C
Costner
Guest
thank you for this! really good argument for me to use just in case I get into a debate.
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
That’s why the government has no concern of “sacramental” or “God’s design”…God and church have no say in the rule of civil law base on the Constitution. You are free to hold your religous views of "God " and “sacrament”…you just cannot impose those religous beliefs upon others and have those beliefs enforced by a secular government.
P
Publisher
Guest
Your “premise” is flawed. Civil marriage is a binding contract based on two people mutaully entering into the civil contract of their own free will without coersion. Sex between humans and animals have no basis to for such contracts in civil law…animals cannot give free consent. Children cannot give consent. Two people recongnized as having the ability to make informed consent and determine the course of their lives is the basis of civil marriage.
In 1915, two adults of differnt ethic backgrounds did not have the rights we enjoy today. Women did not share the rights they have today. Children were expoited by employeers and their parents becasese they had no rights that they have today. 1915 was a time of expotation and denying the basic rights men and women take for granted today.
No, those in 1915 most likely would never have thought it possible to allow an African American the right to marry a Caucasian. Those in 1915 would have been agahst at the right of all Americans who reached the age of majority to vote. They would have never thought women of all people had the right to decide for themselves whether they could have children or not. Women raped in 1915 had little legal recourse…I mean…they were women…they probably asked for it. The rights of the victims of sexual abuse were almost non existent.
We live in a vastly differnt world that existed in 1915. THANK GOD!!!
F
fred_conty
Guest
It probably is not as bad as the Romans got, but its getting there. Orgies are next.
Just one man’s opinion.
Just one man’s opinion.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Two hundred years if you claimed that eventually nearly everyone would marry for love you’d get a bunch of really confused looks.
S
St_Francis
Guest
People who are younger than 18 cannot give consent to a lot of different things, entering the military, getting a loan, etc.
But people younger than 18 can give consent to engaging in sexual activity, which can have much more life-changing effects than buying a used car on time, no?
You are displaying a progressivist view of history when you point out the wrongs of the previous time: the fact that in 1915 X, Y, and Z were societal wrongs, and that we have now fixed those wrongs does not mitigate the fact that we now have our own societal wrongs which they did not have. They are completely unrelated; our society has not progressed, we have merely changed the wrongs we commit. Back then we had racism and exploitation, now we have abortion and broken families.
The historical comparison is brought up to indicate that back then we were better people but to provide evidence for the slippery-slope nature of what is happening.
M
marymary1975
Guest
First, while currently marriage is seen as a contract the legal obligations are completely different from other kinds of contracts. There is a reason why a long time ago marriage was taken out of being part of contract/civil law and evolved into a completely separated area of law called domestic relations and is precisely because it has evolved very differently from contracts. What marriage does pretty much is changing your legal status and what regulates marriage is not contract law or common law, instead is regulated entirely by the States. States are/ were allowed to place any regulations they wanted on marriage and this is precisely what I am talking about. If gay marriage is approved is going to happen exactly as it happen with abortion. Is going to be taken out of the states hands and states won’t be allowed to regulate it anymore which means all current regulations: age, man/women, consent, blood relation are going to become unconstitutional.
Secondly, obviously you know very little about law because of you would you should know that minors CAN give consent. Though I don’t see how you are tying consent with regular contracts but let me clarify to you that minors can enter into perfectly valid contracts. What happens is that the other party cannot enforce the contract against he minor, but is completely valid. Again states have an interest in protecting minors therefore they are allowed to regulate to protect minors. But then again, same thing, if marriage is taken out of state’s hand they can’t regulate anymore. Does the fact that minors don’t require parental consent for abortion sounds a bell to you? If minors couldn’t they wouldn’t be able to have an abortion. Again same thing happening with abortion applies here. And just to further, again consent in the context of marriage is nothing but a regulation, a requirement regarding marriage that it is in place to further something. States require consent on the same way they require that it be between a man or a woman. Read again my first paragraph regarding what happens to regulations when something is taken out of the state.
Thirdly, you should clarify that the prohibition of interracial marriages was only and only in the USA. Your statement sounds too general and if you haven’t realized it in the rest of the world blacks and whites have been getting married since forever. Have you wonder why most people in the US are white while most Latin American are mestizos and mulatos? Anyway, the reason behind that was because states can regulate marriage however they please and they can grant citizenship to however they please. Women and blacks for many years were not considered citizens therefore had no rights. Jews in Nazi Germany had no rights, the point is legally states have the power to deny rights or grant them, and when they grant rights they also need to have the power to regulate those rights and no right can be absolute because when they don’t regulate rights the ridiculous happens like we see in the US where lack of regulation has caused things like people suing other because their own stupidity.
Anyway, the fact that Americans are racist and didn’t want to give rights to women or blacks has nothing to do with my point. My point is that something viewed as science fiction in a past era may very well become reality in the future. Let’s even forget about people’s right for a minute. Do you think that someone in Costa Rica in 1920 (let’s get it out of the US as per you US society is not a good example) would have believed that in the 60’s a human being was going to land in the moon, or a German in 1850 was going to believe people were going to fly in airplanes? What may seem right now like fiction may very well become true.
And finally, I would like to know where do you tie consent with contracts. Consent has nothing to do with contract law. What is required for contracts law is consideration which has nothing to do with consent. Consent aplies to tort law and criminal law, has nothing to do with what you are stating.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Really, with the numbers of divorce in the US I would be very careful of saying that people now a day marry “for love” and for you information the catholic church was the first institution that said women should choose who they want to marry and the first one to start promoting the concept of marriage by love.
L
lllj
Guest
I started an extensive discussion this a few months back. I never ended up fully convinced.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735906
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735906
L
lllj
Guest
A couple comments to that:
- Abortion is not in any way relevant here. One is a life or death issue, another is not. More relevant would be divorce law.
- I don’t think anyone was arguing to force Catholic churches to perform same sex marriages. The government is not in any way hindering a Catholic’s right to practice Catholicism by legalizing gay marriage. On the other hand, one could argue that the government is currently forcing a particular religious belief upon society.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Please point to where the Church teaches you can only marry someone who you love at the time of marriage.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Really Dakota, what you need to do IS go learn the doctrine of the catholic church and then you can talk about it. Don’t talk when you have zero knowledge on the subject.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
The correct answer is that there is not actually a place where the Church says it because that would be modernist nonsense and not actual theology.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I’m confused by this whole gay marriage thing too.
We were told what homosexuals did in their bedrooms was private. Now some want a public marriage license.
We were told there is** no difference between men and women**, that we’re basically all the same. But somehow homosexuals recognize that there is a difference between men and women–and they prefer persons of their own sex.
Somehow, preferring a sexual partner who are most like oneself in the genital area gets passed off as “diversity”. Perhaps they want to change the meaning of diversity too.
Society sets quotas for equal numbers of men and women in other areas and it is applauded by those who want to advance equality for women, yet perfecly equal quota of one man to every one woman for marriage is somehow regarded as unequal.
We are told that marriage has little to do with reproduction and children, yet adoption by homosexual couples became an issue as soon as Massachusets allowed gay marriage.
Catholic adoption agencies were told they had to place children with gay couples or close, yet some try to assure us these chages to marriage laws will have no impact on our religious freedom.
I’m confused too. Is marriage private or public? Does marriage have anything to do with children and reproduction or not? Are men and women dfferent or the same? Is the ratio 2:0 or 0:2 more equal than 1:1? It’s all very confusing.
We were told what homosexuals did in their bedrooms was private. Now some want a public marriage license.
We were told there is** no difference between men and women**, that we’re basically all the same. But somehow homosexuals recognize that there is a difference between men and women–and they prefer persons of their own sex.
Somehow, preferring a sexual partner who are most like oneself in the genital area gets passed off as “diversity”. Perhaps they want to change the meaning of diversity too.
Society sets quotas for equal numbers of men and women in other areas and it is applauded by those who want to advance equality for women, yet perfecly equal quota of one man to every one woman for marriage is somehow regarded as unequal.
We are told that marriage has little to do with reproduction and children, yet adoption by homosexual couples became an issue as soon as Massachusets allowed gay marriage.
Catholic adoption agencies were told they had to place children with gay couples or close, yet some try to assure us these chages to marriage laws will have no impact on our religious freedom.
I’m confused too. Is marriage private or public? Does marriage have anything to do with children and reproduction or not? Are men and women dfferent or the same? Is the ratio 2:0 or 0:2 more equal than 1:1? It’s all very confusing.
P
Publisher
Guest
Again…read the places I highlighted. We are speaking of civil contracts of marriage REGULATED by the state. States regulate contracts. A contract that cannot be enforced is hardly a “contract”.
Minors may be able to give consent on certain things…however we as a society have determined that some decisions such as engaging in sex with adults is not one they are in a postion to make based on life experience. Sex between minors is still against the law. In some states if the age difference is greater than three years, it is considered statutory rape for the older minor.
Yes, blacks and whites were able to marry in other countries for centuries…but we not discussing what goes on in other countries. States by state regulates who and who cannont have an abortion without parential notification. States will continue to regulate the age of consent for civil marriage.
That no one thought of mankind going to the moon in the 19th century a reality has no bearing on civil rights of gay people…and whether you agree or not, the US Spreme Court has stated in I believe 14 separate cases that marriage is a civil right. Adults or those who have reached the age of majority as regulated by the state they reside in will continue to be required to fulfill the requirements of that state in order to get a civil marriage…same sex or otherwise. I did not equate “civil marriage” was in any way “equal” to other contractural agreements people engage in…the state will continue to regulate civil marriage.
While consent may not be a requirement for all contracts…IT IS a requirement for civil marriage.
D
djames99
Guest
Because when baptized we promise to emulate Christ. Doing so our mandate becomes to deny ourselves and care for others. If we understand that we are all brothers and sisters, as sons of God, then we care for the salvation of our neighbor. Our task is to have everyone in heaven and making that a reality.
P
Publisher
Guest
So where does 'free will" fit into all of this? If your neighbor rejects your religous premise of salvation, do you feel it is you “job” to continue to force your religious beliefs upon them in order to 'force" them into heaven? Your “task” may be to get everyone into “heaven”…but if some don’t want to go…where does your “task” end and their “freewill” begin?
L
lllj
Guest
For the record, depends on the state.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_sexual_consent_in_the_United_States
Where I am, basically, two 17 year olds can have sex, but a 17 and an 18 year old cannot. So while not keeping all minors from having sex, it does keep adults from taking advantage of children.
D
djames99
Guest
You raise a good point publisher. We can only tell them the good news and lead them to ways of salvation. We can’t force anyone.
The scenerio now is that the world thinks there is religious choice and there isn’t, as if there exists a yellow pages filled with clubs(religions) to join. The point of religious choice was just prior to Pentecost 2000 years ago. At this event the religion table was cleared and God in so many ways said “Listen up, this is the only religion I see valid from this time on. Any ones that exist now or to come are invalid.”
This single religion has the full compliment of what’s called “fruits of salvation” in that we need them to mount the strongest battle against the devil. These sacraments were given by Christ the head of that Church to be passed on to us. If we didn’t need everything that was given by Christ, then logically we are back to the deficient and ineffectual religious classes of the old way. The result is we make no headway at all and Christ came to us for nothing.
What happened next was that man got prideful and found the obligations to that religion a real burden and a lot of work. It got in the way of people wanting to sin, as it annoyingly played on their conscience. So leaving the True Religion and joining the made up ones who were less demanding looked mighty tempting at this point. They offered less work or a lessor compliment of the saving graces. Some even exist on entertainment value alone.
So someone said I’ll start a religion based on the valid one, but with this part missing. Another started one with something else missing, and some started ones that worshiped temporary nature, and some people left religion altogether. And so it goes. So we can see that any other religion is at most a watered down fake of the legit religion, and those who have none have some catching up to do.
Christ gave us a mandate to warn others of the risks, and to give the good news of his new religion. So none of this was initiated by us as you seem to think, but we accept these orders from the top brass, because we can charitably foresee everyone in the same happy resting place of true life. Their refusing to be taught doesn’t mitigate their circumstances, otherwise what’s the point of the command put on us?. The same questions will be asked to them on judgement day. It’s how they were wise enough to accept what’s given by God and his helpers that counts.
It’s even illogical to pick a less effective weapon against a real tough adversary such is the devil. Why would anyone choose a weapon that has something missing in it, a weapon in which the creator of satan says is ineffective?. We would want to choose the weapon with all it’s attachments working, the greatest fire power if you will. That weapon is the Catholic Church instituted by Christ himself, complete with everything we need to launch our fight.
One of the greatest truths is that we are not even of this planet. *We are spirits with an origin in the spirit world, *and our bodies are just instruments made out of the substance of this earth to be applied for that mission.
The scenerio now is that the world thinks there is religious choice and there isn’t, as if there exists a yellow pages filled with clubs(religions) to join. The point of religious choice was just prior to Pentecost 2000 years ago. At this event the religion table was cleared and God in so many ways said “Listen up, this is the only religion I see valid from this time on. Any ones that exist now or to come are invalid.”
This single religion has the full compliment of what’s called “fruits of salvation” in that we need them to mount the strongest battle against the devil. These sacraments were given by Christ the head of that Church to be passed on to us. If we didn’t need everything that was given by Christ, then logically we are back to the deficient and ineffectual religious classes of the old way. The result is we make no headway at all and Christ came to us for nothing.
What happened next was that man got prideful and found the obligations to that religion a real burden and a lot of work. It got in the way of people wanting to sin, as it annoyingly played on their conscience. So leaving the True Religion and joining the made up ones who were less demanding looked mighty tempting at this point. They offered less work or a lessor compliment of the saving graces. Some even exist on entertainment value alone.
So someone said I’ll start a religion based on the valid one, but with this part missing. Another started one with something else missing, and some started ones that worshiped temporary nature, and some people left religion altogether. And so it goes. So we can see that any other religion is at most a watered down fake of the legit religion, and those who have none have some catching up to do.
Christ gave us a mandate to warn others of the risks, and to give the good news of his new religion. So none of this was initiated by us as you seem to think, but we accept these orders from the top brass, because we can charitably foresee everyone in the same happy resting place of true life. Their refusing to be taught doesn’t mitigate their circumstances, otherwise what’s the point of the command put on us?. The same questions will be asked to them on judgement day. It’s how they were wise enough to accept what’s given by God and his helpers that counts.
It’s even illogical to pick a less effective weapon against a real tough adversary such is the devil. Why would anyone choose a weapon that has something missing in it, a weapon in which the creator of satan says is ineffective?. We would want to choose the weapon with all it’s attachments working, the greatest fire power if you will. That weapon is the Catholic Church instituted by Christ himself, complete with everything we need to launch our fight.
One of the greatest truths is that we are not even of this planet. *We are spirits with an origin in the spirit world, *and our bodies are just instruments made out of the substance of this earth to be applied for that mission.
M
Maso
Guest
Then why does the Book of Revelation in it’s early chapters go through a series of critical comments about the branches and factions in Asia Minor…?
It seems like schisms and dichotomies have been the rule since Abraham left the city or Ur.
- Status