(March 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...and if the point of marriage was to have children, you'd have a point. The point of marriage is not to have children though; people have children without getting married, and some married people go their entire lives without having children. The whole "procreative" argument is on dodgy ground from the start.

Well, one definition of marriage is precisely that..

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."Catechism of the Catholic Church

Marriage began way before then, so try again.

(March 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...and if the point of marriage was to have children, you'd have a point. The point of marriage is not to have children though; people have children without getting married, and some married people go their entire lives without having children. The whole "procreative" argument is on dodgy ground from the start.

Well, one definition of marriage is precisely that..

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."Catechism of the Catholic Church

That definition was made 400 years ago. Times have moved on since then.

Its just one fallacious appeal to tradition after another with him.

Odd that you aren't against the redefinition of marriage in 1601 to what you just quoted. As summer pointed out, there are earlier definitions. So it looks like the church redefined "traditional" marriage over 400 years ago, and yet you are complaining about it being done today?

Yeah, because it's not a Christian redefinition.

(March 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The difference here is that divorcees don't have an anti-church agenda, its just an unfortunate circumstance that their marriage has broken down.

Homosexuals do not have a anti-church agenda. Its a sexuality not a religious perspective FFS. It only seems that way because you want to force them into an inferior position to Heterosexuals.

Why is it even necessary to point that out....

The point is, you have been able to refuse to marry people for even more stupid reasons.. forever.. nothing changes.

Quote:they have the same legal rights but marriage is next on the agenda...

Except have the ceremony in accordance with their own religion. If they are part of a religion that hates homosexuals.. then they aren't just homosexuals, they're masochists.

(March 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Have you any proof that marriage equality groups have an anti-church agenda?

I've spoken directly to gay campaigners that have stated that their intention is to gain a ruling from the European court of Human rights in Strasbourg that the Catholic Church is in violation of human rights be refusing same sex couples to be married. They know the Church will not change but the publicity would be huge.

Right, so no actual proof, just your word over theirs. *sigh*

(March 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I've spoken directly to gay campaigners that have stated that their intention is to gain a ruling from the European court of Human rights in Strasbourg that the Catholic Church is in violation of human rights be refusing same sex couples to be married. They know the Church will not change but the publicity would be huge.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Been waiting ages to pull that phrase out