DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Religious Convictions
  HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 2652--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
       By: Kerry Date: July 23, 2015, 3:37 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=285.msg2649#msg2649
       date=1437683511]
       Kerry - ALL married couples are asked to be open to life, if it
       comes, or if it doesn't come, either way naturally, and not
       artificially alter God's life-giving plan.  I can promise you
       with 110% certainty that the Catechism and the Church in no way
       is against older people getting married.
       [/quote]The rule seems to be you can marry if you can have
       vaginal intercourse; but you can't marry if not.
       #Post#: 2653--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
       By: Piper Date: July 23, 2015, 3:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [font=trebuchet ms]What Kerry proposes, if I understand, would
       seem to keep (religious) marriage in a sacred class of its own
       by being "open to life."
       All other unions would be civil unions.  A second marriage
       between those of faith would then allow them to live together in
       companionship, while not interfering with the sacred
       open-to-life first marriage.
       Does that make sense?
       [/font]
       #Post#: 2654--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
       By: Piper Date: July 23, 2015, 4:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kerry link=topic=285.msg2652#msg2652
       date=1437683862]
       The rule seems to be you can marry if you can have ****l
       intercourse; but you can't marry if not.
       [/quote]
       [font=trebuchet ms]Well, that raises the question of to what age
       can people still . . . you know . . . umm, yeah, no, never mind.
       I've really no idea.
       But certainly to the very elderly, marriage is primarily for
       companionship.
       Does the Catholic Church perform 2nd marriages for the elderly
       who have both lost their original partners, even though the
       marriage would in no way 'be open to life'?
       Forever is forever, so a civil union would make more sense, I
       think, for the 2nd marriage.
       Or is it that sexual intercourse within a marriage must be open
       to life-- not the marriage itself, per se?
       This is probably why women should remain silent on Christian
       forums, haha. :D. Am I being stupid?  Entirely possible.[/font]
       #Post#: 2655--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
       By: Kerry Date: July 23, 2015, 5:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Piper link=topic=285.msg2653#msg2653
       date=1437684378]
       [font=trebuchet ms]What Kerry proposes, if I understand, would
       seem to keep (religious) marriage in a sacred class of its own
       by being "open to life."
       All other unions would be civil unions.  A second marriage
       between those of faith would then allow them to live together in
       companionship, while not interfering with the sacred
       open-to-life first marriage.
       Does that make sense?
       [/font]
       [/quote]Yes,  that's it.  I think the government should get out
       of telling us who's married.   The state should deal with the
       secular side of things --  civil unions for people who want
       them.   I also don't think civil unions should mean there's
       romance or sex going on.    Say some young man moves in with his
       grandmother to take care of her.   They agree to be responsible
       for each other.  He takes care of her -- saving taxpayers money.
       Why shouldn't he be able to inherit her house without paying
       inheritance taxes?
       Or two maiden aunts who adopt their orphaned nephews and nieces.
       Why shouldn't they get tax benefits the way married couples
       do?    Why can't they have a civil union that could benefit them
       and the children?   Why does everything have to be about sex?
       #Post#: 2656--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
       By: Piper Date: July 23, 2015, 8:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [font=trebuchet ms]Do they do that (civil unions) in
       Britain?[/font]
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page