If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, are you willing to push for this law?

[adrift]

I appreciate the apology; I have a soft spot for manners. Most of my religion teachers in school were…less than intelligent, even in their own subject (though quite nice people). My school also took minor issue with the fact that some of our teachers were in heterosexual Protestant marriages, so perhaps it is a local distortion of Catholic doctrine. It is quite likely that I was given a distorted description of Catholic marriage teachings, but, as I was an honor student and graduate, it seems more likely that either there was a misunderstanding of doctrine on the part of the teacher(s) or an inability to properly articulate their intended thoughts to an attentive (and more than scholarly) student.

I probably shouldn’t try to answer as it is late.

As I look back on school and remember some of the things I remember being taught, I realize that some of what I remember was actually misremembering. How do I know that? Because I kept my notes and my books. They relay to me thing I don’t remember. That is not to say that you didn’t have poor teachers. I have heard of some teachings that if I hadn’t of know were true I might have thought exaggerated.
I had a very good priest friend. I was shocked to hear that he said contraception was alright. I asked him about it and as it turned out he had said the opposite. I can imagine that the couple he spoke to would say today.

I do wish that you would be a bit more specific when you criticize my remarks, as my problematic perception of Catholic marriage doctrine is not the same as my perception of the various definitions of marriage that exist in the world, nor does my lack of knowledge of the specifics of Catholic marriage doctrine necessitate that my overall understanding of the human concept of marriage, of the sociobiological origins of (often, semi-)monogamous human sexual relationships and overall sexual behavior as practiced by primates is in actuality inferior to your own. Improved examples of the same sentiment would be “but you write with a lack of understanding of what Catholic marriage is and what constitutes a doctrinal Catholic marriage” or “but you write with a different opinion…”. Otherwise, your assessment appears as if written from within a box containing only carefully selected values that were passed down to you through scientifically-identifiable sociological mechanisms while keeping the rest of reality and logic outside.

I am speaking of the Latin rite. Marriage is between two people and they administer the Sacrament to each other. In order to be a sacrament, the couple must be baptized. If one or both are not baptized than it is not a sacrament but a natural union. Catholics are bound to follow the law of the Church. I am not going to try to list all of what must be followed but one of the Church Laws is to have a priest witness the marriage.
I think I am to tired to think so I hope that this helps a little. I was not trying to insult you but express that you didn’t understand or didn’t know. I was actually surprised that anyone would think that Catholics thought everyone else’s marriage was sinful:bigyikes:

 

[runningdude]

After seeing all of the anti-SSM rhetoric from differing Catholic sources, I have to wonder: why do I never see Catholics mobilizing in protest of Protestant marriages? Or non-religious marriages? Or Jewish marriages? If the only valid marriage is a properly structured Catholic marriage (and all others false), then are not heterosexual individuals living in mortal sin, copulating and calling their documents from the government and non-Catholic churches “marriage?”

Are Protestant marriages killing Catholic marriages? Are Catholics who get divorced damaging the sanctity of that marriage institution?

Why make the biggest marriage-related outrage over SSM when there are far greater threats to the institution of Catholic marriage? Is it only acceptable to acknowledge the (extant in law only) religious and personal freedoms and rights of equality to those whose behaviors are similar “enough” to the Catholic Church that they do not ruffle the feathers of the flock? Or did the Church forget that there are fake marriages being made every day by Protestants, leading to what is in effect pre-marital relations (according to the RCC)?

In regards to the original topic, if I accepted that the Church had the right to define law and that I had to call them out on making loopholes to include heterosexuals who should be excluded from the original, procreation-involved form of marriage, I would have to support such folly of a bill.

None of what you wrote is correct. Marriages between non-Catholics are valid, and if baptized Protestants, insoluble until death.

 

[runningdude]

Someone should definitely notify the Catholic schools that I attended; I was always told that only marriages granted by the Catholic Church were valid and sacramental, and I was warned that other marriages performed by other entities did not make sexual relations any less sinful than pre-marital sex. Then again, I did go to the cheaper Catholic schools in my area, so I should have known better than to believe they taught marriage doctrine correctly given the many other mistakes I saw teachers make there…can’t get a good education in the deep South, even in private school.

The school was teaching only the rules applicable to its mostly Catholic student population. Catholics are in fact required to be married before a priest in the Catholic Church, and attempting marriage before a judge or protestant minister would be a mortal sin.

Protestants and non-Christians can validly marry in any civilly recognized ceremony, provided both were not previously married. I’d image you school did simply did not go into this much detail with the students.

 

[fix]

Someone should definitely notify the Catholic schools that I attended; I was always told that only marriages granted by the Catholic Church were valid and sacramental, and I was warned that other marriages performed by other entities did not make sexual relations any less sinful than pre-marital sex. Then again, I did go to the cheaper Catholic schools in my area, so I should have known better than to believe they taught marriage doctrine correctly given the many other mistakes I saw teachers make there…can’t get a good education in the deep South, even in private school.

Not believing this at all. I do not know when you were in school but Google is your friend. A quick search can show what the Church teaches. Not at all difficult.

 

[runningdude]

Having read your posts, I think I understand where the disconnect is. For you, marriage is a sacrament, one of seven. Specifically, it is the making present of the original union of Adam and Eve (just as the eucharist is the making present of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross). And just as the priest has to be male (because he’s acting as Jesus), the parties to the marriage have to be male and female because they are acting as Adam and Eve. If the function of marriage is instead seen to be love and commitment, that leaves a blank in your sacramental line-up, and you don’t have any other sacraments that bring forth the original union of male and female, with it’s procreative potential.

Good so far?

Your point about the other sacraments not reflecting the “original union of male and female” is incorrect. The sacrament of Holy Orders (the priesthood), only open to males, reflects Adam’s universal fatherhood.

If so, there’s still a problem relating back to my original point: impotent heterosexual marriages can still be valid in the eyes of the law.

You have subtly changed the topic. You originally intimated that Catholics ought to condemn “infertile” marriages as invalid, which is incorrect. Now you bring up “impotence”, which is a separate topic. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of the distinction, here is quick primer:

• Infertility is the mere inability to have children, regardless of cause. Living a moral life before marriage according to Catholic standards, a man or women would have no way of knowing if they were infertile (without invasive tests).
• Impotence refers specifically to the inability of a man to get an erection, and thus not have sex. If a man cannot have sex, then the marriage cannot be consummated. A non-consummated marriage can be dissolved. Only sacramental marriage in which the couple has successfully had sex at least once, are permanently insoluble

If an infertile married couple can have sex, then they can have a valid marriage. If a the couple can never have sex, then they can never, sadly, have a marriage.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I appreciate the apology; I have a soft spot for manners. Most of my religion teachers in school were…less than intelligent, even in their own subject (though quite nice people). My school also took minor issue with the fact that some of our teachers were in heterosexual Protestant marriages, so perhaps it is a local distortion of Catholic doctrine. It is quite likely that I was given a distorted description of Catholic marriage teachings, but, as I was an honor student and graduate, it seems more likely that either there was a misunderstanding of doctrine on the part of the teacher(s) or an inability to properly articulate their intended thoughts to an attentive (and more than scholarly) student.

I do wish that you would be a bit more specific when you criticize my remarks, as my problematic perception of Catholic marriage doctrine is not the same as my perception of the various definitions of marriage that exist in the world, nor does my lack of knowledge of the specifics of Catholic marriage doctrine necessitate that my overall understanding of the human concept of marriage, of the sociobiological origins of (often, semi-)monogamous human sexual relationships and overall sexual behavior as practiced by primates is in actuality inferior to your own. Improved examples of the same sentiment would be “but you write with a lack of understanding of what Catholic marriage is and what constitutes a doctrinal Catholic marriage” or “but you write with a different opinion…”. Otherwise, your assessment appears as if written from within a box containing only carefully selected values that were passed down to you through scientifically-identifiable sociological mechanisms while keeping the rest of reality and logic outside.

In a nut shell the Church recinizie all marriages between a man and a woman of any or no faith as a vaild marriage as long as it was entered into knowingly and with full consent and is legal. What the church does not reconize as a valid marriage is one that is between a man and woman where one or both are catholic and did not follow the church guide line of marrige wittness by a aproved celibrant ( priest) and within a Church unless they have recieved premission from their Bishop.

 

[RobbyS]

Someone should definitely notify the Catholic schools that I attended; I was always told that only marriages granted by the Catholic Church were valid and sacramental, and I was warned that other marriages performed by other entities did not make sexual relations any less sinful than pre-marital sex. Then again, I did go to the cheaper Catholic schools in my area, so I should have known better than to believe they taught marriage doctrine correctly given the many other mistakes I saw teachers make there…can’t get a good education in the deep South, even in private school.

Your discourteous assessment of my understanding of the man-made “institution of marriage” is short-sighted; I could just as easily claim that your moral suppositions of an ordered universe created with attentive planning by a benevolent deity arise from a perceived lack of understanding of reality. The arguments which support such theories have more holes than the finest Swiss cheese. No offense intended, I just find it fitting to respond to a dismissive response with equally dismissive thoughts. The spirit of your reply was lacking in charity.

Another musing: if a permissive relationship between homosexuals and the government encourages further societal disorder, should not homosexuality be more actively discouraged? Perhaps legalized (and actively encouraged) discrimination in the workplace and housing market will make them think twice before acting on (or admitting to) SSA. What lengths are you willing to go in order to prevent the sins of people who hold an entirely different moral value system than yours?

If I were Catholic, I would not hold that marriages created outside of the Church are equally valid; they lack the relationship with the Bride of Christ (and God) that is integral to the sacrament of marriage (at least in my opinion based on what my low-budget Catholic high school taught me). I would also say that persons who marry but wish to not have children (and given the alarming population growth worldwide, I would encourage a little prudence in reproduction) should not be considered married. But, alas, I am not Catholic nor do I believe that “marriage” should have anything to do with the government. It is a word and concept loaded with religious symbolism and context, not fitting for a secular institution.

Living as you do in a world of absolute continguency, you might take a better look at the evidence. Marriage is said by the Church to be natural institution and as such can take on different forms, some better than others. A sacramental marriage is the most perfect form, best spelled out in the 19th Chapter of St. Matthew by Our Lord, and referencing the union of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis. It proposes a perfect giving of one person to another, so that each party shall be made perfect. A perfect bond such as that between Christ and the Church, as the bride of Christ. Of course, the human bride and groom will inevitably stumble along, hobbled by the effects of Original Sin. The sacrament does give the assurance that God’s angels will be at their side at every moment ready to help if only asked. Blessed be the ties that bind, says the old hymn. The paradox is that like two prisoners chained together, they must work together and often can work together so that each can have total freedom.

 

[gnfd92]

I should have researched the Church’s stance on non-Catholic marriage. The man who taught me “morality” in high school religion class did have a habit of going into rants that ended up at times in statements which were blatantly inaccurate per official Church teaching; often these were obvious and ignored, but I imagine a few “believable” but incorrect positions could have been passed through. Given that such a statement seemed like something the Church may actually teach in comparison to outlandish notions such as the Earth being younger than the fossils found around the world, I felt no need to Google such a specific thing until I was informed that this was not a correct Catholic teaching.

For my personal opinion on the original matter of this thread, I’d say that I would be opposed to both marriages; let the various churches decide who they will or will not considered to be a “married” couple and have the government adopt a generic standard for it’s tax/other legal administration purposes, maybe “cohabitation” or the like. Marriage has no place in the state if that state wishes to remain out of the sphere of religious influence/bias.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

The OP clearly does not understand Catholic teaching on this subject.

 

[gnfd92]

Then you should be glad that this posting was made; it is an opportunity for education on the correct teaching of the Church. I imagine the OP and myself aren’t the only ones out there with a few misconceptions.

 

[Wampa]

Gnfd, you may also be interested to learn that the Church doesn’t teach Young Earth Creationism, either. In a nutshell, the Church is agnostic (pun intended) on it and Catholics are free to believe it or not. That’s something that I was pleasantly surprised to learn as I came into the Church. Glad you are learning things

 

[gnfd92]

I know that the Church does not teach on matters such as approximating the age of the planet; I was using that as an example of an occasion in which this individual ended up saying outlandish and untrue things (often his own opinions) confidently while discussing Catholic doctrine (and therefore giving the impression that this opinion was from the Church and not his own…nice man, poor teacher). I’m a bit better versed on Catholic positions in regards to scientific theories/experimentation than on Catholic sacramental teachings, thankfully.

 

[CopticChristian]

“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?

Laws are made for reasons.

What is the reason that someone would go to the Senate or House and consider drafting a bill that would change marriage. Marriage does not need changing. What is it someone would be thinking that would cause this notion to be considered?

Marriage, between men and women…has been going on for sometime now…based on many Supreme Court rulings, Marriage is vital to society and propagation of the species as well as maintaining the Social structure of Society.

So, you are proposing making marriage invalid. Who is this going to serve? What Representative or Senator would sponsor this bill on behalf of their contstuents and what is the purpose?

This bill is being introduced because we have found that…

Married couples that are not fertile pay less taxes?
Married couples without children are a burden to Society?
Married couples without children do what that requires invalidation of the Marriage?

Now, do not take the above statements and say…

see…Homosexual couples pay taxes, Homosexual couples are not a burden, Homosexual couples want validity…Uh, Uh, Uh…don’t shiff the conversation…for if you do…then you play your agenda card…

Stay on topic as to why the idea that marriages need to be invalidated based on the proposal that offspring are not produced. Why?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

It may interest people to know that there are countries in the western world where the civial marraige and the reigious are totally seperate. if a couple wishes to be married in the church they have to go through 2 ceremonies one the civial the other by the Church, If they were only marries in the chruch the state would not reconize them as married.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
In most European countries there is a civil ceremony requirement. Following the civil marriage ceremony, couples are free to marry in a religious ceremony. Such ceremonies, however, only serve to provide a religious recognition of the marriage, since the state’s recognition has already been given. In some of these countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey) most couples marry without any religious ceremony at all. Full, formal weddings, complete with wedding gowns and the presence of family and friends, are usually conducted in special ceremonial rooms in the town hall.

So for catholics in those countries they would need 2 ceremonies to be married. as the Chruch would not reconize the civial one.

 

[runningdude]

…
For my personal opinion on the original matter of this thread, I’d say that I would be opposed to both marriages; let the various churches decide who they will or will not considered to be a “married” couple and have the government adopt a generic standard for it’s tax/other legal administration purposes, maybe “cohabitation” or the like. Marriage has no place in the state if that state wishes to remain out of the sphere of religious influence/bias.

But marriage is not a private matter; it is the basis of society. Without marriage, secular governments simply wouldn’t work. Secular government relies the cooperation of its citizens, and marriages promote stability and cooperation. Without marriages to arrange for the care of children, child services would be fully overwhelmed trying to place unwanted children for care givers. Many of these children would simply be killed off before they were even born . There is simply no civilization without marriage.

 

[runningdude]

It may interest people to know that there are countries in the western world where the civial marraige and the reigious are totally seperate. if a couple wishes to be married in the church they have to go through 2 ceremonies one the civial the other by the Church, If they were only marries in the chruch the state would not reconize them as married.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
In most European countries there is a civil ceremony requirement. Following the civil marriage ceremony, couples are free to marry in a religious ceremony. Such ceremonies, however, only serve to provide a religious recognition of the marriage, since the state’s recognition has already been given. In some of these countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey) most couples marry without any religious ceremony at all. Full, formal weddings, complete with wedding gowns and the presence of family and friends, are usually conducted in special ceremonial rooms in the town hall.

So for catholics in those countries they would need 2 ceremonies to be married. as the Chruch would not reconize the civial one.

The church does not consider this to be an ideal situation. Marriage is a natural institution, and not a state-defined (or even church defined!) set of rights and privileges.

When Italy was united under a single monarch, the new state instituted such a split marriage. The Church forbade Catholics from seeking the civil marriage element, teaching that marriage before the church was adequate, as it had been for centuries. A new agreement in the 1930’s eventually accepted the Church as a witness for the state in marriage.

Today, the civil process in other countries is accepted, but historical evidence shows that the church would prefer marriage be viewed as a single institution.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The church does not consider this to be an ideal situation. Marriage is a natural institution, and not a state-defined (or even church defined!) set of rights and privileges.

When Italy was united under a single monarch, the new state instituted such a split marriage. The Church forbade Catholics from seeking the civil marriage element, teaching that marriage before the church was adequate, as it had been for centuries. A new agreement in the 1930’s eventually accepted the Church as a witness for the state in marriage.

Today, the civil process in other countries is accepted, but historical evidence shows that the church would prefer marriage be viewed as a single institution.

Not is disagreement with you at all just pointing out that in many parts of the world The cical contract and the covenant of marriage are seperate things.

 

[buffalo]

Is there a test an unmarried couple can take for this? If the medical profession says a couple cannot have children does this mean God cannot intervene?

 

[Brendan]

Is there a test an unmarried couple can take for this? If the medical profession says a couple cannot have children does this mean God cannot intervene?

That is my thoughts. Given the examples of Abraham and Sarah, and Zacharias and Elizabeth, even infertile couples can be fruitful.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Another thing to remeber is that marriage was/is about uniting families. The couple becomes a family, the families becomes a clan, the clans a tribe, the tribes a nation. Since there is never a possibilite for the gay couple to become a family it can not even from the beginnig give promise of growth to the next stage. This is not just the Judo/Christian view, the the view of all societies through out time.