FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: If gay "marriage" is wrong, shouldn't infertile, straight marriage be as well?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is something that I have always thought for a while: If marriage is for the propagation of children, and homosexual relationships cannot produce children, and thus cannot be a marriage, then how can any heterosexual relationship that cannot produce children be a valid marriage?

The common answer I heard, and accepted when Catholic, was "God can miraculously make a barren woman conceive."  But now that I'm back in the driver's seat of my own brain, it got me thinking...  God is omnipotent, right?  That means he can do anything.  So, if God can take a woman who is naturally barren, and make her conceive supernaturally, then he *can* also make a man, who cannot naturally conceive from another man, or woman who cannot naturally conceive from another woman, supernaturally do so.  Just like he can make a donkey talk, fire rain down from heaven, water gush from solid rock or any other number of illogical possibilities.

Don't get me wrong.  I still accept that same-sex relationships are NOT real marriages, and cannot be.  Precisely because they cannot produce children.  But for heterosexual, infertile couples, they too will never produce children if one of the partners is truly, naturally barren.  Their sexual union becomes just as much one of mutual masturbation as any homosexual relationship or unmarried fornicators.  It seems to me, and I recognize that I'm biased, that the justification for infertile marriages is just the same toxic-trad mentality of "straight=great, gay=ewww, gross" now attributed to God himself.  The excuse that God can miraculously make an infertile couple conceive, but wouldn't do so for a homosexual couple, now seems logically moribund.
In principle, an infertile couple could produce children, but in principle, a gay couple can never produce children. Watch this short video:



I liked the subtle middle finger Dr. Keyes gave after the "moderator" mocked his answer @ 40 seconds :)
Marriage also has a unitive purpose.  Only a man and a woman are truly complementary, so the unitive goal of marriage is achieved even by infertile or elderly couples. 

The procreative function does not have to be actualized.  The couple only needs to be open to it.

That said, I think that Our Lord might see many homosexual couples as people doing the best they can given their situations.  I don't, however, think this should be "taught," even as an exception.  In any case, I strongly believe that heterosexual unions are the only true form of sexual union.
I think Keyes' response was just a more eloquent version of what I am arguing against.  Regardless of whether a relationship is principally or incidentally impotent, the reality is it is impotent, and procreation is a necessary component for a valid marriage.  We see this in the invalidity of marriages where one or the other is incapable of consummating the marriage.  In principle they still could, but incidentally they cannot.

The unitive purpose of marriage is spiritual, not physical.  If it is true that souls have no gender, then the unitive principle could just as easily exist between two members of the same sex.
There's more to sex than the legislative aspect of it (this was discussed on the ladies' section of the forum recently).

Also... its a sin!

St. Cathetine of Siena Wrote:But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason, when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin.

(05-20-2015, 10:31 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]There's more to sex than the legislative aspect of it (this was discussed on the ladies' section of the forum recently).

Also... its a sin!

But WHY is it a sin?  Because it cannot produce children.  Or is it because God finds it to be loathsome, i.e., straight=great, gay=eww, gross?
(05-20-2015, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2015, 10:31 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]There's more to sex than the legislative aspect of it (this was discussed on the ladies' section of the forum recently).

Also... its a sin!

But WHY is it a sin?  Because it cannot produce children.  Or is it because God finds it to be loathsome, i.e., straight=great, gay=eww, gross?

Fundamentally, that is what it boils down to. It is a perversion of God's plan and therefore we can rationalize all we want and try and make a human excuse to entertain a perversion. All it means for us is a red-hot poker up our rears for all eternity.

Logically at some point in the course of human life, one man and one woman will be able to copulate and create a life.

Never, in the course of human life can a man and another man (vice versa with woman) sodomize and produce life.
If gay "marriage" is wrong, shouldn't infertile, straight marriage be as well? 

The use of artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin by the Catholic Church. Might I refer you to Humanae Vitae.
(05-20-2015, 10:06 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]So, if God can take a woman who is naturally barren, and make her conceive supernaturally, then he *can* also make a man, who cannot naturally conceive from another man, or woman who cannot naturally conceive from another woman, supernaturally do so.

He has made barren women conceive.  He has never made a lesbian or gay couple conceive.  That should tell you something.
I think it's simpler than that. God made man and woman for each other, it is the intention of His creation. Obviously, the end was procreation, a continuation of God's creation, and homosexuality is a perversion of that, because it goes against the nature that God gave us.

I'd like to point out that sodomy not only dos not produce life, it actually endangers life, by the risk of various diseases that can be caused by it. This is also true of any heterosexual promiscuity. With the AIDS epidemic, we saw a direct link between sexual deviance and death.

As far as God making barren couples conceive, He even made a virgin conceive to bring us Jesus! Yeah, I suppose that is a bit weird and unnatural, but it was God's will.  :LOL:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10