“Universal acceptance does not mean non discriminatory.” Exactly. We need to get over this idea that majority-rule decisions can apply when it comes to something that is intrinsically tied to a natural act. Since biology is integral to marriage, we are required to discriminate – not out of supposed hatred – but based on biology.
It’s got nothing to do with me. If you want your marriage with your donkey recognised by the state, then you have to have to get the state to change it’s definition to include you and your donkey. Good luck with that.
Whatever answers I, or a heterosexual person seeking marriage answer to that question, is irrelevant. Why is the state in the business of marriage? I don’t know. Why does it offer marriage licenses? I don’t know. The fact is it does, and if it offers them to Henry it should offer them to Hazel.
Then why don’t heterosexual couples do that? What is it about this term “marriage” that, as we’ve seen, has a fluidic definition, that gets everybody so worked up? Why should I have to go through the aggrovation and bother of establishing my rights through other methods simply because I love someone of the same sex, just because it does not fit very nicely with your particular definition of “marriage”? Me, I don’t care if the state calls them marriages, civil partnerships, civil unions, turd-duos, or what. What I have a problem with is that the State has, by creating a seperate set of unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples, divided us on sexual orientation. It has created a seperate class of people based on nothing more than who they are in love with. It’s very symbolic, and it matters.
Not me. I know for one that there is no god, so I do not need to be bound by his definition of the term. To me, its the legal scope that matters.
That’s my point. People today see marriage as having no intrinsic meaning. They see it as a label only, so of course it can be changed if I convince enough legislators (or judges).
Well, if there is no reason, then they should get out of the business of certifying marriages.
There is some truth in what you say here – if marriage has nothing to do with the sexual act, then it becomes synonymous with “civil union.” This is my whole point.
Contrary to what you perceive, this has nothing to do with God or religion. So I respect your atheism in the framework of this discussion. But no one can deny that it requires a male and a female to have intercourse which often results in a baby. This natural type of family is the purpose for recognizing a marriage. So my question to you about the purpose of marriage was meant to get you to follow the logic backwards. You will then see that the logic of marriage goes off track when the sexual act is separated from procreation.
Agreed. However in a Democracy, universal acceptance does have a great influence on civil law.
:clapping:
Now you’re going off-track and back to your own definition. We know that legally speaking, procreation and even sex are not a pre-requisite to marriage. I don’t remember the name of the case, but there was a ruling in which a marriage where at least one of the pair was a prisoner who was incarcerated for life and thus had absolutely no chance of ever doing the deed. This marriage was deemed legal, so we know that neither sex or procreation are prerquisites to civil marriage. Legally speaking, if this were the case, that marriage would not be allowed.
Yes, universal acceptance affects the law. But people are being swayed by a false argument, or rather an incomplete one- they are told that failure to include gays is discriminatory so we must change marriage. However, nobody asks “Well what about every other possible marriage? Is it not being ‘discriminated’ against in the same manner?”
Homo and heterosexuality are but a tiny fraction of the spectrum in which people’s sexual and emotional attachments may fall. What about those poor souls who happen to love a married person, more than one person, a cousin, their father, someone who does not love them, a child, a dead person, an object, an animal, or a celestial body.
When the Catholic Church stops giving tacit approval to the dissident members of its hierarchy and clergy, then I’ll consider leaving over my disagreements.
A contract is a binding agreement between parties enforceable in law.
To be a dissident at all, one must reject infallibility. I believe homosexual acts are sinful, but this is not sufficient to disallow gay marriage civilly. However, I am also not at all convinced by the arguments put forth by gay marriage advocates. So I’d put myself at ‘neutral’ on gay marriage. I am not prochoice.tjm
*When the Catholic Church stops giving tacit approval to the dissident members of its hierarchy and clergy, then I’ll consider leaving over my disagreements. *
The Catholic Church does not give tacit approval to heresy. Anyone who disagrees with fundamental teachings is heretical. Fundamental teachings are well defined. Other teachings are up for dialogue. In what areas are you dissident? Fundamental teachings? Are you in favor of homosexual marriages? Are you pro-choice on abortion? If you are dissident in such matters as these, which are settled teachings and cannot change, you are more than dissident.
It would help to know why you call yourself dissident. Are you a cafeteria Catholic? Do you only believe those doctrines that appeal to you and discard the others? Not prying into your personal life here, but I’ve never understood the term “dissident Catholic,” and I don’t see how it can possibly be applied to bishops and priests who are truly Catholic.
Someone who happens to love a married person: Comparison fails, since the married person would not want to get married to them, therefore it is not a consenting relationship.
Since when did we start doing fertility tests on couples and asking of their intentions to pro-create?
Biology is still at issue. Men and women were made to work together biologically. Man and man and woman and woman are nor compatible. This isn’t about classes but about biology.
Biology has never been a factor in marriage. Compatible in what way? That they can have sex and make a baby? See my earlier posts - babies have never been a prerequisite to marriage.
And at least a few of those priests rejected their mistake made in 1968 about Humanae Vitae. If you are looking for rejection by others as approval for your own, I suggest you look at Church teaching instead. I don’t reject anything about the Church just because I have fellow Catholic friends who decide to ignore this or that teaching as it suits them.