Her "wife"

[Rau]

I wasn’t talking about morality at all. I was saying that if a law exists, it exists. That’s not morality, it’s reality.

When people fought against slavery, they still used the word “slave” did they not?.

Yes, but slavery does not cease to exist because the law abolishes it. The reality of slavery is not changed by the law. Marriage cannot become something else because of the law. The law has recognised marriage as somethings existing to be held up and supported. Nowadays, people think that that support - the legal framework - is what marriage is.

If the law abolished marriage - that is, if it ceased to provide any support or legal framework, then what vanishes is only that framework, not the commitment between man and woman which arises from their nature and compatibility. I would be no less married to my wife - no less a husband, no less a father. And you may conclude that a certain woman is no less “married” to her female partner. And I’d agree with you in all respects except the use of the word marriage. I am no less married, and they are no less deeply committed friends.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m going to start referring to my wife as either my spouse or my partner, just so as not to offend anyone.

 

[NM505StKate]

I’m going to start referring to my wife as either my spouse or my partner, just so as not to offend anyone.

No one would be offended if you call your mate wife. I know you are being silly but it comes off condescending.

Daddygirl has it right though. The law now says that gay/lesbian couples can get married. It is their right to. Doesn’t matter if you like it or not. Would any of you rather people not get the same benefits as hetero couples do?

 

[Bookcat]

I suppose you can ignore the law and pretend it doesn’t exist…but that doesn’t make it disappear.

There are many who don’t believe Jesus is the son of God who rose from the dead, etc…but they will still acknowledge that you celebrate Easter… It’s because they respect what you believe to be true.
Would be nice for others to do the same–especially if the law supports it.

.

An unjust law is no law.

No one can give such a right.

It is no more possible then a square -circle.

The law now says that gay/lesbian couples can get married. It is their right to.

An unjust law is not a law.

And no one give such a right. It is non-existent.

No it is actually not. No one can give that right - it is not within their power.

The reality is that they are not married - and while each person is to be loved and respected as persons - we are not to endorse such attempted unions or approve them.

Truth and Charity must always go together - charity without truth offends charity and truth.

And it would be to offend the dignity of the persons I am speaking with if I were say they were married or call them “wife’s” etc.

 

[pnewton]

OK, that makes better sense (while still being totally ridiculous). I thought DaddyGirl was suggesting the two women were cousins or something.

Or maybe sisters, aunt and niece, mother and daughter. It is a brave new world we have opened up.

 

[rossum]

An unjust law is no law.

Do you think it is just to force your religious beliefs on others who do not follow your religion?

The law is not about morals, Christian or otherwise. If it were, then it would be illegal to worship in a Hindu temple: “You shall not have other gods before me.”

Many people feel very strongly that it would be wrong to impose sharia law on non-Muslims. By imposing your version of religious marriage on others you would be effectively doing the same thing.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Do you think it is just to force your religious beliefs on others who do not follow your religion?

The law is not about morals, Christian or otherwise. If it were, then it would be illegal to worship in a Hindu temple: “You shall not have other gods before me.”

Many people feel very strongly that it would be wrong to impose sharia law on non-Muslims. By imposing your version of religious marriage on others you would be effectively doing the same thing.

rossum

There is no imposition, we have no power to impose. We object to what is patently in contradiction with the nature of man, available to all with eyes to see.

 

[pnewton]

Do you think it is just to force your religious beliefs on others who do not follow your religion?

The law is not about morals,

Is it about morals? That is the question at hand. I think the issue is a moral one.

 

[Thorolfr]

Is it about morals? That is the question at hand. I think the issue is a moral one.

How do you tell whether something is a moral issue or not? You think that this is a moral issue but seem to be think that the issue of slavery is not a moral issue. On what basis do you make these distinctions?

 

[Bookcat]

Do you think it is just to force your religious beliefs on others who do not follow your religion?

The law is not about morals, Christian or otherwise. If it were, then it would be illegal to worship in a Hindu temple: “You shall not have other gods before me.”

Many people feel very strongly that it would be wrong to impose sharia law on non-Muslims. By imposing your version of religious marriage on others you would be effectively doing the same thing.

rossum

Not a question of any such thing -that is a straw man (or woman if you wish).

A persons religious beliefs do not change the reality that no one has the authority to say that two persons of the same gender can marry.

No one has this authority. No one.

Anymore than anyone has the authority to make a square circle.

That is a side discussion of the “why” such cannot be a marriage. The main subject though is what a person is to do or not do in their interactions with others.

We are discussing (that subject of this thread) what a Christian …what a Catholic is to do. Any why. What they in their actions are to do or not to do. Such has absolutely nothing to do with imposing anything on anyone …but what about how one is to act* themselves*.

And this is a Catholic Answers Forum of Moral Theology…

 

[rossum]

A persons religious beliefs do not change the reality that no one has the authority to say that two persons of the same gender can marry.

You are wrong. The duly constituted legal authorities in a country have the authority to set the laws of civil marriage for that country.

Civil marriages are defined in civil law, and the appropriate civil institutions have the authority to set that law. In the UK, Parliament has passed a law allowing same sex civil marriage. Parliament obviously has the authority to pass that law, and has done so.

You clearly think that they should not have done so, but you cannot deny that they have the legal authority to do so.

rossum

 

[pnewton]

How do you tell whether something is a moral issue or not? You think that this is a moral issue but seem to be think that the issue of slavery is not a moral issue

Your guess work is inaccurate. This is untrue.

 

[Rau]

You are wrong. The duly constituted legal authorities in a country have the authority to set the laws of civil marriage for that country.

Civil marriages are defined in civil law, and the appropriate civil institutions have the authority to set that law. In the UK, Parliament has passed a law allowing same sex civil marriage. Parliament obviously has the authority to pass that law, and has done so.

You clearly think that they should not have done so, but you cannot deny that they have the legal authority to do so.

rossum

You think of marriage as the legal recognition, process and framework. Sure, States can create that, define it how they like. Multi party, same sex, whatever comes to mind. They can abolish it too. That framework is a reality, but distinct from the reality of marriage itself.

 

[Thorolfr]

Your guess work is inaccurate. This is untrue.

I was told that the issue of slavery is not an issue of faith or morals, so what a pope has said on this issue is perhaps less important.

 

[pnewton]

I was told that the issue of slavery is not an issue of faith or morals, so what a pope has said on this issue is perhaps less important.

There are those who think abortion is the only moral issue, or maybe only five issues or moral. I do not and it is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The section on morality in the catechism is extensive and it is just an overview.

 

[Rau]

I was told that the issue of slavery is not an issue of faith or morals, so what a pope has said on this issue is perhaps less important.

I recall you were told that a specific statement (document) was not a teaching. Get it right Thor.

 

[Bookcat]

You are wrong. The duly constituted legal authorities in a country have the authority to set the laws of civil marriage for that country.

\

Nope.

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

Anymore than they have the authority to make water be a rock.

They can write whatever words they like …but they do not change reality and do not have the authority to do so.

 

[on_the_hill]

Nope.

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

Anymore than they have the authority to make water be a rock.

They can write whatever words they like …but they do not change reality and do not have the authority to do so.

In other words, all just laws are direct derivatives of Natual Law? Im not sure. If one were to examine every law and measure each by natural law, there would probably be thousands and thousands of “unjust” laws.

 

[Bookcat]

In other words, all just laws are direct derivatives of Natual Law? Im not sure. If one were to examine every law and measure each by natural law, there would probably be thousands and thousands of “unjust” laws.

I did not say that…

 

[rossum]

You think of marriage as the legal recognition, process and framework. Sure, States can create that, define it how they like. Multi party, same sex, whatever comes to mind. They can abolish it too. That framework is a reality, but distinct from the reality of marriage itself.

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