URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Religious Convictions
  HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 2652--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: July 23, 2015, 3:37 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: CatholicCrusader link ---
       >
       > 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.
       >
       --- End 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
   DIR By: Piper
       Date: July 23, 2015, 3:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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?
       #Post#: 2654--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
   DIR By: Piper
       Date: July 23, 2015, 4:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Kerry link ---
       >
       > The rule seems to be you can marry if you can have ****l
       intercourse; but you can't marry if not.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       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.
       #Post#: 2655--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Gay Marriage
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: July 23, 2015, 5:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Piper link ---
       >
       > 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?
       >
       >
       >
       --- End 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
   DIR By: Piper
       Date: July 23, 2015, 8:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Do they do that (civil unions) in Britain?
       *****************************************************
       Page 5 of 5
   DIR Previous Page