[wideawake]

I read your responses and they seem pharisitical at best.

It's clear you didn't read them, since you repeat the canard that the issue here is the procreative faculty - which I took great pains to point out in my posts to be a non-issue in this case.

BTW, did you mean to write "parasitical" or "pharisaical"?

Whichever insult you meant to convey, the fact remains that the sacrament of marriage is a holy thing and a real thing.

It possesses objective conditions and laws and imposes objective responsibilities and obligations that are external to people's internal emotional states.

These people are doing nothing illicit, immoral or unnatural.

No one said they were. However, the man in question is not capable of validly contracting marriage.

How about a little Christian Charity?

Would it be uncharitable, then, to deny an eyeless man a driver's license?

[pgkdan]

BTW, did you mean to write "parasitical" or "pharisaical"? Whichever insult you meant to convey, the fact remains that the sacrament of marriage is a holy thing and a real thing.

There was no insult at all intended. The fact that you saw one tells me that you're more than a little uncomfortable defending your position. You may be right as far as "The Law" is concerned but you are wrong where simple human decency and charity are concerned.

[pgkdan]

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

In view of Canon Law I stand corrected.