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

[Fauken]

(cont.)
If you don’t mind my asking, what credentials do you have to back any objections you might have to Dr. Edward Peters’ remarks?

Further, as far as I know ( @pnewton ) the Magisterium does not require them always and everywhere to separate if they decide it best not to abstain from sex). Of course they may not receive Communion (though Francis sees exceptions even on this point for certain cases).

If Pope Francis wants to write exceptions into the canon, then he may do so as its supreme legislator. But he hasn’t. Canon 915 stands. I’ll let @pnewton back his own assertions.

Clearly there is a big fly in your lay theology above. When you solve it perhaps we can take your personal views further.

Speaking of flies! I meant to ask you about something you wrote earlier:

procreation as the single primary purpose of marriage

When and where was this officially taught? I don’t believe this has ever been a doctrine. Otherwise, that would put Josephite marriages and infertile couples in a pickle. But both can be valid and licit marriages.

 

[Fauken]

Until you address the contradictory example I provided there is little more traction if you keep asserting moral principles and quotes you dont really understand.

That I don’t understand? I’m not the one on Catholic forum insisting the Church will believe in the impossible. I’ve demonstrated to you using a Magisterial document and several quotes from the Catechism that support the notion that SSM cannot and will never be supported by the Church. Ignore my quotes, dance around my questions, make strawmen of what I said, belittle my intelligence all you like, it cannot be denied. Even if I were to say anything, you’d dismiss it as my “excessive personal assertions” based on my lack of theological training and own “lay theology”.

Its a pointless game.

I’ll agree with you on that. You can keep your theology. I’ll be muting this thread since discussion is pointless.

 

[pnewton]

Clearly there is a big fly in your lay theology above. When you solve it perhaps we can take your personal views further.

No thank you. You engage too personally, make assumptions about others and use ad hominem, twice in this one post.

 

[Dakota111]

When you address my concrete example I will continue discussion. If not then God bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Procreative sex is no longer seen as the primary (ie sufficient) purpose of marriage.

Huh what?

Even the old school Baltimore Catechism didn’t say that. It said:

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson26.htm

Marriage has always been about more than just procreating kids.

Please don’t propagate misinformation on the forum, especially when you talk to non-Catholics.

 

[Bradskii]

Dakota111:

Procreative sex is no longer seen as the primary (ie sufficient) purpose of marriage.

Huh what?

Even the old school Baltimore Catechism didn’t say that. It said:

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

~Baltimore Catechism #3 : Lesson 26~

Marriage has always been about more than just procreating kids.

Please don’t propagate misinformation on the forum, especially when you talk to non-Catholics.

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;

If you can’t have procreative sex then the Church will actually forbid you permision to marry. If having children can’t be classed as a primary reason for marriage then why forbid it to those who can’t even run through the motions?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It said “Toward the good of the spouses” first, before it even got to the procreation part.

The Catholic Church routinely marries people for whom any procreation would only take place by a miracle; for example, women who have had medical hysterectomies but can still have intercourse, or people who are way past childbearing age.

There have also been examples throughout history of saints in Josephite (celibate) marriages.

Being open to children is required for marriage. Children are also important. But they are not the primary reason for people to get married in the view of the Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you can’t have procreative sex then the Church will actually forbid you permision to marry.

This is wrong. You need to be able to have sexual intercourse in order to marry.

You do NOT need to be able to have “procreative sex”. Sterility is not a barrier to marriage.

Why The Church Cannot Marry the Impotent | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If you can’t have procreative sex then the Church will actually forbid you permision to marry.

This is wrong. You need to be able to have sexual intercourse in order to marry.

You do NOT need to be able to have “procreative sex”. Sterility is not a barrier to marriage.

Why The Church Cannot Marry the Impotent | Catholic Answers

My bad…I worded it badly (but did note that those who could not ‘run through the motions’ were banned to emphasise the physical aspect of the act). But surely it can be seen that child bearing is equally as important as the ‘good of the spouses’. The catechism says ‘the good of the spouses and the procreation etc’. You cannot have the one without the other. Equally important, surely.

And as you say, sterility is not a barrier (even to the extent of a hysterectomy having been performed) because one is till open to procreation, allowing for a possible miracle. So if you definitely cannot have children, you definitely cannot be married.

To then say that it is not one of the primary reasons for marriage is somewhat disingenuous. The inability to have sex (and procreate) is one of the primary reasons for not allowing a marriage.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Now you’ve changed the statement by saying it’s “ONE” of the primary reasons for marriage. It’s definitely ONE of several reasons for marriage, as shown by the sources. (You also worked “and procreate” back in there which is, like I already explained, incorrect.)

This whole discussion started because the other poster earlier in the thread was claiming that the Catholic Church taught that procreation was THE primary or sufficient purpose of marriage. This is incorrect. There are several other purposes, as described above, and this is not some new view of the Church, it’s been taught for a long time.

You can say that the Church teaches that having children is ONE of the primary purposes of marriage. That’s true.

You can say that inability to have intercourse (NOT the inability to “procreate”) is a reason for the Church NOT allowing a marriage. That’s true.

You cannot say that the inability to PROCREATE, as long as you can still have intercourse, is a reason for the Church NOT allowing a marriage. The Church does not check on whether you’re able to procreate. You just need to be able to physically have vaginal intercourse. Period.

 

[Dakota111]

Procreative sex is no longer seen as the primary (ie sufficient) purpose of marriage.
Huh what?

What is your difficulty exactly?

You appear to have just agreed with me when you said…

Being open to children is required for marriage. Children are also important. But they are not the primary reason for people to get married in the view of the Church.

It is commonly known the Church used to teach the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. It’s secondary end mutual help. This is no longer true. Both ends are now seen as at least equally important and if anything “mutual help” may even take precedence as Josephite marriages suggest.

I cannot understand your concerns, why do you believe I have said anything more or less than this?

What does “procreative sex” mean to you in the context of gay marriage versus hetero marriage?
It means heterosexual sex as opposed to sex that isnt really coitus at all. IE I meant acts in themselves apt for the generation of offspring.

Did you think I was only talking of sex that was fecund? If so then you will have understood none of my views on this thread!

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Why is the ability to have intercourse important if there is no possibility of procreation?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve explained the problem with your position in several posts including my last one to Bradskii.

I think I’ve sufficiently clarified the issue, which is the only one I came on here to address.

I disagree with your position about “it is commonly known the Church used to teach…” as you have not cited any source while I have cited and quoted the Baltimore Catechism, which is usually what’s relied on when people make “The Church used to teach” arguments. Unless you have a source for all this “commonly known the Church used to teach” then you’re basically posting your personal opinion here and attributing it to the Church. I posted in order to correct this and show what the Church ACTUALLY 'used to teach" not this “common knowledge” (based on your opinion) stuff.

Having made my point, and posted the correct information for anybody who is actually interested in knowing it, I will be leaving this thread. Have a nice day.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Why is the ability to have intercourse important if there is no possibility of procreation?

The Church takes the position that if God wants to allow otherwise barren/ sterile people to have children, then God can do so, as he has done several times in Scripture.

However, the Church also takes the position that the ability to have vaginal intercourse is what sets marriage apart from other loving partnerships like friends, siblings, parent-child etc. Trent Horn in the link I posted goes into this in detail and addresses it much better than I can, so please read that if you’re interested.

 

[goout]

goout:

QwertyGirl:

goout:

Is that of value or is it just another thing equal to other things?

Of course it is of value. I never said it wasn’t. It is different. Two things can be different and still be of equal value.

Equal treatment under the law does not make two different things the same, and when you claim they are the same, you detract from the value of the thing.
And that’s the elephant in the room: the claim that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage.

If someone doesn’t want to call the legal union of a same-sex couple “marriage,” then they don’t have to. But that doesn’t mean that society should not be able to extend all the legal protections and benefits of heterosexual marriage to other kinds of unions that are unique in their own right.

Ok cool.
I want my 8 mil for being a 7 foot tall pro basketball player. I am that.
I am equal. Unique but equal as you say.
Don’t be a bigot, I deserve the same benefits.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

This example is pretty silly and I don’t think you’re going to be able to connect and communicate with people if you don’t understand the problem they are attempting to solve. Hospital visitation rights for a couple who have been dedicated to each other for 30 years is not the same kind of ask as 8 million dollars a year for pretending you are seven feet tall.

 

[Bradskii]

Now you’ve changed the statement by saying it’s “ONE” of the primary reasons for marriage. It’s definitely ONE of several reasons for marriage, as shown by the sources. (You also worked “and procreate” back in there which is, like I already explained, incorrect.)

If you check back on my posts, I have never said it is the sole primary reason but one of the primary reasons. In fact, one of only two according to the catechism.

And the use of the term ‘procreate’ is justified in the sense in which I used it. As in the inability to have sex (and thence procreate)…

Incidentally, as far as I am concerned, the chance of two women having sex and conceiving is about the same as a man having sex with a woman who has had a hysterectomy and conceiving. Why one could be considered a possible miracle and the other not is beyond me.

 

[goout]

Why is the ability to have intercourse important if there is no possibility of procreation?

Because human beings are a unity of body and soul.
We are a body, and we are a soul, inseparably.

And our bodies speak a language. Not like words, but a communicative property nonetheless. Does that make sense?
When you look at a person, the physical presence of the person speaks to you. It relays information about the person. Each of us speaks to each other in a reciprocal manner. Right?
For instance, if no other persons existed, you would have no frame of reference for your own humanity. Genesis expresses this reality beautifully when the one observes the other and says “finally…bone of my bone” etc…The presence of one communicates and gives full meaning to the other. I only know who I am in relation to others.

Sexuality is an integral part of this communication of the self. Sexuality uniquely expresses an attribute and faculty of a human being. And so being fully human means to communicate and employ the physical self in a well ordered way. (this very thing informs all of social justice…human beings objectively have a stomach and need food. We don’t neglect hungry human beings by saying “oh well, he is almost dead anyway”. Same logic applies to your question).

Proper communication through the body properly orders one’s life. Results are another matter. My wife and I can’t conceive either. But the act is ordered to and respects the way human beings are made. By analogy, buttering my toast with a hammer might get the butter spread somehow, but it’s a misuse of the thing. The very misuse of the thing is a deception. The misuse of a thing lies about it’s purpose, it’s meaning, it’s very existence. (Remember, we said the body speaks a language?)

Sexuality is not just about results. That’s utilitarianism, and the Church is not about the utility of human beings, but about being fully human, being well ordered, living in honest reciprocal relationship with others.

If it were about results, then a couple should conceive with every act of intercourse, and of course we know that doesn’t happen.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ok cool.
I want my 8 mil for being a 7 foot tall pro basketball player. I am that.
I am equal. Unique but equal as you say.
Don’t be a bigot, I deserve the same benefits.

Marriage wasn’t extended to same-sex couples because one day a few people said that it should be. It took decades of work and activism by gay men and lesbians to convince their fellow citizens that they deserved the right to marry. By the time the Supreme Court made its ruling, more than half of Americans supported it. So, if you think that people like you deserve to get paid the same as pro basketball players, you’re perfectly free to convince the country of this.

 

[JimG]

No doubt there are some Catholic theologians who will continue to advocate for some sort of magisterial recognition for same sex unions. But that will not happen because the teaching cannot change. The only thing the dissidents could accomplish would be a schism.