Changing the definition of marriage devalues my marriage!

[Jesusismyfriend]

Even if a homosexual couple were to adopt children it would still “devalue” the definition of marriage. I believe the defintion of marriage is devalued a ot in modern society. A lot of straight married couples will stay married but claim they want to keep their relationship “open.” This in my opinion devalues the defintion of marriage almost as much as homosexuality. Even if they are only involved with members of the opposite sex, they are still not choosing to commit to each other like Christ would want them to. Their relationship also does not fit into God’s plan for marriage. I don’t think marriage being “devalued” is a new thing. I don’t think homosexuality ruined it. It has been ruined for a long time. And I don’t think people will change their views on homosexuality until marriage is viewed as sacred like it once was.

 

[Jesusismyfriend]

I’m sorry, let me re-iterate.
My marriage was performed by a priest. It is a religious ceremony. It has absolutely nothing in common with the legal process performed by a justice of the peace which is also called marriage.

Your claim is that any event which is called “marriage” by any person on earth is the same as any other marriage. In this case, marriage is already worthless, as people have claimed to marry trees, cars, and cartoon characters. Anyone on earth can claim to be married to anyone or anything. I can act as a “minister” and “marry” my friend to his front lawn if he so desires. Since there is no way to make this illegal (as long as my friend does not try to get legal benefits for marrying his lawn, of course) then marriage always has been and always will be worthless.

Luckily, this is NOT the case. All marriages are not equal. There are religious marriages and secular marriages. Being married in a Catholic Church, our marriage is compared to anyone else who is married in the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church vetts all potential marriage candidates beforehand, this means most Catholic marriages are relatively strong.

You and John Finnis have the OPINION that Catholic Marriage and secular marriage have something in common. I have the OPINION that they have nothing in common. One is a religious ceremony tied to love and procreation, the other is legal paperwork. You seem to have confused Mr. Finiss’ opinion on the matter as fact rather than opinion.
I personally am deeply offended that you and John Finnis are cheapening the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage by comparing it to ANY civil marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual. My marriage is a religious union in the eyes of god, not a legal paper in the eyes of some worthless government. I simply reject your opinion, and the opinion of John Finnis, that my marriage compares to a secular marriage in any way.

Also, since you believe that same-sex marriage will devalue all marriages, you are making the case that elizabeth taylor’s 8 marriages and Britney’s 48 hour marriage have some value to begin with. I would make the case that they have no value whatsoever, and therefore all value has already been taken out of secular marriage, and therefore allowing same-sex marriage changes nothing. For you to say otherwise means you feel there is SOME value to Elizabeth Taylor and Britney’s marriages, and I would love to hear your argument explaining that…

Exactly you stated my beliefs in a much better more clear way.

 

[karoleck]

Exactly you stated my beliefs in a much better more clear way.

You do not know the teachings of the catholic church ,as yet.Did you know that in the Code Cannon Law,if two persons of no religious beliefs went through a civil marriage ,that the Catholic Church recognizes it as such.?Should they both have a conversion experience and entered The Catholic Church they would not need to get “remarried” again!!

In the Sacrament of Marriage,within the Catholic Church,the married vows are expressed between a man and a woman,the priest only witnesses this union.

Just because some person might write some wonderful things about a christian marriage:thumbsup: this does not mean that their understand and knowledge is always correct.I say this in christian charity ;as it is a persons duty to “refute error” I hope this helps!

 

[littlebum2002]

Here’s a concept: Read the Papal Encyclicals and U.S. Bishops’ documents on the issue. Those are not OPINIONS (to use your favorite all-capital style), but setlled moral doctrine.

If the Pope says I should vote to raise the capitol gains tax, is that established moral doctrine? Of course not, because the Pope does not have the authority to tell me how to vote on secular marriages.

The entire Catholic Church has devalued Catholic Marriages over the last few years by comparing them to secular marriages. They have nothing in common. Catholic marriages are religious sacraments, secular marriages are purely legal documents. Just like the Pope does not have the authority to tell me how to vote on the capitol gains tax, he also does not have the authority to tell me how to vote on who can or cannot sign a legal document.

Look at the Galileo affair. Was the Church wrong on moral teachings? No, it was wrong on a purely secular, scientific teaching. However, the Church mistakenly called it a moral teaching, and therefore convicted Galileo of heresy. When they realized their mistake, it was not that the moral teachings of the Church were wrong it was that they Church was wrong in claiming that the position of the sun and earth ins pace was a moral teaching.

The Church is NOT morally wrong on this subject. They are simply wrong that it is a moral issue. Secular marriage is a legal contract, like entering into a business partnership. Just like the Church has no authority to tell me how to vote on restricting business partnership,s they have no authority to tell me how to vote on same-sex marriage.

And you AND the Church have yet to explain how allowing same-sex secular marriages will devalue marriage more than Elizabeth Taylor’s 8 marriages. What value do they have that they will lose when same-sex marriage is legalized?

 

[Eugenius]

[underlining mine]
The act of critical reading involves not twisting arguments with a personal political bias, but reading them for their literal and implied content. It includes not generalizing outside of the text to make assumptions about the nature of those arguments which is not indicated within the text itself. It includes not making inappropriate connections – inserting external rhetoric into a passage – all of which you have done. Therefore,

I didn’t say anything about critical reading, I’m talking about remaining objective enough to realize that tactics being used to get a message across are the same that have been used against others with violent results. I am always leery in these discussions about the motives. When are we really communicating God’s Plan and when are we using religion as a front for fear, prejudice and bigotry? It is a very fine line.

 

[John21652]

My marriage was performed by a priest. It is a religious ceremony. It has absolutely nothing in common with the legal process performed by a justice of the peace which is also called marriage.

You are wrong. Because a marriage is secular dos not mean it has nothing in common with your religious marriage; they share common characteristics and principles.

Luckily, this is NOT the case. All marriages are not equal. There are religious marriages and secular marriages.They are not equal to each other except in the eyes of the state.

No-one has said all marriages are equal. All heterosxual marriages have shared characteristics.

You and John Finnis have the OPINION that Catholic Marriage and secular marriage have something in common.

John Finnis is one of the world’s pre-eminent Legal philosophers. He is also a staunch Catholic and mixes philosophy with theology. He is a modern champion of Natural Law moral philosophy. I gave a link to a pice written by him that is both learned and academically sound, yet you brush it off as mere “opinion”. If you had botherd to read it, you would have noticed that his arguments rfrrd to the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas and natural Law. Both underpin catholicism to a grat extent. If you brush of his learned piece as mere opinion, then you are labelling all teaching of theology, philsophy and moral theology as mere opinion. That reeks of hubris, ignorance and anti-Catholicism.

I have the OPINION that they have nothing in common.

Some opinions are well formed. That is, a lot of scholarship and thought lis bhind an opinion. Som opinions are worthless, because they lack insight, wisdom and have a selfish hubris as thir beginning. Finnis actually demonstrated what religious and secular marriages have in common. Th proof is there if you wish to see it. Your opinion is worthless until you do the homework.

One is a religious ceremony tied to love and procreation, the other is legal paperwork.

So here you are inferring that people who are not Catholics and who marry in a secular ceremony do not do so out of love and a desire to have children. That’s an opinion based on grand assumptions which do not accord with the reality of marriage as an institution.

You seem to have confused Mr. Finiss’ opinion on the matter as fact rather than opinion.

The one who is confused is you. Read Finnis and then come back with an informed opinion.

I personally am deeply offended that you and John Finnis are cheapening the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage by comparing it to ANY civil marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual.

What an idiotic statement. Finnis is arguing that homosexual ‘marriage’ would devalue the institution of marriage. To make that argument, both philosophically and intellectually, he has to make a comparison. Yet you seem to think that making that comparison cheapens marriage, even though the conclusion drawn from the comparison is the opposite. That’s just too funny for words!

My marriage is a religious union in the eyes of god, not a legal paper in the eyes of some worthless government.

Are you saying your Catholic marriage is not recognised by the state? Too funny.

I simply reject your opinion, and the opinion of John Finnis, that my marriage compares to a secular marriage in any way.

Your statement is false. Many secular marriages come about for the very same reasons as Catholic marriages. If that were not the case, then marriage would have no social value and not be recognised for the social good it gives.

and therefore all value has already been taken out of secular marriage,

Here you are denying the validity of, the social good of and the strengths of all secular marriages. That is just plain wrong, because the state and all religious faiths place great importance on the institution of marriage.

and therefore allowing same-sex marriage changes nothing.

Same sex ‘marriages’ would indeed change everything. Same sex marriage has nothing whatsover to do with procreation, which, despite what you argue, the vast majority of marriages share in common. Same sex marriage offfers no social good whatsoever. Read Finnis if you doubt this. Earlier you wrote of people who marry lawn mowers and other weird things that marriage can be turned into. Well, giving legal rcognition to a marriage in which sodomy is the raison d’etre is one of those strange things people make of marriage.

I see a recurring theme among Catholics. Some Catholic puts his opinion in a book, and Catholics assume this opinion is a fact. It is not. Both of the works you cited are opinions, not facts, and therefore no one has even the slightest obligation to agree with them.

It is a recurring theme across all your posts that you know better than all the Popes and Doctors of the Church down through history who have formulated Catholic philosophy, teaching and doctrine. It is a recurring theme that you thumb your nose at the Catholic Church’s moral philosophy because you regard it as mere opinion. It means you thumb your nose at the accepted doctrine of Apostolic succession and it means you thumb your nose at the power and support Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the power to loose and bind on Earth.

Catholic teaching is predicated on Natural Law, which is an objective moral philosophy. There is no other, except a moral relativism which says one man’s morality is no better than anyone else’s. That is what you are espousing. If you feel you are not obliged to follow the Catholic Church’s moral and philosophical teachings, then I suggest you remove the Catholic label from your ID.

 

[karoleck]

You are wrong. Because a marriage is secular dos not mean it has nothing in common with your religious marriage; they share common characteristics and principles.

No-one has said all marriages are equal. All heterosxual marriages have shared characteristics.

John Finnis is one of the world’s pre-eminent Legal philosophers. He is also a staunch Catholic and mixes philosophy with theology. He is a modern champion of Natural Law moral philosophy. I gave a link to a pice written by him that is both learned and academically sound, yet you brush it off as mere “opinion”. If you had botherd to read it, you would have noticed that his arguments rfrrd to the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas and natural Law. Both underpin catholicism to a grat extent. If you brush of his learned piece as mere opinion, then you are labelling all teaching of theology, philsophy and moral theology as mere opinion. That reeks of hubris, ignorance and anti-Catholicism.Some opinions are well formed. That is, a lot of scholarship and thought lis bhind an opinion. Som opinions are worthless, because they lack insight, wisdom and have a selfish hubris as thir beginning. Finnis actually demonstrated what religious and secular marriages have in common. Th proof is there if you wish to see it. Your opinion is worthless until you do the homework. So here you are inferring that people who are not Catholics and who marry in a secular ceremony do not do so out of love and a desire to have children. That’s an opinion based on grand assumptions which do not accord with the reality of marriage as an institution. The one who is confused is you. Read Finnis and then come back with an informed opinion.
What an idiotic statement. Finnis is arguing that homosexual ‘marriage’ would devalue the institution of marriage. To make that argument, both philosophically and intellectually, he has to make a comparison. Yet you seem to think that making that comparison cheapens marriage, even though the conclusion drawn from the comparison is the opposite. That’s just too funny for words!Are you saying your Catholic marriage is not recognised by the state? Too funny.Your statement is false. Many secular marriages come about for the very same reasons as Catholic marriages. If that were not the case, then marriage would have no social value and not be recognised for the social good it gives.

Here you are denying the validity of, the social good of and the strengths of all secular marriages. That is just plain wrong, because the state and all religious faiths place great importance on the institution of marriage. Same sex ‘marriages’ would indeed change everything. Same sex marriage has nothing whatsover to do with procreation, which, despite what you argue, the vast majority of marriages share in common. Same sex marriage offfers no social good whatsoever. Read Finnis if you doubt this. Earlier you wrote of people who marry lawn mowers and other weird things that marriage can be turned into. Well, giving legal rcognition to a marriage in which sodomy is the raison d’etre is one of those strange things people make of marriage.

It is a recurring theme across all your posts that you know better than all the Popes and Doctors of the Church down through history who have formulated Catholic philosophy, teaching and doctrine. It is a recurring theme that you thumb your nose at the Catholic Church’s moral philosophy because you regard it as mere opinion. It means you thumb your nose at the accepted doctrine of Apostolic succession and it means you thumb your nose at the power and support Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the power to loose and bind on Earth.

Catholic teaching is predicated on Natural Law, which is an objective moral philosophy. There is no other, except a moral relativism which says one man’s morality is no better than anyone else’s. That is what you are espousing. If you feel you are not obliged to follow the Catholic Church’s moral and philosophical teachings, then I suggest you remove the Catholic label from your ID.

:thumbsup:well put!