Not being able to procreate is worse than sterilization, as it is 101% assured there will be no life that stems from that union. So why should the gov subsidize such a union when marriage is not a private relationship, but rather a public declaration and institution for begetting children ?
There are good arguments against paedophilia, though. For example, the damage it does to children. I can’t say the same for public sex, polygamy or bestiality, though. Not that I actually have an issue with polygamy.It’s really all a matter of time. These things have to be introduced into societies by degrees. In Amsterdam, in the Netherlands (the first country to legalize gay marriage), having sex in the open in public parks is now legal and there is a growing movement pushing to legalize pedophilia. I think we can expect to see similar things happening throughout Europe soon and, if we continue on the path we’ve been travelling for the past several decades, we won’t be far behind. Heck, the ACLU has already made several attempts to legalize child pornography.
Those who think gay marriage is an isolated issue are wearing blinders. It is a “wedge strategy” (to borrow some ID terminology) for moral decadence. The more you divorce marriage (and thus sex) from the family, the easier it is to keep lowering the standards. It’s dark days we’re living in.
“Why would they” is beside the point, isn’t it? The fact is, the government DOES marry 80-somethings who are decades past the point where they can conceive children together. As well as couples where the man is permanently impotent. As well as couples where the woman has had a hysterectomy.
I believe the inability to consummate a marriage, such as impotence, is grounds for denying marriage. A hysteroctomy probably isnt grounds, because consummation and unity is still possible, even if life is not (and obviously this isnt the norm for a healthy couple) whereas in a homosexual relationship, neither unity nor life is intrinsically possible.
We pray for deliverance from evil in general, which is inclusive of evil in all its specific forms, including homosexual activity. This does not mean homosexual activity ends, but we believe our prayers are heard.
They can easily tell you that they are on the pill and that they will get an abortion if they get pregnant. So now what’s your moral argument against the state declaring incest to be “marriage”?
If you understand the Faith then you might understand the post. If a Rosary or a Our Father (Lord’s prayer) decreases sin in the mystical body of Christ, then indeed, the practice of Homosexuality may be decreased.
That’s true, and it’s something that only God can measure.
Having sex in public, in a public park with playgrounds no less, isn’t harmful to children who might see it? How is that not child abuse? Polygamy isn’t harmful to the children who have to deal with the inevitable rivalries and divided attention that will arise in a polygamous family structure? Bestiality doesn’t present a distorted image of sexuality that could warp the minds of children? I can’t say that I agree.There are good arguments against paedophilia, though. For example, the damage it does to children. I can’t say the same for public sex, polygamy or bestiality, though. Not that I actually have an issue with polygamy.
But, yeah, possibly. I feel that you guys are making some pretty valid points in this thread. It’s all a little bit exciting, if I’m honest. By the way, you got any sources on this public sex thing?
Ummm…if there is no uterus or testes (having been removed for other reasons) we can know for certain that a heterosexual couple will never conceive and carry a child to term.
So, in other words, the procreative aspect of marriage is no longer a requirement? As long as the couple can consummate and maintain the unitive aspect of it, then this is all that’s required?
Since Catholics have faith in God part of our faith is knowing that God can and has given babies to heterosexual couples who were infertile. Examples of this are Abraham and Sarah and Zechariah and Elizabeth. So with heterosexual couples the only way it’s not possible to have a child is if they are determined to do contraception and have an abortion if the contraception fails.
LOL! Open Source. Good one!
Are you saying that you agree with Catechism of the Catholic Church?
I’m certainly allowed to be - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I was under the impression that Catholics weren’t allowed not to be. So it’s a bit strange to see an affirmed Catholic basically disavowing the one aspect of marriage that supposedly makes marriage marriage.
Yes, of course. A woman without a uterus can have a child.
I don’t want everyone’s answer to this. Just his.Start a Thread and find out.