Redefining Marriage

[Guest lundercovera]

it's irrelevent whether or not it's biological. the fact is that a secular government's role in uniting two ppl is for the good of society, providing support to two ppl so they have a better chance of raising an upstanding citizen. ppl who adopt get the same type of support without the need to recognize any sort of relationship.

it's biological for me, that doesn't mean that the government should provide marriage to me. because such a marriage would not produce new citizens for society, so why must society give that relationship marital priveledges?

I will have to ask you on your premises what harm homosexual relationships incur.

for one, it'd give ppl like me just one more straw on the back, one more lil temptation to not disbelieve Christ, but to just reject him and go find a man and get married. what harm would it incur? the line would be drawn in a whole new spot, the first step down the 'slippery slope' the question isnt what harm it would incur, but what benefit would it be? it would not support the raising of new citizens, which is basically the only authority the state has to join two ppl together. there is no other reason you could give the state authority to join two ppl together without violating the seperation of church and state.

[Aloysius]

check the reference section

Same-Sex Marriages

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/marrcomp.htm

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0064.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0045.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0070.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0041.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0038.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0063.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0066.html

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/darling.html

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/index.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/HOMARRIA.TXT

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homo...ity/ho0013.html

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=496

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5292

[PatrickRitaMichael]

1. marriage is a sacrament, something belonging to the church. the state can recognize or not recognize whatever it wants to and it doesn't mean anything.

2. it says that a man physically incapable of getting an erection can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't.

1. i agree. although i think an invalid marriage is better than no marriage at all.

2. is that true?

[Laudate_Dominum]

1. i agree. although i think an invalid marriage is better than no marriage at all.

2. is that true?

1. marriage is a sacrament, something belonging to the church. the state can recognize or not recognize whatever it wants to and it doesn't mean anything.

2. it says that a man physically incapable of getting an erection can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Church, true. But that doesn't mean that civil marriage is whatever the state wants it to be. Civil law is based upon natural law, and according to natural law marriage has a specific nature. And we should vehemently oppose same-sex marriage because of the threat it poses to our culture and our world. We should know better and should speak out against it.

And I've heard that a couple incapable of having sex cannot get married in the Church (although an indult is conceivable). This makes sense since the marriage covenant is consummated in conjugal union. The covenant is not ratified apart from this act and so the Church could not bless something that would not be valid. It would be like trying to use raisin bread and brandy for the Mass, it's invalid matter. Also the correct understanding of marriage is not based on individualism but is based on community and family. The vocation of marriage is a vocation to be fruitful and multiply, to raise up saints for the Church and the world and to be sanctified through spousal love and family life.