Changing legal definition of marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was referring to this:

Quote: I’ve not proposed the church change the word. I simply asked the question: “Do we really view natural marriage and same sex marriage as indistinguishable in their key characteristics?” Quote

They are not the same or indistinguishable based on biology alone.
 
No one will notice after two generations? The Church is changing on this? I see no evidence of this.
 
edwest211 said:
They are not the same or indistinguishable based on biology alone.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s my rhetorical question to all those who think the issue is simply about “sacramental marriage” vs other “marriage”.
 
Last edited:
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...
There are already words that can be used to qualify various types of marriage.
  • Sacramental Marriage - this is used by various Christian groups
  • Natural Marriage - Also used by the Church and various religious organizations
  • Civil/Legal Marriage - which may or may not also be considered Natural or Sacramental
  • Spirit Marriage - an eastern concept where one or both of the participants is already dead
There are others. I’d imagine in some contexts you don’t need to use the qualifier. Ex: If someone were married in the Church one might assume the marriage is sacred, natural, and civil.
 
If by “we” you mean the magisterium of the Church, it seems your question is rhetorical because clearly they do not view them as indistinguishable.

If by “we” you mean everybody on the forum or everybody in the Church in the cheap seats, clearly there is a divided set of opinions.
 
Exactly so.
Secular and Chistian definitions parted company many years ago with the decriminilisation of adultery, Sodomy and the legalisation of divorce.

We believe the only sex willed by God is between an adult man and a woman, exclusive, for life and who have gifted their bodies to each other for the purpose of conceiving and rearing children. That is how we define marriage. More recently we have included the need for love (covenant not simply contract).

Other institutions throughout history have not always agreed, and certainly that is true of formerly christian nations since the 1950s even in legal practice.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is between one man and one woman. God is the definer of marriage not man.
 
I think posters need to be wary of identifying Catholic Matrimony with the Sacrament. They are not the same. My brother is validly married to a Buddhist. It is a valid Catholic Matrimony, it is holy, it is not a Sacrament.
Lets not think that Purebloods and Muggles arent both Catholic marriages!
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
Some canonists are proposing doing exactly that.

The book that replaces the old “Rite of Marriage” is now called the “Order of Celebrating Matrimony.”

It’s not much of a difference, but it is a subtle way of distinguishing between “Matrimony” as a sacrament and “Marriage” as whatever-the-state-says.

The Church really is searching for a way to do exactly what you’re proposing.
Click to expand...
FrDavid it is comforting to hear this. As you will know, SSM is going to be made legal in Australia. Bills being put forward and discussed in parliament today allow for clergy to say no to marrying SSA.

But any protections for those offering wedding ceremony services are being made redundant.

The only way, I foresee around this , is to offer these services to those celebrating the Sacrament under Canon defined terminology.

There is a fair section of the younger generation that are against SSM. Perhaps the Church offering a differently defined ceremony will encourage more couples to choose the Church Sacrament as opposed to what the state offers. Ie matrimony in Church cf marriage on the beach.
 
I am not so sure.
There are morphologically perfect women who have testes in place of ovaries.
Things arent as black and white as we are led to believe.
 
BlackFriar said:
Things arent as black and white as we are led to believe.
Click to expand...
If applied to the sex of a person, I’d modify this to say “aren’t always” … but they almost always are, including in the majority of cases where people suffer dysphoria.
 
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...
Slavery still happens in some countries. Why not just throw up our hands on that issue? How about rape. We can’t stop it, might as well just go with the flow, eh?
 
BlackFriar said:
I think posters need to be wary of identifying Catholic Matrimony with the Sacrament. They are not the same. My brother is validly married to a Buddhist. It is a valid Catholic Matrimony, it is holy, it is not a Sacrament.
Lets not think that Purebloods and Muggles arent both Catholic marriages!
Click to expand...
Yes, looking back, it would have been more precise had I said “Christian matrimony” (since every marriage involving at least one Catholic is still “Christian” even though it’s not always a Sacrament) rather than use the word Sacrament.

In any case, the distinction was about Matrimony as the Church uses the word, as opposed to marriage as the states now (erroneously) use the word.

I am not entirely convinced that changing to the word “matrimony” (instead of marriage) is going to really do anything. In my own life I cannot think of even one single time when I thought the two words were different in any way whatsoever.
 
Indeed, its the black and white universal principles possibly behind the assertions that seem to have speed wobbles.
 
As you may be aware I view language use by non homogenous nations as analogous at best and equivocal at worst.

Whenever we try and dig below the surface on contentious issues we suddenly see worlds collide with markedly different word meanings fracturing along the usual cultural, religious, philosophic or sexual fault lines.

Christian marriage sounds good to me even if not perfect.
 
Slavery has been relabeled “Human Trafficking” to make it sound somehow less bad. Playing with words does not change reality.
 
Reality is reality. The god Change is not to be worshiped. Yes, I’ve seen examples of men who do look very much like women. I can’t tell if they have ovaries or not.
 
The legal definition of marriage doesn’t need to change. It needs to remain the same. God instituted marriage between one man and one woman. Man does not have the right to change it just because he’s in the mood to be in a same gender “relationship.”
 
As long as the government does not require religious bodies to perform same-sex weddings, then it’s best just to let it be.

Convenience (what I want, sometimes called “freedom”) and fairness (sometimes called “civil rights”) have replaced traditional morality in the view of the government, and to an extent in society, as the principles by which laws should be made. Same-sex marriage falls under the fairness ideal. It’s unfair that gays and lesbians cannot marry… therefore it must be wrong to outlaw it. That’s what we have to live with.
 
We don’t have to live with that. Not at all. I go to a mall and I see people who are black or Oriental but I can’t tell who is LGBT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top