Thre is a profound difference. The divorcees have the outward appearance of the marital bond. The biological purpose of marriage is not scandalized by their union. There is a truth about human nature being murdered. If it is something that is true and real isn’t it worth preserving as it really is?This is not a new problem. Catholics do not recognise divorce, while civil marriage does. Two divorced people who have a civil marriage are recognised as married by law but are not so recognised by the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic worked for a secular company that offered discounts to married people, then that worker would reasonably be expected to offer those discounts to two legally remarried divorcees. This despite that fact that s/he may not consider those two people properly married for religious purposes. They are married in law, but not in church. In civil matters they are considered as married.
How does this situation differ from a legally recognised same-sex marriage that is not recognised by the Catholic Church? In both cases Civil Law differs from Church Law. The issue is one that is already dealt with on a daily basis by many Catholics.
rossum
because that is not an issue being debated on a national forum. The front line of the fight to save marriage is with deffending it from further deterioration. We are to far down the slippery slope at this point to effectively address adulterous relationships being passed off as marriages.There are very many immoral marriages out there now, many more than just the same sex marriages. If you are claiming to treat all immoral marriages the same then why is there not an even bigger outcry over divorced people remarrying than over same sex marriage? Where are the Catholic campaigns against Britney Spears or Rush Limbaugh for the bad example they are setting with their unashamed immoral marriages?
Too many. Unfortunately the government is forcing companies to grant bennefits to those other couples or stop covering legitimate spouses.And if you are just an employee? How many Catholics work for companies that give benefits to improperly married couples?
And as I stated earlier, The government should not violate my rights by forcing me to recognize those marriages that are not moral.Two points. Firstly, what about Fundamentalist Mormons’ rights to define marriage their way? You are violating their rights be not allowing them multiple wives. You are guilty of the same thing.
I’ve seen that posted before. As stated in the earlier thread, the tradition of male and female and male and multiple females predates even human existence. As such those relationships have just as much civil (not moral) validity. in 120 Million years the partnering of male and female for the raising of children has been a staple of existence. a few years of exceptions in order to pacify a small number of radicals fails to compare.Secondly, this argument is not about the word ‘marriage’ itself. In the UK marriage is for heterosexuals while homosexuals have ‘Civil Partnerships’. Despite this our Catholic bishops still speak out against Civil Partnerships. This argument is not about the meaning of a word that has had, and still has, many different meanings:* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religions and by different legal entities.
- Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, 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 (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
- Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
rossum
Also, we have no way of knowing if the original marriage was valid.Thre is a profound difference. The divorcees have the outward appearance of the marital bond. The biological purpose of marriage is not scandalized by their union. There is a truth about human nature being murdered. If it is something that is true and real isn’t it worth preserving as it really is?
Exactly. The pairbond has beeen an unwritten law since the first…Even reptiles are bound to a law that prevents them from killing their spouse. That’s also the funcion of the marital bond. Create a safe environment for producing our kind.I’ve seen that posted before. As stated in the earlier thread, the tradition of male and female and male and multiple females predates even human existence. As such those relationships have just as much civil (not moral) validity. in 120 Million years the partnering of male and female for the raising of children has been a staple of existence. a few years of exceptions in order to pacify a small number of radicals fails to compare.
The state oriiginated in the societies that were successfull eneough to have leisure time. Those societies required people to have a marital bond. The marriage includes the community. Communities recognized the difference between people raised by a man and a woman who committed their lives to the society they produce and people raised by men and women who were not.I believe the answer is “Yes” and “No” respectively. I see no reason legally to ban gay marriage, though I’d never personally recognize a homosexual marriage as anything more than a state (Civil) marriage, because there is no Spiritual Union (i.e. “True” Marriage) involved there.
.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. The CDF is opposing legal recognition of same-sex unions, and arguing that this is a danger to the principle of marriage and of society’s morality in general. In distinction, I’m talking about legalizing same-sex marriage, which is the real issue at hand.The Church’s case against (here), approved by John Paul II with Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect, contains your argument in III.6 – ‘Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.’
Here are some of the counter arguments:
*]Youngsters are exposed to materialism, drug pushers, a daily diet of violence on TV and in video games and so on. These are far worse than any possible impact of recognizing homosexual unions.
*]
The institution of marriage is already badly devalued. Many people now treat it as a convenience or don’t even bother in the first place. One of the root causes is a promiscuous lifestyle, which is promoted by denying union to homosexuals. Legalizing homosexual unions strengthens, not weakens, the institution.
*]
Civil laws certainly influence patterns of thought and behavior, and laws that isolate a group of citizens without just cause are divisive. The just cause in this case appears to be the questionable claim (even for heteros) that the main purpose of marriage is “procreation and raising children” (III.8).
*]
It isn’t immediately obvious which moral values would be obscured, or how.
*]
Earlier in III.6 there is a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell argument (“one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law”). Then the claim that it “would result in changes to the entire organization of society” is protesting too much, an apocalypse now exaggeration to frighten the horses.
Well, I understand why the Church in Spain opposed it, but I think their arguments against it were inherently flawed. Arguments against gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) are more solid.Whatever you think of these counter arguments, the current Spanish government (see my post #21) was voted into office by an overwhelmingly Catholic electorate even though it promised to legalize homosexual unions, and after the change two thirds of citizens said they approved - the Church prepared its case well in advance but did not manage to convince the majority of Catholics here.
Ironic that you appeal to the argument of the separation of Church and State. In fact, it is proponents of gay marriage who violate (and willingly so) that principle. As mentioned in my previous post, I have no problem with the legality of gay civil unions, but the legality of gay marriage would be an intrusion into the sovereignty of the Church in matters of religion. Marriage has always been a religious institution, so the State cannot change its definition. Simple as that.I see no reason legally to ban gay marriage, though I’d never personally recognize a homosexual marriage as anything more than a state (Civil) marriage, because there is no Spiritual Union (i.e. “True” Marriage) involved there.
There are many things which I find sinful that can’t be made illegal. Pornography, Masturbation, premarital sex, adultery (though that is illegal in my state of Massachusetts and in many other states), the likes. That doesn’t mean we can just ban it because it goes against our moral code. Separation of Church and State must always be followed in the United States. It’s beauty is what allows us to practice our religion freely, and its ugliness is what allows sinfulness to roam free in our land.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are a violation of our rights if we are not allowed to make a distinction between them and married couples in out private, financial dealings.In determining whether or not gay marriage should be illegal (in terms of the law of the state), two questions must be answered:
#1: Is marriage a right? As in, are all citizens of the United States entitled to be married should they so choose?
#2: Is homosexuality a choice?
I believe the answer is “Yes” and “No” respectively. I see no reason legally to ban gay marriage, though I’d never personally recognize a homosexual marriage as anything more than a state (Civil) marriage, because there is no Spiritual Union (i.e. “True” Marriage) involved there.
There are many things which I find sinful that can’t be made illegal. Pornography, Masturbation, premarital sex, adultery (though that is illegal in my state of Massachusetts and in many other states), the likes. That doesn’t mean we can just ban it because it goes against our moral code. Separation of Church and State must always be followed in the United States. It’s beauty is what allows us to practice our religion freely, and its ugliness is what allows sinfulness to roam free in our land.
That is an extremely dangerous thing to say. <mode=“Northern Irish Protestant”>Catholicism is a violation of my rights if I am not allowed to make a distinction between Catholics and Protestants in my private financial dealings.Civil unions and domestic partnerships are a violation of our rights if we are not allowed to make a distinction between them and married couples in out private, financial dealings.
Marriage is a religious institution. But the state has made a different form of marriage and has made that form a civil institution. They are two distinct institutions under the same name. When the average Catholic/Christian gets married, he/she gets married in the Church and gets a marriage certificate. The marriage in the Church is only half of the legal recognition of the marriage, the marriage certificate has no religious standing but completes the legal recognition of the marriage. It’s clear to see they are two separate institutions.Ironic that you appeal to the argument of the separation of Church and State. In fact, it is proponents of gay marriage who violate (and willingly so) that principle. As mentioned in my previous post, I have no problem with the legality of gay civil unions, but the legality of gay marriage would be an intrusion into the sovereignty of the Church in matters of religion. Marriage has always been a religious institution, so the State cannot change its definition. Simple as that.
Blessings
It isn’t within the states capacity to define human relationships. The state functions as a servant to the human relationships that it flows from.Marriage is a religious institution. But the state has made a different form of marriage and has made that form a civil institution. They are two distinct institutions under the same name. When the average Catholic/Christian gets married, he/she gets married in the Church and gets a marriage certificate. The marriage in the Church is only half of the legal recognition of the marriage, the marriage certificate has no religious standing but completes the legal recognition of the marriage. It’s clear to see they are two separate institutions.
In terms of marriage under the state’s definition, gays have the right to be married.
In terms of marriage under God’s definition, gays cannot be married.
I’m only talking about the state’s definition. So gays can get civil marriages and a marriage certificate, and in this way they get a Civil Marriage. When your average Catholic/Christian gets married, he/she gets a Religious Union and a Civil Marriage simultaneously. The Religious Union has no authority under the law, and the Civil Marriage doesn’t need to have any authority in the Church.
your mixing religion and civil documentation. But you should be able to make such a distinction in your private financial dealings.That is an extremely dangerous thing to say. <mode=“Northern Irish Protestant”>Catholicism is a violation of my rights if I am not allowed to make a distinction between Catholics and Protestants in my private financial dealings.
rossum
Why do you feel it is necesary for gays to get a “marriage” certificate as opposed to a domestic partnership contract?Marriage is a religious institution. But the state has made a different form of marriage and has made that form a civil institution. They are two distinct institutions under the same name. When the average Catholic/Christian gets married, he/she gets married in the Church and gets a marriage certificate. The marriage in the Church is only half of the legal recognition of the marriage, the marriage certificate has no religious standing but completes the legal recognition of the marriage. It’s clear to see they are two separate institutions.
In terms of marriage under the state’s definition, gays have the right to be married.
In terms of marriage under God’s definition, gays cannot be married.
I’m only talking about the state’s definition. So gays can get civil marriages and a marriage certificate, and in this way they get a Civil Marriage. When your average Catholic/Christian gets married, he/she gets a Religious Union and a Civil Marriage simultaneously. The Religious Union has no authority under the law, and the Civil Marriage doesn’t need to have any authority in the Church.
If Civil Unions have the same rights and legal recognition as Civil Marriages do, then I’d have no problem in gays only being able to receive Civil Unions.Why do you feel it is necesary for gays to get a “marriage” certificate as opposed to a domestic partnership contract?
I presume you meant it the other way around right?If Civil Unions have the same rights and legal recognition as Civil Marriages do, then I’d have no problem in gays only being able to receive Civil Unions.
The problem is that many states don’t offer the same rights to married couples as they do to couples in a** domestic partnership**.
Just as you are mixing religious and civil definitions of marriage. A religious marriage does not get me a legal certificate. A civil marriage does.your mixing religion and civil documentation. But you should be able to make such a distinction in your private financial dealings.
That is an extremely dangerous thing to say. <mode=“Northern Irish Protestant”>Catholicism is a violation of my rights if I am not allowed to make a distinction between Catholics and Protestants in my private financial dealings.
rossum
That depends on what you mean by private financial dealings. Do you think that a Catholic business owner has the right to say he will provide benefits to the spouses of his married Catholic employees (as long as their marriage is valid in the Church’s eyes), but that he will not provide the same benefits to employees that are civilly married or married in another faith? I don’t think that would be right, and I don’t think it would be legal in the US.your mixing religion and civil documentation. But you should be able to make such a distinction in your private financial dealings.