Are you claiming the same sex unions are a legal fiction?We are not talking about “true” married couples, we are talking about civil married couples.
Correct only opposite sex couples can have children. Same sex unions can not.False. Bisexuals are perfectly capable of producing children, and homosexuals who can nerve themselves to perform with an opposite sex partner can also produce children.
There are only two sexes. It takes one of each to create children. Other types of diversity have nothing to do with reproduction or marriage.You appear to be trying to fit a very diverse group of people into a small rigid idea you have as to how they should behave. Homosexuals are as diverse as heterosexuals.
Indeed. That’s the whole meaning of sexual complementarity, upon which marriage is based. It takes sexual complementarity to engage in conjugal relations–regardless of whether or not children result as a matter of course. That’s why in the Catholic Church, permanent and antecedent impotence is an impediment to marriage, while infertility is not.There are only two sexes. It takes one of each to create children. Other types of diversity have nothing to do with reproduction or marriage.
Some women can become pregnant, other women cannot. What does this have to do with civil marriage? The ability to become pregnant is not a prerequisite for getting married.You’re again addressing not the truth of the fact that only women can become pregnant (men cannot be pregnant) and trying to narrow it into an argument that it’s only about actually BECOMING pregnant.
Again I ask you, who can become pregnant, men or women?
No, I am pointing out that “true” marriage is a lead in to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We are discussing civil marriage in this thread, not a particular poster’s idea of what “true” marriage is.Are you claiming the same sex unions are a legal fiction?
False. Elton John and David Furnish have children. Other same sax couples have children by surrogacy, adoption or from previous heterosexual relationships. We are discussing civil law here, and under civil law those same sex couples all have children.Correct only opposite sex couples can have children.
I just wanted to jump in real quick and say yes, the ability to become pregnant is not necessary for marriage, but the openness to pregnancy and having a child must be apart of a marriage if there is sexual relations involved. This is why a married couple who are both infertile are still committing a sin if they use contraceptive. Seeing how both a man and a man or a women and a women can’t be open to the idea of pregnancy, seeing how it’s biologically impossible, this is a null point.Some women can become pregnant, other women cannot. What does this have to do with civil marriage? The ability to become pregnant is not a prerequisite for getting married.
rossum
He was trying to point out (been trying for some time now) that you argument violated the very notion of truth as English speaking people and Webster no it. I did post webster’s definition in case you want to have a look go back a few posts. Sure enough truth is not relative you will note specifically the mention of a standard. Ya I don’t get better grades in my masters program just because I think I should. Yes it would be grand if I could simply disagree with the marker and think its an A and all of a sudden it is but it does not work that way.Some women can become pregnant, other women cannot. What does this have to do with civil marriage? The ability to become pregnant is not a prerequisite for getting married.
rossum
That is true for Catholic marriage. It is not true for civil marriage. A post menopausal woman, who has no chance of getting pregnant, can get a civil marriage. IIRC she can also get a Catholic marriage. I am not sure if she would be allowed to have sexual relations with her husband; doesn’t the Catholic Church require consummation of the marriage? That would imply that she is allowed to have sexual relations with her husband, despite zero chance of getting pregnant.I just wanted to jump in real quick and say yes, the ability to become pregnant is not necessary for marriage, but the openness to pregnancy and having a child must be apart of a marriage if there is sexual relations involved.
Sin is a religious issue and is not relevant to civil marriage. This thread is about civil marriage.This is why a married couple who are both infertile are still committing a sin if they use contraceptive. Seeing how both a man and a man or a women and a women can’t be open to the idea of pregnancy, seeing how it’s biologically impossible, this is a null point.
We disagree. Any truth you can express is always relative. At the very least is it relative to the language in which it is expressed and to a large number of further assumptions that lie behind the truth.Sure enough truth is not relative you will note specifically the mention of a standard.
Why should Christians / Catholics have to " tolerate " homosexuals who want to marry, why are Christians / Catholics constantly being pressured to having to " tolerate" and/ or be " progressive " to things that are either flat out sins and or go against our teachings ?Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.
To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.
I am talking about civil marriage. The criteria is still male and female.We are not talking about “true” married couples, we are talking about civil married couples. Not all civil married couples are true married couples according to the Church, since civil marriage allows for divorce and remarriage while “true” marriage does not (at least I assume that is part of your definition of “true” marriage).
The ability to be male and female is integral to any marriage civil or not. If not then it is not a marriage.You are skating perilously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We are discussing civil marriage. Civil marriage may or may not be “authentic” depending on the definition of “authentic” that people are using. The ability to have children is not required for civil marriage. Not being previously divorced is not required for civil marriage. Civil marriage is not Catholic marriage.
Those are not homosexual acts.False. Bisexuals are perfectly capable of producing children, and homosexuals who can nerve themselves to perform with an opposite sex partner can also produce children.
You might with to look up the meaning of “lavender marriage” in this context.
Some gay/bi kings of England, such as James I, have fathered children, and there are no doubt other examples among the aristocracy where siring an heir (“an heir and a spare”) was socially very important. Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West are a late example of this.
You appear to be trying to fit a very diverse group of people into a small rigid idea you have as to how they should behave. Homosexuals are as diverse as heterosexuals.
Again only heterosexual acts can produce children. Being pedantic does not change the truth.rossum
Why should Catholics have to tolerate divorced people getting married? Civil marriage is already contrary to the Catholic version in that it allows for divorce and remarriage.Why should Christians / Catholics have to " tolerate " homosexuals who want to marry, why are Christians / Catholics constantly being pressured to having to " tolerate" and/ or be " progressive " to things that are either flat out sins and or go against our teachings ?
No, they do not have children, they did not create them therefore, they are someone else’s children.No, I am pointing out that “true” marriage is a lead in to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We are discussing civil marriage in this thread, not a particular poster’s idea of what “true” marriage is.
False. Elton John and David Furnish have children. Other same sax couples have children by surrogacy, adoption or from previous heterosexual relationships. We are discussing civil law here, and under civil law those same sex couples all have children.
rossum
False. Some places retain the male and female criterion for civil marriage while other places do not.I am talking about civil marriage. The criteria is still male and female.
False. There are legal civil marriages between people of the same sex. Always remember that this thread is about civil marriage. Your definition of an ideal marriage is not relevant to the subject.The ability to be male and female is integral to any marriage civil or not. If not then it is not a marriage.
You are moving the goalposts in a failed attempt to avoid your error. Go back to your post where you made the initial error:Those are not homosexual acts.
Nothing there about “heterosexual acts” or “homosexual acts”. You made an error and are trying to avoid it by moving the goalposts. Better to admit your error and to make a correction.Only heterosexuals can produce children .
That is an abuse of the law. Does not make it a marriage.False. Some places retain the male and female criterion for civil marriage while other places do not.
The State can abuse its authority but that does not make it a marriage.False. There are legal civil marriages between people of the same sex. Always remember that this thread is about civil marriage. Your definition of an ideal marriage is not relevant to the subject.
It is true only heterosexuals can produce children. Two homosexuals can never produce children. Nothing was moved I assumed you could follow a point.You are moving the goalposts in a failed attempt to avoid your error. Go back to your post where you made the initial error:
Nothing there about “heterosexual acts” or “homosexual acts”. You made an error and are trying to avoid it by moving the goalposts. Better to admit your error and to make a correction.
Not an error my friend. Homosexual relations cannot produce children. If you want to play these games I can too.rossum
Homosexual faux marriage supporters have to jump through hoops to try and make a square circle.No, they do not have children, they did not create them therefore, they are someone else’s children.
Adoption is the legal fiction of creating ‘civil‘ parents who are not ‘real‘ parents.
If the government calls a same-sex union marriage, it is creating a legal fiction; creating a ‘civil’ marriage that is not a ‘real’ marriage.
Legal fictions are created as a work around to ‘real’ or ‘civil’ problematic situations. I don’t see the problem being solved by creating the legal fiction of same sex unions as marriage.
That is the point I, and others, have been trying to make. When the “gay” apologists claim no harm will come to society that never mention how children will be indoctrinated into a distorted way of viewing reality.“Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.
“Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of “families” in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual “marriages” as positive role models. “
–Orson Scott Card, Civilization Watch
ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html