MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Anima]

Ha ha.  I really do not think you want to make an appeal to anthropology and biology.  Anthropologically speaking marriage is for determination of the legitimate heir.  As such it should be barred from homosexuals and all person not intending to have children.  

Couples who enter marriage knowing one party is incapable of reproduction are clearly not entering into marriage with the intention of fostering a legitimate heir and yet are not barred from the institute of matrimony. Indeed, according to the Catholic tradition it's a heresy to suggest they can't due to "natural law" and the Pauline provisions for those not capable of being "Eunuchs for the sake of heaven" and whom "burn".

Catholic Matrimony is already open to those not capable of procreation whereas for some Christians it is not.

Very nice. However, my original post was stating anthropologically speaking the purpose of marriage was to determine the legitimate heir (particularly of the wealthy). This is exhibited throughout societies the world over throughout the entire span of recorded human history.

But we may digress down the Catholic line if you want. The fundamental teaching of the church is really two fold. First marriage is the means by which the two natures of mankind (that is to say male and female) are united with god in complete realization of the human creature. Second, the ultimate purpose of this union of the dual natures with god in complete realization is manifested in the procreation and conception of new life. People are commonly aware of the second part of the teaching where Catholics say marriage is for the procreation of children. It is under the first part of the teaching (which leads to the second) that the church permits the marriage of persons who are incapable of having offspring under the argument the fullest realization of the natures given the conditional limitations are to be achieved to the degree possible. So one may still marry if they cannot have offspring, but one should have offspring and marry if they may do both.

However, you would be mistaken in thinking the first is the prominent focus of the church. You state how if the parties knowingly marry where one is incapable of having offspring. In this regard you are correct as the parties knowing the condition chose to accept the condition. In the event parties unknowingly marry one incapable of having offspring (or one in such a condition that having offspring would represent a danger to them, such as a spouse infected with AIDS, Herpes, and so on) the church will grant an annulment to said marriage so that the capable party may seek the fullest fulfillment of the union between man, woman, and god.

Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right.  I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically.  Since we readily recognize we are not to allow the virus to be at the expense of human lives we may readily recognize that not all biological conditions are of equal valuation and to be promoted or encouraged.  As such we must identify that which serves the teleological biological end and say that is to be encouraged and that which is in opposition to the end is to be prohibited.  In this case hetero does serve that end and homo is in opposition to that end.

You've entered into heresy again, Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors makes it quite clear rights are an objective reality when he declared that everyone has the right to the practice of Catholicism, including but not limited to access to matrimony. This is why since homosexuals have been barred from the priesthood and most religious orders the Courage apostolate has increasingly encouraged them to enter into heterosexual marriages.

The arguments concerning biological teleological ends are nothing short of feeble. It is the teleological end for my hair to grow, but the bible and earlier papal decrees order me as a male to keep it short. It is the teleological end in your logic for humans to reproduce, and yet the highest possible calling unto which all are encouraged is the celibate religious life in your faith.

Again we were arguing in terms of biology not theology. Digressing down the Catholic line we may first state the comments of Pius IX (1846-1878) was not considering homosexual marriage in his writing. It may further be said marriage is a sacrament (one of seven) to which Catholics may engage. Catholics are encouraged to engage in all the sacraments they can but may not engage in every sacrament which they are not in proper standing for (a sacrament is further rendered void if the parties engage in said sacrament with the wrong intention). In order to engage in the sacrament of marriage there must be two person of opposite gender intending to form a union between one another and god to the fullest realization of the human being. To engage in the sacrament of ordination the person must be educated in the faith and willing to serve as guide of those in the faith through service and fidelity to the Church, to engage in the sacrament of the sick one must (hold on to your hat) be sick.

In regards to the teleological argument of biology I think you should read some more. First off the teleological end of your hair is not to grow. That is the immediate end of your hair. The teleological end would be the purpose hair was to fill by its design (and that is not growing to grow). The Catholic church holds the sacrament of marriage on equal level with the sacrament of ordination. Both are callings leading persons to the fullest communion and realization of the human person with god. So it may be said the highest possible calling of the catholic church is one of marital union and offspring or religious devotion and celibacy. Take your pick.