Church def. of marriage and gov't

[One_point]

They call the two women ‘married’ - QED. The whole point is that ‘marriage’ has referred to all sorts of relationships over history.

No.The whole point was they were telling us we had gayism in our own culture therefore should not oppose it. Understand, there isn’t even a serious debate on gay “marriage” in that part of the world, the whole debate is about the normalcy and social tolerance of homosexual relationshipsThen these propagandists say to the people but look at your woman-woman marriages, that’s proof gay relationships were part of the social organization.

So what? Why are you so obsessed with sex? Even if you could prove this assertion, it would still not change the fact that marriage has not always meant one man + one woman, as this example shows.

Ive given you a link to a scholarly work explaining there’s absolutely nothing at all sexual about these woman-woman arrangements. Even if I could prove? That’s reality. I only did it because you are a western person who has no access to these cultures, but believe me, no one will ask for a link or proof of the non-sexual nature of these arrangements in Africa. This is simply known. Obsessed with sex? I forgot that We were talking about MARRIAGE and gay unions… this has nothing at all to do with sex

…and which seems to support the idea that these relationships were seen as marriage. What point did you think it made?

Ask yourself why there aren’t any men to men “marriages” in these same tribes, or why women post child-bearing age cannot be “married” as such? You really have to take a culture with its assumptions and understandings, not impose on it from outside. In many African traditional culture of these groups, children do not belong to someone simply by virtue of giving birth alone. Children belong to the person who has paid bride price. Even a man who has lived with a woman and not paid bride price for her to her parents may lose rights over those children to the parents of the woman. The who focus is on who has rights over the children via the mother. If you see the point of bride price from that perspective, you will understand why this institution has nothing at all to do with the NEW modern creation in the west where a SEXUAL relationship between members of the same sex is given social sanction by giving it marriage status. This is non existent in Africa and people associating the woman woman arrangement which is ALL about removing the stigma f childlessness to widowed and barren women with the gay marriage which is not more than two decades old in the west itself is simply misleading people.

 

[frobert]

I’m not sure that can be stated as a hard fact. Every culture doesn’t necessarily share our etymology and so many of their rituals and customs are at times labeled with the vocabulary from how things are done in our cultures. Take a look at how anthropologist define marriage and you’ll see what I mean. There’s not a single overarching definition that is applied to ever culture and continent over thousands of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by American Anthropological Association, 2004
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. **Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. **(source)

Seems counterproductive when such bright people want to argue about what isn’t rather than what is. In a not so inane discussion Side A might be pointing to the AAA reports and Side B might come in with their rebuttals.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Seems counterproductive …]

I disagree, but let’s continue…

…]when such bright people want to argue about what isn’t rather than what is…]

It’s been stated that ever culture on ever [inhabited] continent has defined marriage the same. This isn’t true. That’s my only point. If you disagree feel free to say so.

 

[frobert]

I disagree, but let’s continue…

It’s been stated that ever culture on ever [inhabited] continent has defined marriage the same. This isn’t true. That’s my only point. If you disagree feel free to say so.

I agree 100%

I may have been confused or have confused others

I believe the best use of time would be discussing studies like the AAA ones you pointed to as they would be productive to building the institutions and structures that will best serve us today and going forward.

On the other hand some of the trivia that is being bantered back and forth is counterproductive but you may see value in it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But I assume that I would be allowed to make my own argument against it?

Yes, please do. Or else admit that same sex relationships were never treated the same as hetero marriages by society.

But in short, if you think that you don’t need to give objective evidence to justify discrimination against others, then others don’t need to give objective evidence to justify discrimination against you. You happy with that?

No, but I’m not asking you to be happy about the converse either.

 

[Rau]

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!

It seems to me that redefining “marriage” to accommodate same-sex unions is a nonsense.

Heterosexual unions (marriages) are by their intrinsic nature unique, and the State and society (and Church for that matter) has a special interest in them.

The State has little interest in homosexual unions, but may offer them in the interests of meeting the needs of citizens who wish to cohabitate, share assets, care for each other on-going etc. Such relationships are not intrinsically sexual.

Why call these 2 things by the same name?

 

[glendab]

Hello Rau.

It seems to me that redefining “marriage” to accommodate same-sex unions is a nonsense.

Heterosexual unions (marriages) are by their intrinsic nature unique, and the State and society (and Church for that matter) has a special interest in them.

The State has little interest in homosexual unions, but may offer them in the interests of meeting the needs of citizens who wish to cohabitate, share assets, care for each other on-going etc. Such relationships are not intrinsically sexual.

Why call these 2 things by the same name?

The forced-feeding we are all trying to digest regarding the government’s re-definition of marriage is clearly an infringement on our religious liberties. They are forcing us to see marriage not as a Sacrament given by God, but as a mere social contract between consenting parties. It is just one more area where they are working to regulate the free practice of religion. Get the real issue behind the issue. We ARE losing our religious liberties in this land to a totally secularized government that considers itself absolute.

Glenda

 

[Rau]

Hello Rau.

The forced-feeding we are all trying to digest regarding the government’s re-definition of marriage is clearly an infringement on our religious liberties. They are forcing us to see marriage not as a Sacrament given by God, but as a mere social contract between consenting parties. It is just one more area where they are working to regulate the free practice of religion. Get the real issue behind the issue. We ARE losing our religious liberties in this land to a totally secularized government that considers itself absolute.

Glenda

While I might personally be sympathetic to that view, it relies on certain religious beliefs which may thus render the argument meaningless to some persons. I offered a secular argument, but is not the only argument.

BTW I’m not sure the government offices issuing marriage licences ever considered themselves to be dispensing a sacrament.

 

[rossum]

The forced-feeding we are all trying to digest regarding the government’s re-definition of marriage is clearly an infringement on our religious liberties. They are forcing us to see marriage not as a Sacrament given by God, but as a mere social contract between consenting parties.

Does sacramental marriage allow divorce? Does civil marriage allow divorce? The two are already different, and have been for some time. The government defines the laws which govern civil marriage, and is within its right to do so. The changes in civil law on divorce have had zero effect on sacramental marriage.

The government is not redefining sacramental marriage; it is redefining civil marriage.

rossum

 

[davidv]

Does sacramental marriage allow divorce? Does civil marriage allow divorce? The two are already different, and have been for some time. The government defines the laws which govern civil marriage, and is within its right to do so. The changes in civil law on divorce have had zero effect on sacramental marriage.

The government is not redefining sacramental marriage; it is redefining civil marriage.

rossum

Whether a marriage is sacramental or not is a red herring. If either is entered into licitly both are valid marriages. You present a distinction without a difference.

 

[rossum]

Whether a marriage is sacramental or not is a red herring. If either is entered into licitly both are valid marriages. You present a distinction without a difference.

There is a difference in the treatment of divorce, or does the Church recognise civil divorces now? I haven’t seen any notification of that change.

Some civil marriages are also sacramental marriages. However, not all civil marriages are also sacramental, for instance where one or both partners had previously been divorced. In many states same sex civil marriages are also allowed, but are not sacramental.

Some civil marriages are sacramental, others are not. That has been the case since before the first civil same sex marriages were allowed.

rossum

 

[Rau]

The government is not redefining sacramental marriage; it is redefining civil marriage.

rossum

That is correct. And IMHO, to do so makes no sense. Sexual relationships are very special, and there is only 1 class of sexual relationship that holds special importance for the State. That it alone is named “marriage” seems completely appropriate.

 

[davidv]

There is a difference in the treatment of divorce, or does the Church recognise civil divorces now? I haven’t seen any notification of that change.

Some civil marriages are also sacramental marriages. However, not all civil marriages are also sacramental, for instance where one or both partners had previously been divorced.

Why does this matter in this context? Whether there is a divorce or not, or sacramentality, or not, the validity of the marriage is unaffected.

In many states same sex civil marriages are also allowed, but are not sacramental.

Nor are they marriages.

Some civil marriages are sacramental, others are not. That has been the case since before the first civil same sex marriages were allowed.

rossum

This is not relevant to the validity of the marriage.

 

[glendab]

Hello everyone. Perhaps I need to state a little something because words got put in my mouth ( or I should say in my typing ) that just aren’t there. I never implied or stated that the government was directly calling all the shots regarding Marriages in the Church, nor did I say that they were attempting to define a Sacrament. Their attack cannot be that obvious. It is different than that, but make no mistakes, it is an attack on religious liberties. They’ve elevated the civil marriage to something above the Sacramental one and by only acknowledging the civil part, have negated the fact that all religions known to man have had rules an customs regarding marriages and in so doing have begun to issue an ultimatum - either respect what they call a marriage or shut up for your words will be called, (as they already have been) a hate crime. We are being forced to accept a civil marriage, whether or not it is hetro or homosexual in nature as a part of our culture that elevates itself above what the religious practices are of all religions. By doing so have nullified all Judeo-Christian culture into a private matter that shouldn’t expect to have any more say in the governance of this land. We have been silenced against an intrinsic evil, something God calls an abomination. Those who are outspoken in matters of gay rights and the civil marriages between LGBT persons will be and have been called hate criminals.

Any attack on marriage is an attack on religion, no matter if you are a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist. Marriage is as old as man and it has been a part of every religion there is. 99% have seen this as between a man and a woman. I’m sure there are archeological proofs of aberrations to this norm, but that will only be to “prove” a small point and push an envelope that contains a much larger issue - religious liberty. Open the envelope and see what is really behind forcing citizens to honor the “marriages” between Steve and Ray as if they are even a marriage. Once this is accomplished how long will it be before Cindy and Sally show up at the Rectory with their civil rights lawyers and demand a Sacramental marriage because they now have enough political power and backing to go for it? Think it is far fetched? It WILL happen. And well WILL have to fight it.

Oh well. I’ve said too much and you’re finding out stuff about my political leanings which I’m uncomfortable sharing. But if it makes you feel better remember, I’m no expert on anything but Chicken Soup and crusty bread cause I’m not feeling well.

Glenda

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Why does this matter in this context? Whether there is a divorce or not, or sacramentality, or not, the validity of the marriage is unaffected.

Nor are they marriages.

This is not relevant to the validity of the marriage.

Further, and of importance, in the history of this nation, the state merely recognized marriage and provided a civil structure of laws to govern it, but never asserted until of late the power to change the nature of the institution.

Now, we see misguided lawmakers and the courts asserting the right to change the definition of marriage and to impose on the state the view of a minority, that has inevitable repercussion on areas such as adoption and education of children, practices of religious organizations and small businesses (the baker or wedding photographer, etc.). How is it balanced and fair that the gay community and their enablers can impose their moral view on the rest, but unfair for the rest (of the people) to maintain the never before challenged approach to and good social purpose of marriage?

Of greatest concern is that the legal nod to same sex “marriage” to appease gay couples sets aside the stake holder left without a voice in this marriage debate, our children, whose wellbeing depends on the preservation of marriage. Not pretense to marriage, forced on everyone.

For the good of our children and the future, we need Solomonic wisdom.
,

 

[rossum]

Nor are they marriages.

They are valid civil marriages. They are not valid sacramental marriages. The two types of marriage are not the same.

This is not relevant to the validity of the marriage.

It is relevant to the legal validity of the civil marriage.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For the good of our children and the future, we need Solomonic wisdom.

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

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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

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

 

[Rau]

They are valid civil marriages. They are not valid sacramental marriages. The two types of marriage are not the same.

rossum

Legally true, by virtue of the state changing the meaning of “marriage” - the issue in debate!

 

[davidv]

They are valid civil marriages.

No, they are legal marriages, which is contradiction that our mixed up legislators have imposed on us.

They are not valid sacramental marriages. The two types of marriage are not the same.

Marriage preceded sacraments making this a red herring.

It is relevant to the legal validity of the civil marriage.

rossum

Since legal is often at odds with what is right, this is in fact the issue. These laws are illicit.