It is as though they have chosen to say the law of gravity is no more. They can say it all day long but if they try to hang a hammer in the air, watch you head.

They lie to these poor souls and tell them what they have is marriage when it is just not possible.Yes I believe what these people do is wrong, but nature backs that up. they endanger one anothers life’s and health. I believe God, but nature if you will has us disigned in a certain way and all parts have their purpose. What two men do to one another is not natural and Mother Nature will get them eventually. God forgives, nature never.

What right does the state government, any more than the Fed have passing out rights. Government is NOT the source of our rights. Further their only responsibility as far as marriage goes, is protecting children.

Instead, I will try to explain things to you, so that you are not so confused about what we believe.

The ability to have normal sexual intercourse is a requirement for a valid marriage, both under civil law and canon law. It has always been so, under English common law and American law. You can actually go to a civil court and have a marriage declared void if one of the parties was incurably incapable of having normal sexual intercourse. You can also obtain a declaration of nullity from a canonical court for the same reason.

The sexual relationship within a marriage is also essential under both civil and canon law. For example, you can obtain a divorce on the grounds that one of the spouses has unreasonably and repeatedly refused to engage in sexual intercourse. Under canon law, a failure to consummate the marriage by engaging in normal sexual intercourse renders the marriage invalid.

The priest or deacon who witnesses a sacramental marriage is required to ask if the couple is capable of having normal sexual intercourse — the kind that, by its nature, is ordered towards procreation. That’s because we — and everyone else, until about ten years ago — understand that marriage by its essence is about having children. Of course, some people are incapable of fulfilling that goal due to some accidental characteristic (age, or a medical reason for infertility), but that does not render the marriage invalid — the nature of the sexual act remains intact (albeit impaired in its potential to procreate), and thus so does the marriage. This distinction between substance (essence) and accident was understood as far back as Aristotle, 2,500 years ago, and is essential to rational thinking.

Marriage is marriage — an exclusive relationship between a man and woman dedicated to their good and to the procreation and education of children. The relationship in a same-sex “marriage” is obviously something completely different. To equate them under the name “marriage” violates the principle of contradiction (“A” cannot simultaneously be both “B” and “not B”) — another foundation of rational thought that was well known as far back as Aristotle and the ancient Greeks.

In short, you can call a same-sex relationship by any name you prefer, and you can try to convince the government to grant that relationship whatever legal rights and privileges you want. But to call it “marriage” is simply logically incoherent.

If the focus is on procreating – then why does the church marry couples who may be infertile, or don’t wish to have children, or are senior citizens and are unable to conceive?

You’re missing the point. Marriage equality is about ensuring that all citizens have the same legal and financial rights. People get married for a whole host of reasons and procreating is not the only one.