"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And this is the problem that cannot be admitted. Why not call any two couples a marriage? The US Supreme Court cannot and should not redefine marriage. It is a common good to leave marriage as one unrelated man and one woman. Just because agitators for the destruction of this concept want something else does not benefit what has been established for the common good.
 
JimG said:
If it’s just a matter of legal equality, why limit marriage at all? Let everyone decide for himself what marriage is, no matter the number or sex or age of the persons involved, and the state can bless it.
Click to expand...
Well with regards to age, one has to give full consent. So people below the age of consent are off the table. Other than that, I don’t really have a problem with someone legally marrying multiple spouses or their dog or whatever ridiculous scenario the religious people bring up as an argument against gay marriage. Legal marriage is in place to ensure rights. The definition of what those rights are, or why the are important can certainly evolve over time. This is to be expected as most laws change over time in any culture and society.
 
The destruction of what you think the family is supposed to be, maybe.
 
Well, those who favor sexual relationships with adolescents might argue for a lowering of the age of consent, arguing that even eleven or twelve year olds can validly consent to marriage, so why should they be denied marriage equality? Parents who wish to marry their own children might also present a case.
 
Well let them work to change the laws then, to adjust the age of consent to 12. Good luck with that. Not happening.

If a parent and child want to marry and they child is over the age of consent, I am fine with that.

Note: My idea of legal marriage doesn’t include sexual relations necessarily. I think, as a society, we need stop being so hung up on that. Marriage should be a legal, binding contract between people who wish to share their lives with eachother as family and enjoy legal protection in doing so. That is legal marriage. Religious marriage can address the sexual issues, if it so wishes.

I know I probably just made your head explode. I am a liberal, you have to remember. 😁
 
QwertyGirl said:
Marriage should be a legal, binding contract between people who wish to share their lives with eachother as family and enjoy legal protection in doing so.
Click to expand...
Heck, I know of some hippie communes from the 1970’s who might have liked the idea. They could have been a married family of 50 or 60 people. Strangely enough though, now that they are getting old, most of them have sort of settled down into more traditional family groupings.
 
It seems that transgender marriage might have made same sex marriage superfluous. If two persons of the same sex wanted to marry, it would have been okay as long as one of them identified as the opposite sex.
 
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
JimG:
If it’s just a matter of legal equality, why limit marriage at all? Let everyone decide for himself what marriage is, no matter the number or sex or age of the persons involved, and the state can bless it.
Click to expand...
Other than that, I don’t really have a problem with someone legally marrying multiple spouses or their dog or whatever ridiculous scenario the religious people bring up as an argument against gay marriage. Legal marriage is in place to ensure rights.
Click to expand...
That way, people can make sure that their dog will inherit if there’s no will and they can add their dog to their health insurance so that the vet bills get paid. 😜
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
Next up.

Transgender marriage.
Bisexual marriage.
Click to expand...
Why “next up”? There’s no impediment right now to a transgender person marrying another transgender person or a straight person or a gay person. Nor is there anything right now preventing bisexual people from marrying another bisexual person or a transgender person, etc.

Edit: I see now that someone else already responded to this issue.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
Well, those who favor sexual relationships with adolescents might argue for a lowering of the age of consent, arguing that even eleven or twelve year olds can validly consent to marriage, so why should they be denied marriage equality? Parents who wish to marry their own children might also present a case.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this would surprise you, but the Vatican only recently raised the equal age of consent in the Vatican City to 18. From 12…

‘Vatican City’s equal age of consent is being raised from 12 to 18 following the announcement of an overhaul of the Catholic Church’s criminal code by Pope Francis’. Vatican City raises age of consent from 12 to 18 following scandals

And they will allow girls of 14 to have sex on the understanding that they are married (to a boy at least two years older). Vatican City Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws

And can we bear in mind that you need consent from both parties to enter into lifetime arrangement such as marriage. Your cat or your fluffy toy aren’t going to be able to give it. And it is an arrangement between people who do not have an existing relationship. Such as a father and daughter, siblings or any familial combo you’d like to suggest already have. So a mother wishing to marry her son for example would be as nonsensical as her wanting to adopt him.
 
Last edited:
My Hippie friend (pushing 70) told me, “I got married,” the last time I saw him.
 
QwertyGirl said:
The destruction of what you think the family is supposed to be, maybe.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “think the family is supposed to be”?
I think chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, and I think keyboard is better than mouse.

A family on the other hand, only happens through the union of a man and woman…doesn’t matter what you or I think about it.
You will object that many kids live in difficult and broken homes or may do well with same sex parents.
So this is not to deny other family arrangements can and must work, but when we talk about family per se, it only happens one way. And that is uniquely through the union of a man and woman. Human existence is worth protecting and nurturing, don’t you think?

Thanks for the demonstration.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Well let them work to change the laws then, to adjust the age of consent to 12. Good luck with that. Not happening.

If a parent and child want to marry and they child is over the age of consent, I am fine with that.

Note: My idea of legal marriage doesn’t include sexual relations necessarily. I think, as a society, we need stop being so hung up on that. Marriage should be a legal, binding contract between people who wish to share their lives with eachother as family and enjoy legal protection in doing so. That is legal marriage. Religious marriage can address the sexual issues, if it so wishes.

I know I probably just made your head explode. I am a liberal, you have to remember. 😁
Click to expand...
So any two people. Ok. My brother needs some help and the advantages are certainly there for him to marry us (my wife, him, and I).
Ok cool. Any two or more people.
Or how about I marry myself.
Why not?
No one can tell me I’m only one unique person. I claim two personhoods and I demand our rights. Don’t be a bigot.

Silly examples…but you are calling of these “marriage”. Perhaps you can see the problem.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top