R
Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
The “definition” was changed decades ago when the State granted no fault divorce and women were no longer bound to reproduction with the advent of contraception…from that time forward the State’s definition of marriage does not encompass reproduction with the advent of equality between the sexes…especially in reproductive rights.“Bump”
No one has answered the above question. Why is that?
Peace,
Robert
L
LSK
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by unCatholic definition.
The Catholic Church does not automatically assume that any marriage outside the Catholic Church is not a valid marriage.
The definition of a marriage - that being a sacred covenant between one man and one woman - could be a marriage in which that covenant is entered into within another sacred religious tradition.
I think, however, what you are asking is an interesting question.
Personally? I would like to see the word ‘marriage’ taken out of the civil code all together. Catholics, some other Christian denominations, Muslims, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and some other religious traditions do view marriage as something other than a contractual agreement between a man and a woman. It is viewed as a covenant - quite different from a simple contract - and so quite sacred.
A governmental agency of any type cannot bestow covenant status on anything. If people in this country were told they had the option of entering into a contractual agreement that would bestow property rights, allow for proper tracking and taxing by the government and protect inheritence rights between the contracting adults and/or their children but that, in order to get ‘married’, it would be up to them to take their little piece of paper stating they have a government contract to their priest, minister, shaman, coven leader, iman, rabbi or high holy mucky muck to get married, then the Church would be protected from those who will undoubtedly try and force Her to ‘recognize’ that which She cannot recognize. This protection would make it very difficult for the activists of any group to sue Her for ‘discrimination’.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith advises Catholics that we cannot condone or recognize ‘civil union’ between same sex couples. However, this would simply be a contract that shares property and allows people to be taxed together rather than seperately - it would protect Holy Mother Church while letting society run down its own road to perdition.
Besides, we have been through this before and every time a society falls on its face it is Holy Mother Church that keeps the lights on and the door to civilization ajar if not completely open. We will be doing that again. And we will do it well, as always.
H
He_Man
Guest
Well duh, so do I.
But it is obvious anyone who objected to my statement of fact was inserting a feeling-based opinion, since what I said was and is true.
I am a borderline proponent of a Catholic theocracy in every country, so believe me, I abhor any push to legitimize gay “marriage” is something I oppose. read a few of my posts if you doubt me
I also abhor abortion, but to say there are no laws regulating abortion is to just make things up. Might as well say there is no such thing as a keyboard, as you type your next post.Nonetheless, states do regulate who can get married, and even if Stancyzk thinks that is wrong because it is discriminatory, the states obviously allow it.
So we can discuss the morality of regulating gay “marriage” all day, but to argue whether it can be regulated legally is a waste of time. Of course it can be. 6 states allow it, and 34 do not, currently.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
No fault divorce did not radically redefine marriage, although I concede it allowed a party to end a marriage without a showing of fault. I agree also that artificial contraception radically altered the way in which sex and reproduction are viewed. But it did so as an artificial uncoupling of the two. But despite these events - occurring decades ago - marriage remained an institution that was oriented towards procreation. The fact that either husband or wife could end a civil marriage did not change its orientation towards creating a family, nor did the advent of artificial means to time and/or limit the size of the family that resulted from the marriage of two people, male and female.
One can argue these two “advances” (no-fault divorce and “the pill”) did more harm than good to society in general, and marriage in particular. That being the case, to the extent either of these things changed what marriage is, why should we continue down the same road, by completely decoupling marriage from its intrinsic relationship to procreation?
In other words, Please answer the question:
Why should the definition of marriage be changed, so that it is no longer intrinsically connected with procreation?
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
An infertile woman and a man who’ve had a vasectomy can get married in any state in the United States. And pretty much any country in the West to my understanding. This alone I think should show that the secular governmental view of Marriage is not intrinsically connected with procreation. Catholic definition does connect procreation and Marriage, but not the Government.
T
TracerBullet
Guest
Why was it changed to be about procreation?“Bump”
No one has answered the above question. Why is that?
Peace,
Robert
P
Publisher
Guest
Again…since it’s the State making the decisions on whom they will issue marriage license to…the State MAY redefine marriage as they see fit…religous institutions may hold onto their own definitions…but relgious definitions do not dictate to the State THEIR defintion…and it appears to me…the State IS defining same sex marriage as marriage.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I believe you are basing your conclusion on a false premise. That is, marriage is per se oriented towards procreation because the marital act is one that naturally leads to conception. Validity of a natural marriage does not depend upon the virility of the individual male, or the fertility of the individual female, but upon the procreative nature of the marital act of union between husband and wife. We’re talking about marriage as a social institution. So, I don’t think you can say that marriage is not oriented towards procreation, just because a very small number of marriages are - contrary to the natural order of male femal relations - not fertile. In other words, there is nothing inherently contradictory to the natural marriage of an individual man and woman based upon their lack of fertility. On the other hand, the attempted natural marriage of any two people of the same sex fails because such a union, on a natural level, lacks this natural complimentarity, and is always closed off to the possibility of creation.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Marriage (and the marital act specifically) has always been intrinsically connected to procreation. You can’t seriously be suggesting that marriage at any time prior to the last 10 years was disconnected from procreation. Even popular culture still recognizes that marriage is about creating families through procreation. Even in the most secular regions of the country there is still immense pressure to marry that is placed on a couple that finds itself pregnant outside of a marital union. Is this because parents and friends are concerned about the couple’s federal rights and/or personal happiness? No. Societal pressure is to marry (or stay married) “for the sake of children.” And this pressure is still as ingrained in every culture as is sex itself. Marriage between a man and a woman is (and always has been) what society recognizes as most beneficial for a nuclear family? Thus it has always been about procreation. “Gay marriage” shreds this concept, and says marriage is simply a commitment for the benefit of any two adults. Why should such a change be allowed.
FYI - Again, it seems that NO ONE can provide a coherent response. Why should the definition of marriage change so that a right to marry should be recognized for same-sex couples? What is the benefit to society from recognition of such unions.
Same sex couples can already adopt. No need for marriage on this basis.
Same sex couples can already use surrogates and/or donors to create multi-parent non-biological families. No need for marriage on this basis.
Same sex couples already enjoy the same rights as married couples in CA (and other states too) No need for marriage on this basis.
Then why fundamentally alter marriage?
Peace,
Robert
A
AndyF
Guest
Of course.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Yes I agree.
But there are many marriages, like my own, which the Church considers not to be a marriage. The question for same-sex marriage denialists is: shoul mine be banned too?
I could live with that (not the perdition part, of course!)
Besides, we have been through this before and every time a society falls on its face it is Holy Mother Church that keeps the lights on and the door to civilization ajar if not completely open. We will be doing that again. And we will do it well, as always.
You should read the history of Spain, and Croatia, and South America, a few other places!
H
Hokomai
Guest
Well, some of us are!
H
Hokomai
Guest
But we are not discussion whether things are ‘natural’. We are discussing whether they are marriages. The Church says the marriage of my wife to me is not a marriage (ex-Catholics, civil). why, therefore, are you not campaigning as vigorously to remove my right to marry as you are gays? Are you not agreeing to call my dog a horse, but refusing to do the same for my gay brother?
H
Hokomai
Guest
I am not here debating whether things are natural or not. I am debating whether they are marriages. You say some things are not, but it is ok for the state to call them marriages. You say other things are not, but it is not ok for the state to call them marriages. I want to find our why.
A
AnthonySorensen
Guest
Well for one reason…gays are attempting to make a mockery of marriage. **Your **marriage to your **wife **is not guilty of this.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I think you are merely restating the position without explaining it. If my marriage is not a marriage, why am I not making a mockery of it, while my gay sister is?
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
Even if you’re right, mockery is not a good reason to make something illegal. I can mock Marriage, I can mock the Government, I can mock my Neighbor, I can mock the latest movie. If you want to make mockery illegal you’re going to have an interesting time breaking down what Free Speech means.
S
stanczyk
Guest
Well you are wrong about that, and it is not helpful to the discussion to question the Church.Well, some of us are!
A
Allegra
Guest
What you’ve got is a horse. There is no reason to call it a dog. Now, I argue that my horse may be better than your horse. My horse is strong enough to ride me through the pearly gates if I keep it watered and well cared for. Your horse might only get you halfway there and you’re going to have to walk the rest of the way or not make it at all. Your brother doesn’t even have a horse. He’s going to have to walk the whole way with a dog dragging him down.
- Status