Changing legal definition of marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ratio1

Guest
Now that several countries have changed the legal defintion of marriage to include same sex persons; why can’t the church just redefine marriage itself?
Call it “x” or something (sorry i still can’ think of a good word yet) to denote a “marriage” between man and woman.

well, we can then still teach in schools that x is a holy union and the rest – “marriages” are just secular and civil unions.
bakers can refuse to bake a marriage cake for same sex couples, because they can just say they don’t make marriage cakes at all, they just make x cakes.

If society makes the new “marriage” to mean civil unions, we can just make x to mean the old “marriage” defintion, and renegrate the word marriage to be just civil unions.

I know it’s very difficult to change people’s use of words, but this is the only solution i can think of to counter against this tide of same sex marriage.
 
ratio1 said:
Now that several countries have changed the legal defintion of marriage to include same sex persons; why can’t the church just redefine marriage itself?

Call it “x” or something (sorry i still can’ think of a good word yet) to denote a “marriage” between man and woman.
Click to expand...
How many presumptively sexual, family forming relationships can there reasonably be?
 
When I discuss marriage I am referring to the bond particular to it. I prefer the term “matrimonial bond”. I usually avoid the word marriage. Marriage can mean the union of anything nowadays. A tool of wood and metal for example. Also love as a measuring rod for marriage is wrong. Love is meant to cement all human relationships. The matrimonial bond is not defined that way.
 
Last edited:
Eh, given that sacramental marriage as the Church views it is already way different than civil marriage, which has for decades now permitted divorcees to marry civilly when they could not be married in the Church, this language business would be on the same cosmetic level as changing all the hymns and psalms to be gender neutral language (which I also thought was a waste of time).

Let us wait and see how the cake case goes before we get all in a dither worrying that Catholics will be forced to perform gay marriages or provide services for them. I doubt the Court will go down that road, as it would lead to a lot of bad outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Religiosity is not the key issue I think. Do we really view natural marriage and same sex marriage as indistinguishable in their key characteristics?
 
i don’t think the term “natural” is appropriate for a sacramental union. To receive a sacrament such as marriage, the recipient must meet certain criteria established by the Church based on Jesus’ teachings. All kinds of couplings could happen in “nature” that do not qualify to be a sacramental marriage. Even if we limit this to human nature, a human could naturally want to partner with or couple with all sorts of humans who are incapable of entering into a sacramental marriage (already married, too young, not mentally competent etc ).
 
I agree it’s a last resort but I sincerely hope that you’re right. I do worry that this may be needed sooner than we think.
 
I don’t think there’s any need. The Church and the State always have had different meanings for marriage.

Church = Sacramental and indissoluble bond that is also the core of family life and society.

State = A contract between two persons (used to be important to society because of family but not really anymore)

Also there are more countries in the world that will never redefine marriage than countries that have. Majority of the African nations will never accept gay marriage in the foreseeable future.
 
ratio1 said:
Now that several countries have changed the legal defintion of marriage to include same sex persons; why can’t the church just redefine marriage itself?
Click to expand...
Would you suggest the same thing if the state changed the definition of “edible” to include rocks?
 
Adam, the Church defines marriage more broadly than sacramental unions.
 
ratio1 said:
I know it’s very difficult to change people’s use of words, but this is the only solution i can think of to counter against this tide of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it will not work, there is a much wider agenda at play, even if you did change the wording to create a difference, they would argue that it was inequality again, and either way they are still going to roll Gender Theory through the schools to corrupt the youth sexually and at such young ages.

The USA I believe has a chance at resisting because Trump was elected, if Clinton had won I believe you would have had no chance.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
I was not speaking of a sacramental union, but of a “natural marriage”.

Natural marriage - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was unfamiliar with the canon law term (not a canon lawyer).

I think “natural marriage” is a rather poor choice of term, or maybe it made sense at the time the term was defined but has become increasingly unwieldy as the civil law has gone one way over the last century and the Church another way.

Having said that, why isn’t a same-sex marriage or another marriage that doesn’t fit the Church definition of “natural marriage” simply considered an “unnatural” or “irregular” marriage? Why would we need to change the word “marriage” when the modifier could be changed instead?
 
LumberJack said:
How about sticking to the Catechism terms: ‘Ordered marriage’ and ‘Objectively disordered marriage’?
Click to expand...
Those terms seem better to me as “nature” is left out of it and the differentiation is made through a modifier that seems to fit with the Church’s other views of disordered sexual behavior.
 
The genesis of all of this was secular government’s assertion of power over a Sacrament of the Church. It began with the best of intentions - but we all know which road is paved with those.
 
po18guy said:
secular government’s assertion of power over a Sacrament of the Church.
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing that this has happened yet. No government is forcing any church to marry gay couples or divorcees or anyone else that said church decides it doesn’t want to marry. I realize many people fear this could be the case in the future depending on how the law develops, but as this would be a huge oppression of the freedom to worship that the US was founded on, I cannot see it occurring. If I am wrong, I will be in the front of the protest march opposing it.
 
LumberJack said:
How long that lasts, who knows?
Click to expand...
You might well have asked in past centuries of the USA how long freedom of worship would have lasted at all, given the Calvinists hanging Quakers and the Nativists burning Catholic churches. I would hope the Court continues to preserve the religious freedoms, especially since people have a civil marriage option. If they did not have a civil marriage option I would honestly be more worried.

I can’t speak for what happens in UK. I have a lot of issues with their legal system, particularly how it handles free speech. I have studied their law quite a bit so I’m not just being an America First jerk.
 
Rau said:
Religiosity is not the key issue I think. Do we really view natural marriage and same sex marriage as indistinguishable in their key characteristics?
Click to expand...
Natural marriage, as evidenced by the still existing tribes of people who still live in the same conditions as prehistoric man, is centered on starting a family, the bearing of children and passing on knowledge to future generations.

What is same sex marriage about?
 
Last edited:
Why would you think I’d primarily object to a hate speech law? I’m not Richard Spencer.

My issues with UK free speech law are more academic ones about how the rights of the state conflict with rights of individuals. For example, the “kettling” of protesters is not to me an acceptable practice. I know the US has done it a handful of times, but it is generally avoided here because of liability suits.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top