defending marriage

[Nate13]

Is “inherent nature” permanent or temporary? If it is just temporary, then I have far fewer problems with the concept. If it is permanent then, in Buddhist terms, it is a philosophical no-no.

As to marriage, there are already different rules for Catholic marriage (no divorce) and civil marriage (divorce allowed). In places where same sex civil marriage is allowed, the difference between the two is greater. It is an error to think that marriage is one single entity that never changes. It is multiple entities, and those entities can change.

rossum

Civil divorce is allowed because it allows for a separation of assets. If we are talking about law wise that is a different discussion, that has different arguments. In any event I would again harken back to John Locke:

Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it
John Locke

The inherent nature is permanent as far as this lifetime is concerned. Lets not bother getting into what occurs after that considering the theological differences we have.

From a practical standpoint I would argue there is plenty of reasons to prescribe benefits to heterosexual marriage and not to homosexual marriage. Number 1 being the government giving benefits to people because they are married has nothing to do with the feelings between them in and of themselves. The government does not have to promote people falling in love with each other. It will happen regardless. The point of the benefits is to promote stable families into which children are born into. The government has little (name removed by moderator)ut on whether children are born or not, but it can work to promote marriage so when children are born they are born into stable, loving families.

In the case of gay relationships though this is not the case. No children are going to be born as a result of their relationship. I see no reason for the government to get involved in their affairs or recognize their relationship as being any benefit to society.

 

[rossum]

In the case of gay relationships though this is not the case. No children are going to be born as a result of their relationship. I see no reason for the government to get involved in their affairs or recognize their relationship as being any benefit to society.

So, you think that civil government should not recognise marriages involving infertile people, including women past their menopause?

There are many heterosexual marriages with no children, whether due to choice or necessity. Should we change the practice so that all couples get married in the church/mosque/temple/humanist office of their own choosing and only get their relationship legally recognised by the governemnt after the birth of their first child?

If you are going to make the “no children” criterion consistent, then you are going to have to think it through more carefully if you want to apply it generlly in the civil sphere.

rossum

 

[Nate13]

So, you think that civil government should not recognise marriages involving infertile people, including women past their menopause?

There are many heterosexual marriages with no children, whether due to choice or necessity. Should we change the practice so that all couples get married in the church/mosque/temple/humanist office of their own choosing and only get their relationship legally recognised by the governemnt after the birth of their first child?

No its the principle. And if you wait until a child is born to promote marriage its too late. You want there to be a permanent, stable, loving couple in place before the child is born. We already have 33% of children being born out of wedlock, and that is one of the biggest causes of poverty. I’d also add our tax code already accounts for differences in the number of children a couple has as well.

The point is that children are born out of heterosexual relationships, and when they are born in permanent, stable, loving relationships it is best for the children and society as a whole. I by no means think our tax code is perfect and I’m sure more could be done to apply it to promote what we actually want to promote. Inefficiency does not change what the purpose of promoting marriage is though.

If you are going to make the “no children” criterion consistent, then you are going to have to think it through more carefully if you want to apply it generlly in the civil sphere.
rossum

Already answered. If you wait until children are here its too late.

 

[rossum]

If you wait until children are here its too late.

So, you are abandoning the procreation argument. Couples can get married without having children and without the possibility of having children.

Good. That I can agree with. Fertility tests should not be required for civil marriage.

rossum

 

[Nate13]

So, you are abandoning the procreation argument. Couples can get married without having children and without the possibility of having children.

Good. That I can agree with. Fertility tests should not be required for civil marriage.

rossum

uh…no one ever promoted such. You may have seen something about how impotency (permanent inability to have sex) prevents someone from being allowed to marry in the Church but that is it. Barrenness does not prevent someone from being able to marry.

A homosexual couple would be impotent by definition considering they do not have all the parts that are necessary between the two of them to complete the act in a way ordered towards procreation.

 

[BellsMom]

What about sexless marriages like Mary and Joseph? What were they called, consecrated? Are these no longer acceptable?

 

[Nate13]

What about sexless marriages like Mary and Joseph? What were they called, consecrated? Are these no longer acceptable?

They are acceptable and are known as brother sister marriages. I’ve asked on other threads though and apparently this is not an option for someone who is impotent. You have to have something in order to be able to give it up to God for whatever reason you choose to do so. I am not knowledgeable as to the reasons a brother sister marriage is done.

 

[karebear92]

What about sexless marriages like Mary and Joseph? What were they called, consecrated? Are these no longer acceptable?

A brother-sister marriage is agreed upon between the husband and the wife. They agree before marriage that they do not intend to have children. However, upon the reasonable request by the spouse, they must willingly give themselves entirely to the spouse in order to have children. Therefore, one must have the potential of fulfilling the partner’s reasonable request. Mary and Joseph could have had children had Joseph asked Mary or Mary Joseph. They simply chose (possibly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, though I am not certain of that) not to.

 

[hazmat]

Somebody made the argument on FB," why do we think that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage when so many people, and here are names of famous people and how they destroyed their marriage, are doing a very good jof destroying the institution"? I am trying to post something in defense of marriage, show me the “holes” in this argument:
Humans are sinners and will always manage to mess up things, but that doesn’t mean that we should change an institution that for thousand of years has meant “a man and a woman that, through the marital embrace can bring forth a child” That is the only union that can procreate and deserves a special name,“MARRIAGE”.

if you have to ask others to show you holes in an argument you want to challenge, youre exposing the fact that you dont see them yourself, and are just being biased. if you dont know what youre talking about, maybe you should just sit back and observe until you can form your own arguments.

 

[lenseekstruth]

They are acceptable and are known as brother sister marriages. I’ve asked on other threads though and apparently this is not an option for someone who is impotent. You have to have something in order to be able to give it up to God for whatever reason you choose to do so. I am not knowledgeable as to the reasons a brother sister marriage is done.

In my very limited understanding, at the time of Mary this was an acceptable custom, marriage was arranged in those days and even though a couple might feel called to virginity, they would still marry so the woman would have a custodian-defender-provider and would not be a subject of gossip. KAREBEAR92 puts it very well, even in the "brother/sister marriage the potential for having children is there.

The Catholic marriage has two parts, the civil and the religious, one render the marriage valid for the state, and one for the Church and God. When people who have been validly married divorce and wish to remarry, they can enter a “brother sister” civil marriage, enjoy all the civil benefits and be able to take communion because in effect, although not married in the eyes of the church they are not committing any sin, this marriage is also open to the possibility of children.

I can’t imagine a more valid marriage than Mary’s, since everything in her life was united with God’s will, and I’m not ready to question any of it!

Some couples may decide to imitate Mary and Joseph, indeed many people marry with reservations, some may marry intending not to have children, and these are the marriages that, when the facts are exposed , the Church declares null, i.e. they were never valid, but the potential for procreation is still there. This brings us back to the beginning of this thread, Gay marriage is not valid, and should not be called marriage because the inherent nature of two men or two women precludes procreation