What Should We Do If Gay "Marriage" Becomes Legal?

[JimG]

Wrong, proponents of traditional marriage including priests, bishops, etc… state that only a man and woman can procreate. It is one of the church’s first defense.

Well, exactly so, and the pre-requisite to procreation is sexual complementarity and the ability to engage in marital relations. No marital relations, no procreation.

Procreation and family formation flows from marriage and marital intercourse. Not in every instance, not even for every couple. But it is the sexual complementarity that is primary. That can never occur with couples of the same sex: there can never be marital intercourse, consequently there can never be procreation.

The fact that the Church views the ability to have marital intercourse as primary is reflected in the fact that permanent, antecedent, inability to engage in marital intercourse is an impediment to a valid marriage, while infertility is not.

Even in civil marriage, a showing of permanent, antecedent, impotence is grounds for dissolution.

No ability to have marital relations, no marriage.

 

[fix]

Not at all. You have stated that traditional marriage is the true and authentic marriage because only man and woman can conceive.

And are complementary.

My question then is, what about those heterosexuals that cannot conceive?

They are still male and female. They still are ordered toward procreation.

If homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce why should a heterosexual couple that is also incapable of conceiving?

Because they are unequals. Why compare unequal items? They have nothing in common. It is like comparing a married couple to a tree.

 

[fix]

Why do I ask? Because your argument for traditional marriage is that marriage involves a male and female by design for children.

Yes, since the start of time.

So, now you are saying that even if they cannot conceive they should be allowed to marry. What makes the infertile couple any different than a homosexual couple?

Because they are male and female. This is obvious. Why on earth would you comapre them to same sex persons acting as a pair?

Apparently only body parts - which in these two examples are used solely for pleasure, not reproduction.

Apparently not. The complementarity does not stop existing. The body parts are designed normally. All that has happened is an incidental pathology that does not allow conception. The acts are still correctly ordered.

 

[fix]

Gay marriage advocates keep raising the issue of infertility, but it has no bearing on the validity of marriage between man and woman. Man and woman are capable of completing the act of marital intercourse, which is only possible between opposite sex couples, whether or not they are fertile. And note that since not every act of marital intercourse results in conception, most or many acts of marital intercourse may not be fertile. It is a non-issue.

But same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse at all. Thus, marriage is impossible to them.

Yes, and the argument is childish and insulting. There is no reason to compare married people to two men or three men or four women or any other absurd construct. Unequals need to be treated unequally. That is a matter of justice.

 

[demol]

Yes, and the argument is childish and insulting. There is no reason to compare married people to two men or three men or four women or any other absurd construct. Unequals need to be treated unequally. That is a matter of justice.

Glad you weren’t around when slavery was the issue. Or women’s right to vote.

I’ll leave this thread now, and you to your bigotry.

 

[fix]

Glad you weren’t around when slavery was the issue. Or women’s right to vote.

I’ll leave this thread now, and you to your bigotry.

On the contrary. If slavery were the issue you would support it because the government enforces it.

As for bigotry everything is termed bigotry when one is unprincipled.

 

[kozlosap]

On the contrary. If slavery were the issue you would support it because the government enforces it.

As for bigotry everything is termed bigotry when one is unprincipled.

I think this discourse is disintegrating into veiled and not so veiled insults. Any given person is not “unprincipled” just because they don’t happen to agree with you or the stance the Church has taken, especially on current hot button social issues. Thank the Lord that we are all called to develop a well formed and informed conscience.

 

[fix]

I think this discourse is disintegrating into veiled and not so veiled insults. Any given person is not “unprincipled” just because they don’t happen to agree with you or the stance the Church has taken, especially on current hot button social issues. Thank the Lord that we are all called to develop a well formed and informed conscience.

Calling one a bigot for standing with the truth is hardly a principled position unless we are in Alice in Wonderland.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think this discourse is disintegrating into veiled and not so veiled insults. Any given person is not “unprincipled” just because they don’t happen to agree with you or the stance the Church has taken, especially on current hot button social issues. Thank the Lord that we are all called to develop a well formed and informed conscience.

If you call yourself a Catholic, you better stand with the Church, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

 

[kozlosap]

Calling one a bigot for standing with the truth is hardly a principled position unless we are in Alice in Wonderland.

Agreed totally if we were speaking of a concrete proven scientific fact, but in this situation we are not. I certainly don’t believe that in your own personal life you would ever act in a bigoted or prejudiced manner in relationships with gay individuals.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Glad you weren’t around when slavery was the issue. Or women’s right to vote.

I’ll leave this thread now, and you to your bigotry.

In times of universal deceit, speaking the truth becomes revolutionary.

 

[kozlosap]

If you call yourself a Catholic, you better stand with the Church, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Once again, that is your own personal set of rules for deciding who is and isn’t Catholic and worthy to enter. Are you also standing at the door as part of the fashion police? IMHO everyone should be welcome to find the peace and joy of the one Holy Roman Catholic Church. Of course, that is my own set of rules…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Once again, that is your own personal set of rules for deciding who is and isn’t Catholic and worthy to enter. Are you also standing at the door as part of the fashion police? IMHO everyone should be welcome to find the peace and joy of the one Holy Roman Catholic Church. Of course, that is my own set of rules…

Yes it is, you heretic.

 

[Reep]

People who have same sex weddings are still a class of people. In either case refusal of service on those grounds is abhorrent.

"Abhorrent" This gets the award for most-over-the-top use of hyperbole.

Hardly even abhorrent to the aberrant love-birds, who can just take their business elsewhere. In a free country, nobody should be forced to provide a private service for anybody, anywhere, anytime, period.