casual sex. Which is it? To be validly married you must be able to have sex because it is one of the factors for marriage but sex itself does not define what love is.

 

[LoganBice]

I think you mean “consummate” not “consecrate”.

Oops!
Yes thank you for that

 

[JimG]

From the article:

“From the state’s perspective, marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife, to then be equipped to be father and mother to any children that union might produce. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the social reality that children deserve their mother and father.”
The key point is that marriage arises from anthropology—the reality of men and women, the reality of sexual complementarity, the fact that only man and woman can engage in marital acts which may produce children and form new families, and that the families thereby created will have mothers and fathers. It’s a consequence of the way that human beings are made—as men and women. The fact that every conjugal act does not create a child, or that some couples may be infertile, is immaterial. Only man and woman can engage in conjugal relations. Same sex couples never can. Such a relationship can never be marital. It’s impossible.

 

[marymary1975]

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

Actually impotency is grounds for nulity of a marriage. In fact in most states in the us impotency and inability to perform the sexual act is grounds for declaring a marriage void. Infertily is a different story. Infertile people can marry because they can perform the reproductive act. The reproductory system of male and female is complimentary and 2 people of the same sex lack this complement.

Also you are here equating love with sex. Real love is not about sex.

 

[Joe_5859]

From the article:

“From the state’s perspective, marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife, to then be equipped to be father and mother to any children that union might produce. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the social reality that children deserve their mother and father.”
The key point is that marriage arises from anthropology—the reality of men and women, the reality of sexual complementarity, the fact that only man and woman can engage in marital acts which may produce children and form new families, and that the families thereby created will have mothers and fathers. It’s a consequence of the way that human beings are made—as men and women. The fact that every conjugal act does not create a child, or that some couples may be infertile, is immaterial. Only man and woman can engage in conjugal relations. Same sex couples never can. Such a relationship can never be marital. It’s impossible.

Right. Very nicely summarized.

 

[Rau]

Then what about heterosexual couples who cannot produce a child? Should they not be allowed to get married?

Your question has nothing do do with me correcting your assertion that a homosexual couple can produce a child!

I can’t imagine why a natural impediment should bar them. Their relationship is able to be marital.

The church takes the view that a permanent unwillingness to have children is an impediment.

 

[Rau]

Wow, then 2 gay or even straight paralyzed people, who love each other dearly, can never enter into a “valid” marriage. So much for “the greatest of these is Love.”

They can love, but an inability to consummate a marriage is an impediment to marriage.

 

[theCrow]

Also you are here equating love with sex. Real love is not about sex.

Thank you, I mean sincerely THANK YOU, for saying this.

If 2 people, gay or straight are in REAL LOVE with each other, then it’s a beautiful and truly good thing.

 

[Rau]

…If 2 people, gay or straight are in REAL LOVE with each other, then it’s a beautiful and truly good thing.

People loving each other is always a good thing. Did you believe anyone here argues to the contrary?

 

[LoganBice]

Thank you, I mean sincerely THANK YOU, for saying this.

If 2 people, gay or straight are in REAL LOVE with each other, then it’s a beautiful and truly good thing.

I really love my best friends, my mother, my sister, and my family. This does not mean I should marry them. Love and sexual attraction/intimacy aren’t the same. Many times they come together but sexual intimacy must be respected as a procreative act. Pleasure is a secondary act of sex. For example: you eat food to survive, but a secondary result of eating is it is pleasurable. If you eat for pleasure you be come fat.

 

[glendab]

Anyone who has even a rudimentary education knows that governments through the millennia have always had laws in place regarding marriage. Always. So, the “fundamental” question of why is the government involved in the marriage business at all is too flawed to carry water.

Glenda

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Anyone who has even a rudimentary education knows that governments through the millennia have always had laws in place regarding marriage. Always. So, the “fundamental” question of why is the government involved in the marriage business at all is too flawed to carry water.

Glenda

More importantly there are benefits to society from civil marriage beyond producing and raising children. Benefits that are applicable to both straight and gay couples.

1. marriage encourages men to be with one partner from that point forward, limiting the number of lifetime sexual partners. Generally, infidelity puts the man at risk of losing a substantial portion of his net worth and future earnings via divorce. This limits the spread of all STDs in the general population.
2. marriage encourages stability and production. Even though it may seem that married employees take time off to tend to family issues they are more committed to their jobs and generally make better efforts to stay out of trouble because their actions become about something bigger than themselves.

I guess what I don’t fully understand is why can’t we all just agree to separate civil and religious marriage? The Catholic concept of marriage is already much different other Western concepts of marriage.

 

[glendab]

Hello Crow.

Then what about heterosexual couples who cannot produce a child? Should they not be allowed to get married?

No, they shouldn’t be allowed to get “married,” EVER!

Why do some folks expect that since some in our government are in favor of SSM, that the rest of us are simply supposed to acquiesce to their demands and adapt?

Glenda