Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ethan88 said:
This thread has become a joke, when people like Peter Plato start trolling, then what’s the point? At that point it’s not a discussion, but an argument with a high schooler.
Click to expand...
This is disrespectful, Ethan. I will give you several minutes to retract before I report this post.
 
Sky_River said:
Marriage and sexuality are obviously connected to each other. If that was the case, then there would be no controversy about marriage between two people that are of the same gender, and that controversy only exists because Christians know that homosexuality is a sin, so if two men or two women marrying each other didn’t involve sexuality (as opposed to a platonic relationship between two persons that are of the same sex/gender)
Click to expand...
That’s a confusing post, but I think I know what you mean.

Catholics don’t want people of the same sex getting married because they don’t want people getting married who are not going to have procreative sex. So that would include same sex couples (and people who can’t have sex or don’t want to or who aren’t interested in having children).

So for a Catholic, marriage means making babies. No making babies, no marriage. For the rest of us, whilst having children certainly (but not exclusively) occurs within marriage, it is very rarely the reason we get married. Generally it’s because we want to spend the rest of our lives together in a loving an intimate relationship.

And yes, Catholics think that homosexuality is a sin. They think contraception is a sin as well, but most ignore that. And most ignore the homosexuality thing as well. That’s why more places are allowing same sex marriages.

Oh, and Catholics insist on a marriage between a man and a woman as well, so even if a same sex couple were not going to have sex, they’d oppose it.
 
Ethan88 said:
This thread has become a joke, when people like Peter Plato start trolling, then what’s the point? At that point it’s not a discussion, but an argument with a high schooler.
Click to expand...
Its seem you are easily confused, which makes it difficult for you to answer questions and -]defend your position./-]you don’t have a position
Stephen168 said:
You didn’t answer the question either: Do you have an alternate definition that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Hey. You don’t get to censor what others find important to the discussion. That’s above your pay grade.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I’ll get back in my box.
Sky_River said:
What do U mean by "marriage/sexuality has to be ordered towards procreation, and that that is a quite important distinction??? I dont geddit…
Click to expand...
PR means that you have to make the attempt to have kids, even if you can’t. So if you’re impotent, you can’t actually have children, but the church says that you have to give it your best shot.

But…on the other hand, if you’re too old to have sex, or you’ve had your cojones blown off, then the deal is off. No marriage. Always struck me as a little weird. How do you see it, Sky?
 
Bradski said:
So if you’re impotent, you can’t actually have children, but the church says that you have to give it your best shot.
Click to expand...
You do know, Bradski, that the Church does not allow the impotent to marry, right?
But…on the other hand, if you’re too old to have sex,
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? If you’re impotent? Or is there aspecific age that you think the Church denies marriage to a man/worman?
or you’ve had your cojones blown off, then the deal is off. No marriage. Always struck me as a little weird. How do you see it, Sky?
Click to expand...
Not weird. Consistent.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Do you think everything is always all-or-nothing, FD?
The world and the people in it don’t work that way.

Sometimes, a rule needs to be tweaked.
To use the Catholic Church as an example: Girls are now allowed to be altar servers.
Does that mean it should now be a church “gone mad” and women must be priests and there should be a female pope?

Notsomuch.
Out of fairness, the church made a change in the altar server area…but kept those other rules intact that still made sense and seemed good to and for the church.
Click to expand...
The girl altar servers is what led people to believe that the Church should go farther and have women priests. Give people an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Sure the Church won’t change, but that doesn’t stop the feminist fanatics from constantly protesting and calling us all bigots.
 
PRmerger said:
You do know, Bradski, that the Church does not allow the impotent to marry, right?
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry. I am in error. I meant sterile.

As I understand it, if you can have sex, even if there’s zero chance of having a baby, the church turns a blind eye. 'Cos you never know, miracles do happen.

Or so I’ve read.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, sorry. I am in error. I meant sterile.

As I understand it, if you can have sex, even if there’s zero chance of having a baby, the church turns a blind eye. 'Cos you never know, miracles do happen.

Or so I’ve read.
Click to expand...
Tell me if you think this is a fair analogy. I think you’ve been a poster of integrity in the past, so I anticipate your honest response (that is, you’ll say: "Ok. It does make sense, PR. The analogy limns that the CC’s position is consistent.;))

(Analogy borrowed from Bad Catholic)

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

Does this limn for you better how the Church does not forbid marriage between 2 senior citizens while she does for homosexual unions?
 
Bradski said:
Too right. They’ll be wanting the vote next.
Click to expand...
I know that as an an atheist you don’t believe that the Church was founded by God and led by the Holy Spirit, but we know that it is.
 
PRmerger said:
Tell me if you think this is a fair analogy. I think you’ve been a poster of integrity in the past, so I anticipate your honest response (that is, you’ll say: "Ok. It does make sense, PR. The analogy limns that the CC’s position is consistent.;))

(Analogy borrowed from Bad Catholic)

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

Does this limn for you better how the Church does not forbid marriage between 2 senior citizens while she does for homosexual unions?
Click to expand...
The problem with this analogy is it doesn’t explain why the church would forbid a marriage between adults and post-pubescent children/teenagers, or marriages between men and multiple women.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, sorry. I am in error. I meant sterile.

As I understand it, if you can have sex, even if there’s zero chance of having a baby, the church turns a blind eye. 'Cos you never know, miracles do happen.

Or so I’ve read.
Click to expand...
Yes, miracles do happen. If we didn’t believe this there would be no point to having a Church. I don’t know why you are trying to convince us to deny our faith.
 
Bradski said:
That’s a confusing post, but I think I know what you mean.

Catholics don’t want people of the same sex getting married because they don’t want people getting married who are not going to have procreative sex. So that would include same sex couples (and people who can’t have sex or don’t want to or who aren’t interested in having children).

So for a Catholic, marriage means making babies. No making babies, no marriage. For the rest of us, whilst having children certainly (but not exclusively) occurs within marriage, it is very rarely the reason we get married. Generally it’s because we want to spend the rest of our lives together in a loving an intimate relationship.

And yes, Catholics think that homosexuality is a sin. They think contraception is a sin as well, but most ignore that. And most ignore the homosexuality thing as well. That’s why more places are allowing same sex marriages.

Oh, and Catholics insist on a marriage between a man and a woman as well, so even if a same sex couple were not going to have sex, they’d oppose it.
Click to expand...
so, according to the catholic definition, the definition of marriage includes procreation (which basically means to make more babies and human beings), and, that, by its very definition and its very nature, it involves sexuality, which is the natural biological process that creates life.

I never once defended homosexuality. Why R u acting like i did??? From a non-catholic POV (a point of view), does the definition of marriage always involve and include sexuality elements???

is marriage doesn’t by definition always involve all of the sexual elements, then two men or two women marrying each other as an act of friendship, in my opinion, from my POV (my point of view)…
 
Sky_River said:
so, according to the catholic definition, the definition of marriage includes procreation (which basically means to make more babies and human beings), and, that, by its very definition and its very nature, it involves sexuality, which is the natural biological process that creates life.
Click to expand...
So why are you against polygamy? Or adults procreating with teenagers?
 
Ethan88 said:
The problem with this analogy is it doesn’t explain why the church would forbid a marriage between adults and post-pubescent children/teenagers, or marriages between men and multiple women.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And it doesn’t explain
  • why the Church forbids receiving the Eucharist with sin on one’s soul
  • why the Church forbids taking God’s name in vain
  • why the Church forbids sex before marriage
  • why the Church forbids Catholics from marrying in front of a JP
🤷

It’s an analogy, Ethan. Analogies, prima facie, are there to explain one particular element of an argument. Not all argument.
 
Ethan88 said:
The problem with this analogy is it doesn’t explain why the church would forbid a marriage between adults and post-pubescent children/teenagers, or marriages between men and multiple women.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
No, he said marriage has to do with creating children. Sex and reproduction are related but not the same thing. It is possible to have sex and not reproduce (about a third of the time if my memory is correct.) He also said it started with the first humans, if we know where that is then we would know “where marriage originated.” A man and his pet donkey cannot reproduce, neither can two humans of the same sex, so neither of them would be marriage. Yes marriage with multiples wives would still satisfy that definition of marriage.

You didn’t answer the question either: Do you have an alternate definition that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
It’s an analogy, Ethan. Analogies, prima facie, are there to explain one particular element of an argument. Not all argument.
Click to expand...
Analogies can be challenged however, if their premise dissuades consistency. So if I say that there should be black and white drinking fountains, and then use an analogy such as “It’s like a washroom, where one is for men and the other is for women”, you have every right to challenge that analogy and use it against me for my main argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top