PepeTheFrog wrote:Hey guys, I'm writing a new paper for school about homosexual marriage and need some help. Many of you know things.
First of all, as someone who firmly believe in the Catholic understanding of marriage, I have to shake my head in amazement. Why do you think that homosexuals think of marriage in terms of a covenant?
So let's talk about sex (although not in detail, I think it's not too bad to say it involves fluids ...) a lot of the rules about sex in the old testament are associated with the laws on clean and unclean. These are the same laws that made a woman's period (remember blood is life) really unclean. Needless to say that the elimination of fluids isn't a good thing unless it's a necessary act of having children. Given that any transferal not directly in keeping with the act of procreation is ugly, gross and sinful. (Remember that the one person in the bible who stopped having sexual intercourse before ejaculation was killed by God, although it really was more because he had a duty to his brother to make his brother's former wife pregnant.)
So let's go back for a moment. A whole lot of Christian post "clean/unclean" teaching later we see that the institution of marriage is a "sacrament" instituted by God to allow people to engage in the process of procreation. Now natural procreation involves sex but the purpose of marriage is not "sex" but procreation. Forgetting the cart goes after the horse, a lot of Protestant denominations started advocating contraception which gave the impression that marriage was a "sex" license.
So you have two people who promise to be with each other forever in exchange for the permission to have wonderful sex, even if there is either no chance in hell of it being procreative or drugs or other devices are keeping that chance to near zero.
And there you go. Homosexual marriage is a logical consequence of contraceptive marriage.
Q.E.D.