Catholic Online Forum

(CNSNews.com) – Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, said that same-sex “marriage” is so contrary to nature that legalizing it would be like “legalizing male breastfeeding.”

In a Jan. 28 interview with Mary O’Regan for the Catholic Herald in England, Archbishop Cordileone cautioned against using the term “gay marriage” because it is a natural impossibility, and to keep using those words only perpetuates a charade. He likened the impossibility of same-sex marriage to another biological impossibility: “Legislating for the right for people of the same sex to marry is like legalizing male breastfeeding.”

He also said, “Truth is clear. Wanting children to be connected to a mother and father discriminates against no one. Every child has a father and a mother, and either you support the only institution that connects a child with their father and mother or you don’t.”

With respect, I think the analogy a bad one. It relies on a physical impossibility rather than a logical one. A better analogy would be that legislating for same sex "marriage" is like legislating for four-sided "triangles".

Grace,

With respect, I think the analogy a bad one. It relies on a physical impossibility rather than a logical one. A better analogy would be that legislating for same sex "marriage" is like legislating for four-sided "triangles".

Now, on perhaps a pedantic point, "legalising" is not the word. It suggests that same sex "marriage" is at present a crime and that there are those who wish to change that. (Think of cannabis.) That is not the case. Same sex "marriage" is not provided for in law and is not legally recognised. The position is, again, closer to four-sided "triangles" than cannabis.

Grace,

With respect, I think the analogy a bad one. It relies on a physical impossibility rather than a logical one. A better analogy would be that legislating for same sex "marriage" is like legislating for four-sided "triangles".

Now, on perhaps a pedantic point, "legalising" is not the word. It suggests that same sex "marriage" is at present a crime and that there are those who wish to change that. (Think of cannabis.) That is not the case. Same sex "marriage" is not provided for in law and is not legally recognised. The position is, again, closer to four-sided "triangles" than cannabis.

Grace,

With respect, I think the analogy a bad one. It relies on a physical impossibility rather than a logical one. A better analogy would be that legislating for same sex "marriage" is like legislating for four-sided "triangles".

Isn't a physical impossibility a logical impossibility?

Grace,

That's a great remark from Cardinal George.



No, it isn't. There are any number of things that as a simple mater of practicality are impossible, though they do not defy logic.

How about explaining this physical impossibility logically -how do homosexual sex practitioners consummate a homosexual 'marriage'?

The Government’s “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill” was published on Friday outlining details of how a raft of existing marriage laws are to be amended to include same-sex couples.
The only surprise in the bill was a clause making it impossible for gay or lesbian people who marry to divorce on grounds of adultery.
Lawyers and MPs said the distinction created inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the divorce courts and could ultimately lead to he abolition of the centuries-old concept of adultery.
It came after Government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between people of the same gender.
Gay couples will also be barred from having their marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation for the same reason.

Well.... the whole concept of marriage is going to be redefined for society -- just to suit homosexuals.

James posted this in another thread.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... s-now.html

...logically impossible propositions, i.e., propositions which could not possibly be true under any circumstances in any universe because they are formal contradictions. While it is logically possible for the sky to be green, it is not logically possible for a square to be circular in shape.

With this understanding of logical possibility in mind, other logical modalities may be defined in terms of it: a proposition is logically necessary if it is not logically possible for it to be false, logically impossible if it is not logically possible for it to be true, and logically contingent if it is logically possible for it to be true and also logically possible for it to be false.