D
Dan123
Guest
Yes because it requires a narrowed definition of family.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
For the most part it is.
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s not a sacrament for the vast majority of people. What you are proposing is for the word only to be available for some Christians.
R
Rau
Guest
Doesn’t he mean that man+woman could marry and that other combinations get a civil union with same legal effects? That of course we know was rejected by those seeking gay marriage.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think the argument is that marriage isn’t simply the joining together of two people. But that it is a sacremental union. Which separates it from gay marriage. But would also separate it from all those who didn’t consider it to be sacramental. So I wouldn’t be able to call the partnership with my wife a ‘marriage’.Freddy:
Doesn’t he mean that man+woman could marry and that other combinations get a civil union with same legal effects? That of course we know was rejected by those seeking gay marriage.
Objection m’lud.
Sustained…
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
No…I don’t think so. Sacraments are in the religious domain. Marriage reflects (or once did) something unique and special for its societal importance.
Objection overruled.
Objection overruled.
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
Hang on, if you support capitalism then banks (or any other donor) withdrawing support from a charity because they disagree with some aspect of the charity’s operations is the market in action. The same applies to the business/consumer relationship, as Chick Fil A found out to their cost during their recent British travails.
G
goout
Guest
I wasn’t defining a word.goout:
Yes because it requires a narrowed definition of family.
I was observing that you…and I…and every human being that has ever existed…
has exactly one mother, and one father. And that is the unique way human beings are ordered, and the way the family is ordered.
In addition, there are many expressions of the word family that include single parents, adoptive parents, and extended family.
Can you see that the uniqueness of a thing doesn’t exclude more general expressions of similar related things? They do not detract from one another?
Please explain to us how the unique relationship of man/woman/child is a religious or philosophical construct:
GO!
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Yes, but you said:
Now you acknowledge other groups can form families. So to say a man and woman can ‘uniquely among all relationships form a family’ requires using just one definition of family. Which is what I said above, the uniqueness is only there if you only use a narrow definition.
Man+Woman is the only combination to make a child (well for the time being) but that can be through traditional means, IVF, adoption of another couple’s child, adoptive of one parent’s child with another partner, unmarried couples can do so just as easily and polygamous relationships could as well, none follow the 1 male 1 female marriage formula.
G
goout
Guest
What does the word “uniquely” mean to you.goout:
Yes, but you said:
Now you acknowledge other groups can form families.
Are we going to redefine “uniquely” now?
Is this really so difficult?
Or maybe “form” is a difficult thing.
Dictionary please!
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
To be fair you’re likely using this definition:
So we both get to be both right and wrong on this one I think.
G
goout
Guest
That’s awesome. I’m happy we are speaking the same language and can understand one another.goout:
To be fair you’re likely using this definition:
So we both get to be both right and wrong on this one I think.
So you agree then that one man and one woman are uniquely ordered to a family like no other relationship.
That is AWESOME!
Now that we understand, show us where religion enters into this picture, because that was the point I was elucidating. I purposely did not use religion, or scripture, or philosophy strictly speaking, but rather a common sense observation. (hope that doesn’t require a dictionary!!)
D
Dan123
Guest
Well a few things to address. @VanitasVanitatum may have been using my understanding of ‘uniquely’, curious if this clarifies your conversation with them as well!
Being honest, I don’t think my interpretation was off. I’m welcome to (name removed by moderator)ut from others but I really suspect most people who read …
I still find it odd to define a relationship based on what someone might do. That is, wanting ‘marriage’ to only apply to couples who could make children biologically, with no expectation or requirement that they do. People want this ‘possibility’ to be the foundation of marriage even if the couple is biologically incapable of having kids, as long as they’re genetically similar to people who could have kids (that is, sterile male/female couples are not capable of creating a family in the way you reference, would you still consider them able to be married?)
Being honest, I don’t think my interpretation was off. I’m welcome to (name removed by moderator)ut from others but I really suspect most people who read …
would assume you intended to say only they can form a family. Perhaps something along the lines of
That might communicate the idea more clearly. I’m not even saying that’s the best way just what I came up with in trying to consider your position with the new understanding. Especially when you consider while human reproduction may be special, it’s hardly unusual, there’s 7 billion of us. Either way glad we got past definitions.
I still find it odd to define a relationship based on what someone might do. That is, wanting ‘marriage’ to only apply to couples who could make children biologically, with no expectation or requirement that they do. People want this ‘possibility’ to be the foundation of marriage even if the couple is biologically incapable of having kids, as long as they’re genetically similar to people who could have kids (that is, sterile male/female couples are not capable of creating a family in the way you reference, would you still consider them able to be married?)
P
Poet
Guest
Impose vs offer…
I have a friend whose wife got into polyamory. As a result, he’s ended up spending a great deal of time reading their forum. What he sees is one marriage after another breaking up, kids hurt in the process, and virtually everyone on the forum is on anti-anxiety meds and/or anti-depressants and most if not all of them seeing therapists–usually for years on end.
I absolutely believe that those who live by God’s laws are much healthier and happier. If I were to go on these forums and suggest they turn to God, I’d be e-tarred and e-feathered and run off the forum on an e-rail. I’d be accused of trying to ‘impose’ my beliefs.
Of course I don’t so from my point of view, I’m letting them live in pain and not offering what I know would help them. Because they’re going to reject it anyway.
I have a friend whose wife got into polyamory. As a result, he’s ended up spending a great deal of time reading their forum. What he sees is one marriage after another breaking up, kids hurt in the process, and virtually everyone on the forum is on anti-anxiety meds and/or anti-depressants and most if not all of them seeing therapists–usually for years on end.
I absolutely believe that those who live by God’s laws are much healthier and happier. If I were to go on these forums and suggest they turn to God, I’d be e-tarred and e-feathered and run off the forum on an e-rail. I’d be accused of trying to ‘impose’ my beliefs.
Of course I don’t so from my point of view, I’m letting them live in pain and not offering what I know would help them. Because they’re going to reject it anyway.
D
Dan123
Guest
Do you wonder how many of them were trying to live by that example and turned to polyamory because they felt unhappy or unfulfilled? How many of them were on anti-depressants before they got interested in polyamory?
U
upant
Guest
I am showing the agenda of the lgbt
if you don’t agree with their point of view they will shame businesses into pulling their support.
J
Jimbo
Guest
That can be turned around. For example, do you oppose religious descrimination? If so, do you also support banning people trying to coerce cake makers?
In the end, laws require some of us enforcing our belief system on others. I tend to the libertarian; to be honest. I think that for the most part that enforcement should have as light of a touch as possible. I also believe that we should lean on federalism as hard as possible. If the City of New York wants to have tight gun restrictions, then bully for them. But they shouldn’t be able to push that on Vermont or Montana. Also, there are some bright line rules we should follow, at a 50,000 ft level: A) Humans have inherent rights because they are Human Don’t dehumanize people; and do the things that follow from that: Theft. Robbery. Murder. Slavery. Discrimination.
I go away from probably hard core Catholicism on some things: Gay Marriage. In a Republic if we have two people who aren’t Catholic and want to commit to each other it’s hard for me to see my role, beyond convincing them, in preventing them from entering a marriage like contract. The Church wouldn’t recognize it, and that is the right of the Church. But civil entities would. If we want to stop that we should evangelize.
There are other things I’m very ardent about. Abortion specifically. While two men getting married may not be within Catholic teaching, it doesn’t kill anyone. Abortion kills. And I’m much more comfortable finding a way to outlaw that while I try to convince people for the need.
The devil is, as always, in the details.
In the end, laws require some of us enforcing our belief system on others. I tend to the libertarian; to be honest. I think that for the most part that enforcement should have as light of a touch as possible. I also believe that we should lean on federalism as hard as possible. If the City of New York wants to have tight gun restrictions, then bully for them. But they shouldn’t be able to push that on Vermont or Montana. Also, there are some bright line rules we should follow, at a 50,000 ft level: A) Humans have inherent rights because they are Human Don’t dehumanize people; and do the things that follow from that: Theft. Robbery. Murder. Slavery. Discrimination.
I go away from probably hard core Catholicism on some things: Gay Marriage. In a Republic if we have two people who aren’t Catholic and want to commit to each other it’s hard for me to see my role, beyond convincing them, in preventing them from entering a marriage like contract. The Church wouldn’t recognize it, and that is the right of the Church. But civil entities would. If we want to stop that we should evangelize.
There are other things I’m very ardent about. Abortion specifically. While two men getting married may not be within Catholic teaching, it doesn’t kill anyone. Abortion kills. And I’m much more comfortable finding a way to outlaw that while I try to convince people for the need.
The devil is, as always, in the details.
G
goout
Guest
A society ought not merely concern itself with moral prohibitions at a lowest common denominator. That LCD would be expressed as “if it doesn’t hurt anyone else then it deserves full protection”.
But a society ought to promote human flourishing at the highest level. We ought to know what the good is, and to do this we have to be able to make simple distinctions between types of things:
Who am I to make my child go to school? I provide food, clothing, and shelter. I am a father just like anyone else! I am not going to force beliefs on my child by making them go to school.
“Dad” clearly cannot claim fatherhood in it’s fullest sense. Maybe he can still be “Dad of the year”, cause…he’s not really hurting anyone. Guess it depends how you define “dad”.
Morality is not about make equivocations that allow people to scrape by at the lowest level.
Morality evaluates human acts as they are pursuant to the good.
Tolerating a behavior for the sake of tolerance, is not tolerance it’s abdicating responsibility. It leads to a downward spiral that erodes goodness.
So, while you and I have no business watching another person’s bedroom, a society ought to have the sanity to recognize human flourishing, promote it, and protect it civilly and legally. Rather than make equivocations for the sake of absolute tolerance.
But a society ought to promote human flourishing at the highest level. We ought to know what the good is, and to do this we have to be able to make simple distinctions between types of things:
Who am I to make my child go to school? I provide food, clothing, and shelter. I am a father just like anyone else! I am not going to force beliefs on my child by making them go to school.
“Dad” clearly cannot claim fatherhood in it’s fullest sense. Maybe he can still be “Dad of the year”, cause…he’s not really hurting anyone. Guess it depends how you define “dad”.
Morality is not about make equivocations that allow people to scrape by at the lowest level.
Morality evaluates human acts as they are pursuant to the good.
Tolerating a behavior for the sake of tolerance, is not tolerance it’s abdicating responsibility. It leads to a downward spiral that erodes goodness.
So, while you and I have no business watching another person’s bedroom, a society ought to have the sanity to recognize human flourishing, promote it, and protect it civilly and legally. Rather than make equivocations for the sake of absolute tolerance.
Last edited:
P
Poet
Guest
Look, it’s Dan who can’t resist arguing with anything I say!
Nice to see you again!No I don’t wonder because I’ve read their stories myself and as a rule, they weren’t living any very Christian lives before that. But thanks for asking.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I wasn’t really talking about that part.