Her "wife"

[rossum]

Nope.

They have no such authority to make what is not a marriage -be a marriage.

You are reifying marriage. That is an error. Civil marriage is defined by the civil authorities. It only exists insofar is it is defined by the civil authorities. In parallel with the civil version, various religious versions of marriage also exist. Jewish marriages allow divorce, Catholic marriages do not. Moslem marriages allow up to four wives, Sikh marriage allows only one.

Many different versions of marriage exist in reality. Trying to ignore the many differences is an error.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Marriage is many similar things; it is not one thing. Some versions of marriage allow multiple partners, as with OT kings and Patriarchs, other versions do not. Some versions allow divorce while others do not. It is an error to think of marriage as a single unchanging thing, when history shows that it is changes as it is defined and redefined by different authorities.

Did the US Supreme Court have the right to change the definition of marriage in 1967, contrary to Nehemiah 13:25? Of course they did, because they were changing US civil marriage, where they have authority, and not Biblical marriage, as defined by Nehemiah, where they did not have authority.

You appear to be trying to reify marriage into a single entity, which makes it difficult to separate civil legal marriage from other forms of marriage. Catholic marriage is not the same as civil marriage. Civil marriage is not the same as Moslem religious marriage. There are different forms of marriage in different jurisdictions, both civil and religious.

rossum

You continue to think about the man made rules.

 

[Rau]

You are reifying marriage. That is an error. Civil marriage is defined by the civil authorities. It only exists insofar is it is defined by the civil authorities. In parallel with the civil version, various religious versions of marriage also exist. Jewish marriages allow divorce, Catholic marriages do not. Moslem marriages allow up to four wives, Sikh marriage allows only one.

Many different versions of marriage exist in reality. Trying to ignore the many differences is an error.

rossum

You are confusing rules and ritual with the marriage. The so-called lack of divorce in Catholic marriage is a rule Catholics believe came from God. You may dismiss that as a rule. But the observation that marriage can only be between man and woman is self-evident. Rules that say something else are inventing or addressing something other than marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

But the observation that marriage can only be between man and woman is self-evident.

If it’s so self evident, then why do a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage?

 

[rossum]

You continue to think about the man made rules.

Nehemiah 13:25 is a man-made rule?

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are confusing rules and ritual with the marriage. The so-called lack of divorce in Catholic marriage is a rule Catholics believe came from God.

Matthew 5:32 is not from God?

You may dismiss that as a rule.

It has been dismissed by the civil authorities in most countries. Divorce is legal in most of the world.

rossum

 

[Rau]

If it’s so self evident, then why do a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage?

As an American may have better insight than I! But it would seem evident that they have not thought too deeply about it.

The argument you put is no better than the one that says if the current US legal situation is right, why was marriage viewed near unanimously as between man + woman for nearly all of history…

 

[Rau]

Matthew 5:32 is not from God?

Yes, I said it was. * It is a rule.

It has been dismissed by the civil authorities in most countries. Divorce is legal in most of the world.

Yes. I said you may dismiss it if you wish.

Nothing you’ve said here is in opposition to my prior post.*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If it’s so self evident, then why do a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage?

We have quite a lot of evidence from the medical profession that obesity is dangerous; that its effects are economically, socially, emotionally devastating. Why then with all this evidence, not to mention a plethora of available resources to demonstrate healthy eating, opportunities for healthy activity, etc., are a majority of Americans overweight to obese?

IOW, friend, the evidence of a given truth does not mean that a majority of people will realize OR act on that truth. To argue that because a ‘majority’ of people support X over Y has nothing to do with whether X is true, nor does it follow that if X WERE true the majority would support IT.

 

[Thorolfr]

IOW, friend, the evidence of a given truth does not mean that a majority of people will realize OR act on that truth. To argue that because a ‘majority’ of people support X over Y has nothing to do with whether X is true, nor does it follow that if X WERE true the majority would support IT.

I didn’t say anything about truth. I just doubt that it is self-evident as Rau claims that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

On the other hand, I do think that it’s self evident that being obese and eating unhealthy foods is bad for your health, and most people realize this even if they eat junk food or are over weight.

 

[Rau]

I’m going to guess you use the terms “husband” and “wife” when you are referring to other people whom you consider to be in “invalid” marriages?

If you knew two Catholics who got married in a ceremony outside of the church, without a Catholic priest…do you still call them “husband” and “wife”?
Even though you don’t consider it a “a real marriage”?

That’s a religious perspective, incorporating religious rules about permanence, divorce and so on. I can well understand those being dismissed by persons not committed to the relevant religion.

But I wonder how one gets past the nature of man and woman - to conclude that woman can marry woman?

 

[rossum]

Yes, I said it [Matthew 5:32] was.

Then the Catholic Church is incorrect not to allow divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality? That is what Matthew 5:32 says: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery”

Even restricting ourselves to the Bible, there are different types of marriage. Polygamy, divorce, no-divorce (Matthew 19:5), tribally based (Nehemiah 13:25) and likely others. Trying to use a one-size-fits-all definition of marriage is obviously wrong from the start, even before we start looking outside the Bible.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Then the Catholic Church is incorrect not to allow divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality? That is what Matthew 5:32 says: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery”

Even restricting ourselves to the Bible, there are different types of marriage. Polygamy, divorce, no-divorce (Matthew 19:5), tribally based (Nehemiah 13:25) and likely others. Trying to use a one-size-fits-all definition of marriage is obviously wrong from the start, even before we start looking outside the Bible.

rossum

You appear to have lost the point in discussion rossum…

 

[rossum]

You appear to have lost the point in discussion rossum…

My point it that marriage is not one thing, but many things, and has been many things throughout history and in different places.

Same sex marriage is just one of many changes that have happened to marriage:

• Marriage (Jacob) = 1 husband, 2 wives, 2 handmaidens.
• Marriage (Deuteronomy 21:15) = 1 husband, 2 wives.
• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Muslim) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
• Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal authorities.

Asserting that one, and only one, of these different versions of marriage is real marriage is to ignore reality.

rossum

 

[Rau]

My point it that marriage is not one thing, but many things, and has been many things throughout history and in different places.

Same sex marriage is just one of many changes that have happened to marriage:

• Marriage (Jacob) = 1 husband, 2 wives, 2 handmaidens.
• Marriage (Deuteronomy 21:15) = 1 husband, 2 wives.
• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Muslim) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
• Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal authorities.

Asserting that one, and only one, of these different versions of marriage is real marriage is to ignore reality.

rossum

Big sigh… I’ve not introduced or relied on religion in this discussion Rossum. I’ve invited you to look past rules and ritual.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

My point it that marriage is not one thing, but many things, and has been many things throughout history and in different places.

Same sex marriage is just one of many changes that have happened to marriage:

• Marriage (Jacob) = 1 husband, 2 wives, 2 handmaidens.
• Marriage (Deuteronomy 21:15) = 1 husband, 2 wives.
• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Muslim) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
• Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal authorities.

Asserting that one, and only one, of these different versions of marriage is real marriage is to ignore reality.

rossum

hmmmmmm…your list from beginning until “Netherlands” all have something in common. Can you guess what that something is?
progressives have attempted to redefine what is natural in the new millennium…

 

[pnewton]

Nehemiah 13:25 is a man-made rule?

No, but it was a rule for a specific people at a specific time.

Matthew 5:32 is not from God?

No one here has said this.

Asserting that one, and only one, of these different versions of marriage is real marriage is to ignore reality.

Correct. Marriage has many realities, just like sexual preferences. For example, it is a reality that some people have a sexual preference for children. It is not ignoring reality, but responding to it that makes us legislate that adults cannot have sex with children (though for some odd reason we still allow children to have sex with children.) I expect this to change some day, as this is the direction we are heading.

 

[rossum]

Big sigh… I’ve not introduced or relied on religion in this discussion Rossum. I’ve invited you to look past rules and ritual.

Look through my list. Religion is only part of it. Both legal and religious authorities have their different definitions of marriage. That is what is at the root of the OP’s question: the difference between the legal definition of marriage and the Catholic religious definition of marriage.

rossum

 

[rossum]

hmmmmmm…your list from beginning until “Netherlands” all have something in common. Can you guess what that something is?
progressives have attempted to redefine what is natural in the new millennium…

Let me think. Yes, that’s it. Historically, polygamy is the most common form of marriage, especially for rich and powerful men. Was that what you meant?

Even in the West we have serial polygamy (yes, that means you Donald Trump) rather than parallel polygamy as for Early Mormons and Muslims.

rossum

 

[Bookcat]

You are reifying marriage. That is an error. Civil marriage is defined by the civil authorities. It only exists insofar is it is defined by the civil authorities.

Nope.

God made marriage.

In the beginning……

And that which is not a marriage…that which cannot be a marriage…simply is not.

No matter what human laws attempt to do. Might as well make a law that circles are squares.

No one has the authority to re-define marriage to mean two persons of the same gender. Copyright violation…and then some…

And it is important to note that this is the Catholic Answers Moral Theology Forum…not the forum of other matters. Hence the discussion is to be how is Catholic Moral Theology applied to this question. All this other stuff is off topic. So in keeping with the forum rules we need to cease this discussion here anyhow. It is derailing the OP’s thread.