Church def. of marriage and gov't

[Rau]

No, they are legal marriages, which is contradiction that our mixed up legislators have imposed on us.
Marriage preceded sacraments making this a red herring.
Since legal is often at odds with what is right, this is in fact the issue. These laws are illicit.

You are welcome to debate the merits of same sex unions on religious grounds, but unless your interlocutor subscribes to your/our religious and moral principles, the absence of common ground leads to an unworkable debate. So a broad conversion might be a prerequisite to having that debate.

There seems an ample basis to reject calling same sex unions “marriages” by appealing to secular principles. Should the State wish to provide a legal framework for same sex unions that provides for the key requirements including shared assets, capacity to care for each other on-going etc., and it has majority support, so be it. To call it “marriage” seems nonsensical however, given the different intrinsic nature of the relationship

 

[glendab]

Hello Rossum.

Erm… Did you really mean that?

And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines – 1 Kings 11:3

Now, that really would be a big shake-up of marriage!

rossum

I know you’ll probably take me to task o this but this passage you quote is actually a typology of the consecrated life of our Religious women today. These “wives” were women the king cared for, not slept with, although I’m sure he had more than one who did share the marriage bed with him.) They weren’t a harem. The wives were what some see today and solemnly vowed religious and the concubines as those who take the simple vows of religious life and the King who cares for them is God. That’s why Carmelites refer to Him as His Majesty. And yes, it still shakes up those whose vocation is to married life because it is counter-cultural to place oneself in a convent and renounce the married state. But God wills it and this Scriptural passage is used to point to the prefiguring of the Church we have today.

Glenda

 

[rossum]

Not defending polygamy at all, but did King Solomon take up a same sex partner?

His wives and concubines all had a lot of same sex partners in the marriage.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I know you’ll probably take me to task o this but this passage you quote is actually a typology of the consecrated life of our Religious women today.

Solomon is just one example of OT polygamy/concubines. Abraham, Jacob, David and others had more than one wife/concubine. Polygamy was common enough that there had to be a law about which order the sons of the different wives were in for inheritance: Deuteronomy 21:15.

If there were sons from multiple wives, then Deuteronomy is obviously talking about a sexual relationship. Similarly for Jacob and the others. There were children from the relationships.

Marriage has meant different things in different places at different times. We are seeing another change happening today.

rossum

 

[rossum]

To call it “marriage” seems nonsensical however, given the different intrinsic nature of the relationship

To call it marriage saves a huge amount of reworking laws and regulations. For example, immigration laws and rules are different when a foreign spouse wants to enter the country. Every law/regulation that mentioned the word “marriage” would need amending to read, “marriage or civil union.” That would be a huge amount of work and essentially a big waste of money. Much easier to call a “civil union” a “marriage” and all the existing laws and regulations automatically apply with no further expense or effort needed.

Jacob had two wives and two ‘handmaidens’. Do we need a word other than “marriage” to describe that relationship? That would mean reprinting a great many Bibles.

rossum

 

[Rau]

To call it marriage saves a huge amount of reworking laws and regulations. For example, immigration laws and rules are different when a foreign spouse wants to enter the country. Every law/regulation that mentioned the word “marriage” would need amending to read, “marriage or civil union.” That would be a huge amount of work and essentially a big waste of money. Much easier to call a “civil union” a “marriage” and all the existing laws and regulations automatically apply with no further expense or effort needed.
…
rossum

Less work than you think! Something equivalent was done in the adjustment of laws that provide for non-discrimination on various bases, for defining de facto relationships and the consequences thereof, and for the right to access various government entitlements. We don’t lable a defacto relationship “marriage”. They are a “defacto couple” and the law has been modified to include reference to them (to give them, in a great many areas, the same treatment as married persons (in my jurisdiction anyway).

Yes, the international dimension adds complexity in the same sex union scenario,and perhaps for defacto couples too!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To call it marriage saves a huge amount of reworking laws and regulations…

If there is work to reworking the laws, it is necessary work. That’s because the consequences of apply every aspect of “marriage” to “civil union” should be thought through and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not adopted blindly.

Let me give you an example from my field - software development. Sometimes a software developer needs to change the function or meaning associated with a named variable. He may be tempted to simply make the change and have it apply automatically to every reference to that variable. But in a large and complex system, the programmer may not remember how that variable was used in every reference. Therefore it is safer to change the name of the variable at the same time that the functionality is changed. That way all references to the old variable name will become undefined references and will be brought to the attention of the programmers so that he can examine them and decide on a case-by-case basis if the new meaning of the variable works well with this particular reference, or should some other accommodations be made. This practice has served me and other software developers well, and I think something similar should be necessary when changing something as basic as the meaning of marriage.

 

[rossum]

If there is work to reworking the laws, it is necessary work. That’s because the consequences of apply every aspect of “marriage” to “civil union” should be thought through and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not adopted blindly.

What is the significant legal difference? Two people have a certain tax treatment together than they did not have before. In legal terms, what were previously two separate people not have a legal relationship and certain rights and privileges attached to that relationship. I am not aware of any legal consequences of the two being of the same sex. Childless? There are childless opposite sex marriages. Adoption? There are adopted children in some opposite sex marriages. There is no legally significant situation that happens in same sex marriages that does not also happen in opposite sex marriages.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the significant legal difference? Two people have a certain tax treatment together than they did not have before. In legal terms, what were previously two separate people not have a legal relationship and certain rights and privileges attached to that relationship. I am not aware of any legal consequences of the two being of the same sex. Childless? There are childless opposite sex marriages. Adoption? There are adopted children in some opposite sex marriages. There is no legally significant situation that happens in same sex marriages that does not also happen in opposite sex marriages.

rossum

First, the meta-argument:

I did not say there were differences (although I do think there are, but that is irrelevant for the moment). I said that there may be differences. And the very process that you have just begun to go through in your posting is what lawmakers should go through when redefining marriage, just to see that they have considered the consequences. Your suggestion to short-circuit this step by redefining marriage without even bothering to look for possible consequences is what I was objecting to.

Then the actual argument:

Now to move to what those consequences might be, one is raising children. You mentioned that gay couples have adopted children. But the mere fact that has happened does not mean that it should be put on the same level as traditional marriage in this regard. Single people have also adopted children. Although it is harder. They have more hurdles to get through to prove they are suitable. And traditional married couples can be given preference over single people when it comes to adoption. So your observation that gay couples have adopted children does not constitute a dismissal of the question of making gay marriage equivalent to traditional marriage.

 

[davidv]

You are welcome to debate the merits of same sex unions on religious grounds, but unless your interlocutor subscribes to your/our religious and moral principles, the absence of common ground leads to an unworkable debate. So a broad conversion might be a prerequisite to having that debate.

I think this was my point. Rossum was erroneously attempting to claim that the objections to calling same sex arrangements marriage were strictly religious. They are not.

There seems an ample basis to reject calling same sex unions “marriages” by appealing to secular principles. Should the State wish to provide a legal framework for same sex unions that provides for the key requirements including shared assets, capacity to care for each other on-going etc., and it has majority support, so be it. To call it “marriage” seems nonsensical however, given the different intrinsic nature of the relationship

Agreed.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

His wives and concubines all had a lot of same sex partners in the marriage.

rossum

Accordingly, in sealing treaties in ancient days, it was customary for a lesser king to give his daughter in marriage to the greater king (in this case, Solomon). Every time a new treaty was sealed, Solomon ended up with yet another wife and the maids she brought with her. These wives were considered tokens of friendship and “sealed” the relationship between the two kings.

You imply that sexual relations occurred between the wives and concubines. That still does not translate to same sex “marriage” between the women in King Solomon’s court! There were no same sex “marriages” in OT times. Your spin on recorded history is not surprising, though. Just like your apparent line of thinking in your postings that the imperial shenanigans of Nero and Elegabalus in their “marriages” to young males of lower status during the early CE centuries had acceptance by pagan Rome.
,

 

[sw85]

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

But it does affect “YOUR” marriage. it forces you to abide nonsense. It forces you to subscribe, publicly, to an impoverished view of your own marriage (as merely a contract between consenting adults, rather than a union naturally ordered toward procreation and the good of the family). That’s the whole point after all, to compel recognition of a union as consistent with the common good. As we are seeing in some places, it is becoming a criminal offense to in any way point out the truth as Catholics understand it about the nature of marriage, even to say it from the pulpit. It is simply not possible to sit the fence on this one.

 

[Rau]

But it does affect “YOUR” marriage. it forces you to abide nonsense. It forces you to subscribe, publicly, to an impoverished view of your own marriage (as merely a contract between consenting adults, rather than a union naturally ordered toward procreation and the good of the family). That’s the whole point after all, to compel recognition of a union as consistent with the common good. As we are seeing in some places, it is becoming a criminal offense to in any way point out the truth as Catholics understand it about the nature of marriage, even to say it from the pulpit. It is simply not possible to sit the fence on this one.

And, by the nature of marriage, it causes the State to acclaim and celebrate same sex sexual relationships.

 

[davidv]

And, by the nature of marriage, it causes the State to acclaim and celebrate same sex sexual relationships.

How can this be? Why should anyone celebrate a distortion of the truth? The very nature of marriage declares that it cannot be applicable to two of the same sex.

 

[BellsMom]

It forces you to subscribe, publicly, to an impoverished view of your own marriage…

The state cannot force anyone to subscribe to anything. The first amendment guarantees the right of people like the KKK to march thru the streets spewing despicable and amoral statements. It doesn’t mean I have to “subscribe” to the belief that their words in any way benefit society.

 

[Rau]

How can this be? Why should anyone celebrate a distortion of the truth? The very nature of marriage declares that it cannot be applicable to two of the same sex.

My point is that calling same sex union a marriage causes it to be acclaimed by the state - because that is how marriages are greeted. It should be called something else, and thus it need not attract he same acclamation.

 

[davidv]

My point is that calling same sex union a marriage causes it to be acclaimed by the state - because that is how marriages are greeted. It should be called something else, and thus it need not attract he same acclamation.

Reminds me of a riddle.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

 

[Rau]

Reminds me of a riddle.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

Understand that I am not the one pretending civil unions are marriages. I am pointing out that if you call them the same thing, you encourage them to be viewed that way. And when it is the State giving that encouragement, it is particularly impactful.

 

[One_point]

His wives and concubines all had a lot of same sex partners in the marriage.

rossum

Where did you read that? Solomon’s wives were married to each other? I thought they were married to Solomon. You seem to think a polygamous marriage means everyone is married to everyone in some sort of orgy. You are wrong. Travel around and mix with Muslim and African cultures. They may belong to the same family but each wives is independently contracting with the man, NOT with the other wives.

Accordingly, in sealing treaties in ancient days, it was customary for a lesser king to give his daughter in marriage to the greater king (in this case, Solomon). Every time a new treaty was sealed, Solomon ended up with yet another wife and the maids she brought with her. These wives were considered tokens of friendship and “sealed” the relationship between the two kings.

You imply that sexual relations occurred between the wives and concubines. That still does not translate to same sex “marriage” between the women in King Solomon’s court! There were no same sex “marriages” in OT times. Your spin on recorded history is not surprising, though. Just like your apparent line of thinking in your postings that the imperial shenanigans of Nero and Elegabalus in their “marriages” to young males of lower status during the early CE centuries had acceptance by pagan Rome.
,

I think many simply suffer from a lack of exposure to non western and non modern cultures and assumptions. The west has been Christian and had the individualized civil law for millennia. MOST other cultures treatd marriage as a link between groups, between peoples, families, communities. Marriage in old days was often the way to endure th unity of several groups or tribes under one political union. In buganda, the king married literally from every tribe under his kingdom so in some ways the wives were political ambassadors or representatives of their people.

 

[glendab]

For the really sad news go here:

Hello folks, prepare to be outraged. You’ve probably already heard about it by now, but in Toronto, Canada, there was a Grand Pride Wedding for LGBT couples Thursday and the article I’m attaching the link to says 12 different denominations participated. 108 “couples” participated all told and some of the photos might turn your stomach a bit as they did mine, but there it is.

Here it is: First mass gay wedding in Canada draws couples from around the world

news.nationalpost.com/2014/06…und-the-world/

What I cannot fathom is how does a Protestant Pastor expect God to feel about his or her condoning something that is very clearly spelled out in our Bible as an abomination in God’s sight? Yet, there they stood, blessing what should be cursed and done in God’s name.

Glenda

I’d provide a link to the thread, but I really don’t know how. Sorry. You can look it up attached to my name I guess and get there that way. Sorry. I’m not a computer whiz.