Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
And raising children is not a requirement for a marriage license, and yet, you would impose a non-existent requirement on same-sex couples. Forgive me for not understanding why your position more rational than mine.
Click to expand...
If you understand pedophile couples to be married, then I can at least see consistency in your argument. But my argument is ancient, consistent and rational.
spencelo said:
Same-sex couples can and do raise children.
Click to expand...
I said “have” not raise. I’ll assume I don’t need to link where babies come from.
 
Stephen168 said:
If you understand pedophile couples to be married, then I can at least see consistency in your argument. But my argument is ancient, consistent and rational.
Click to expand...
The issue has nothing to do with pedophile couples, and nothing you wrote responds to my reply. You wrote: “Raising children is the purpose. No children, no marriage.” My reply: “And raising children is not a requirement for a marriage license, and yet, you would impose a non-existent requirement on same-sex couples. Forgive me for not understanding why your position more rational than mine.”

Your response above does not interact with my reply in the slightest.
Stephen168 said:
I said “have” not raise. I’ll assume I don’t need to link where babies come from.
Click to expand...
You wrote that “raising children is the purpose” of marriage, and since same-sex couples can raise children, they are capable of fulfilling to purpose of marriage. Therefore, by your standard, same-sex couples ought to be able to marry.
 
spencelo said:
The issue has nothing to do with pedophile couples,
Click to expand...
Oh, yes it does. Pedophile couples and same-sex couples are logically the same: naturally sterile. Naturally sterile couples cannot marry because they cannot raise children. They cannot raise children because they cannot produce children. We know this before the fact. This is the natural state of humanity, before there was ever a state to issue a license. In some locations “common law” couples are still accepted as marriage just as it was 6000 years ago.
Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.
 
Stephen168 said:
Naturally sterile couples cannot marry because they cannot raise children. They cannot raise children because they cannot produce children.
Click to expand...
Once again, there is no a “sterility requirement” for a marriage license, and yet you would impose the non-existent requirement on same-sex couples, which is utterly arbitrary (hence irrational). And same-sex couples CAN raise children.
 
spencelo said:
Once again, there is no a “sterility requirement” for a marriage license, and yet you would impose the non-existent requirement on same-sex couples, which is utterly arbitrary (hence irrational). And same-sex couples CAN raise children.
Click to expand...
Once again, there is no natural requirement to have a license to be married; from the beginning of time to this day. But from the beginning of time to this day, there is a ban on natural sterility. You want the government, the issuer if licenses and regulator of marriages, to create a unicorn; a fiction to make you feel better.

And again, Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.
 
Christopher_S said:
Dear Friends,
I’m an openly gay Brother with Aids. I’ve been celibate for almost 5 years. In 2008 I began the Brothers of Padre Pio. I have been very outspoken in regards to what I call the gay agenda in our church. Here in Los Angeles priest are celebrating masses for Aids. This is wonderful. What I oppose is the priest is using a rainbow gay flag as an altar cover. I find this very disrespectful and I made it known with the Archbishop. Luckly we’re not Cannonically recognized so I have the luxury of speaking out without being silenced by the Bishop. In fact I just withdrew my request from the Pope saying that I don’t beleive God wants us recognized for this very reason. We need Bishops who will defend the church. Sadly most priest and Bishops won’t speak up.
Granted gay people are welcome. But if they are seeking equality why don’t they just blend in with everyone else. Why a flag.
Since becoming a Brother I have opposed gay marriage as well. The gay community says
I betrayed them. Which ever way I go I just can’t please everyone.
Br. Christopher Sale B.P.P.
Click to expand...
Christopher,

If one can change, you are a testament to those that do not believe that in God all things are possible…keep the Faith…🙂
 
spencelo said:
There has never been a requirement that procreation occur after the fact, and the inability to procreate is generally not grounds for annulment (it depends on what the parties agreed to beforehand). Since there is no “procreation requirement” for opposite-sex couples, it is a blatant double standard to impose such a requirement on same-sex couples.
Click to expand...
Spence,

You are not looking at the entire picture…

Marriage is the union of two people that are able to join their reproductive organs with or without the possiblity of procreation…as the intent…whatever else they do is none of my business.

You are proposing union of the Reproductive organ with the commencement or end of the digestive system. In the first instance the commencement of digestion is intended to breakdown and create whatever is introduced for destruction and digestion via enzymes and acids. The end of of the organ is intended for elimination of waste. In either case the Reproductive organ is not being used with intent to digest or in the alternate case is being used contrary for the purpose of excrement or is being used contrary to the flow of waste. Neither are a joining of organs with the intent or in capacity to reproduce.

Ok…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top