To your both posts.
Canons of the law are listed in the Wiki article, — Wikipedia’s overall accuracy is not an issue. If you don’t trust it, do your own research.
If the couple is capable of sexual union, they can marry. If they themselves declare that they cannot, don’t intend to try, and have a medical condition then they cannot have a sexual union. They can mutually inherit, adopt, live together, and everything else, but that is not called a marriage: a brother and sister can do that too and they certainly cannot be married no matter how much they love one another.
You argument, verbatim, is the argument for same sex “marriage”, by the way.
If a marriage is unsafe, the endangered spouse has every right to separate, and never see the abusive spouse again, and thus achieve safety. However, Christ was very clear that these circumstances, no matter how tragic, do not dissolve the marriage, and we Catholics go by what He said.
Are you a kook? I just posted someone else about my friend whose husband got the marriage annulled after their divorce. They were married for many years, and produced a son, that was from their fully consummated union. He wanted to remarry a Catholic girl in the church. My friend was really upset and rightly so. The marriage wasn’t forced, it wasn’t done when they were too young and so on, so what’s the deal?
Keep trying to defend it, but it’s hypocrisy and legalism at its worse. If two people marry and don’t consummate the marriage, the Church doesn’t DEMAND that they get it annulled.
Yikes.
Mark 10:8, He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
I agree with the Catholic position that God's ideal plan for marriage was and still is a permanent union between one man and one woman for life, but according to Jesus' statement to the Pharisees it can be ended by adultery if the offended party so desires.
I realize that there are other ways in which this scripture passage can be interpreted, one of those being that it only applied in the context of that particular time period to fornication committed by a betrothed bride during the customary Jewish year long betrothal before the formal wedding ceremony. But I believe that He was clearly telling the hypocritical Pharisees that marriage was intended by God to be for life, and they were sinning by divorcing their wives for trivial reasons, but that marriage can be dissolved by the act of adultery that was flagrantly practiced by many of the Pharisees themselves. St. Paul later taught basically the same thing in I Corinthians ch 7.