V
VanSensei
Guest
You can expect Illinois and possibly Hawaii to be the last states of the entire country to ever legalize same-sex marriage. The rest of the country does not want that.
- Status
J
josh987654321
Guest
I said “Whoa. Are you kidding me?” because his statement was like saying “It’s okay to be promicuous, just as long as you don’t use contraceptives.” I certainly did not take exception to his statements on pre-marital sex, but rather that he encouraged homosexuals to marry before having sex was just a massive contradiction (if that’s the word i’m looking for) there are so many things that need to be addressed with such a comment he made that I don’t know where to begin.
Over the sexual acts of homosexuality? Yes. I think so as I’ll explain just below.
I didn’t think so, as I would need to know to determine which tract I should go down, there is no point quoting bible verses if they don’t believe in God or hold them in such low regard.
Okay. Could you please read through this thread and let me know what you think?
Supporting Same Sex Marriage Is NOT In Conflict With The Church!!!
J
JTD_Eagle1
Guest
Exactly, us Catholics must never give up on this fight. We must also oppose same sex “marriage” because if we don’t, the next generation of kids will be brainwashed that this is an acceptable way of life, and if they do stand up for true marriage, they will be looked down upon and branded a bigot.
I dont see how you think that Illinois and Hawaii will be the last states to legalize it, many more will try and we must continue to fight it in our home states. I sure hope same sex “marriage” doesn’t last, but unfortunately, it is on the peak now.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
E
ephesians4
Guest
Pope Francis raised a good point about focus, on this matter.
To a certain extent, the enemies you choose and the crusades you shout about, will define you.
In creating a social phenomenon where Christians can be made out to be evil or violently prejudiced, and where Christians will actually co-operate by lending all of their force of will to the effort, the enemy has crafted one of his most fiendish and effective tools against the church, yet.
This thing, this evil done in cruel mockery of the holy sacrament of marriage, should probably not be the primary thing people know Christ and His church for, not the thing they hear about, it should not be hugely louder than our love.
If they make their laws, if they attempt to solemnize their playground games between people of particular glandular proclivities as if they were marriage, that wonderful thing given to us by God, what effect does it actually have on marriage? It’s no use them telling you, or I, or anyone else it’s alright, that they are not doing anything wrong, they must tell God when the time comes.
Just one perspective on it, anyway, which might be worth as much as anyone else’s.
To a certain extent, the enemies you choose and the crusades you shout about, will define you.
In creating a social phenomenon where Christians can be made out to be evil or violently prejudiced, and where Christians will actually co-operate by lending all of their force of will to the effort, the enemy has crafted one of his most fiendish and effective tools against the church, yet.
This thing, this evil done in cruel mockery of the holy sacrament of marriage, should probably not be the primary thing people know Christ and His church for, not the thing they hear about, it should not be hugely louder than our love.
If they make their laws, if they attempt to solemnize their playground games between people of particular glandular proclivities as if they were marriage, that wonderful thing given to us by God, what effect does it actually have on marriage? It’s no use them telling you, or I, or anyone else it’s alright, that they are not doing anything wrong, they must tell God when the time comes.
Just one perspective on it, anyway, which might be worth as much as anyone else’s.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
:clapping:
As far as I can tell this change in civil marriage does not change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
M
marymary1975
Guest
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m assuming the above series of questions are meant to be rhetorical ( ? ) and not an actual inquiry into the procedures of law. As the human, printed, and online resources that I have access to have been in agreement of marriage being a civil contract. If the objective here is to convince me that marriage is not a civil contract I would need to find some resolution on why these resources that I’ve looked at (going back up to a century and a half) are all calling it a contract.
Cornell University Law School:
J
josh987654321
Guest
Do you have a link for this please? I would like to quote it, thank you.
Please refer to my argument below.
Thank you for that information on it.
I don’t think Babylonia makes the best example on it either (it’s certainly extreme, but also a great way to emphasize my point I believe) but I would still like to ask, is my argument containing her ludicrosity of marriage a valid one?
Will such a change like this (Recognising this woman and her house as married) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?
May I ask you ThinkingSapien, what is marriage equality?Dr Phil was talking about SSM on his show and he basically said “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?”
On the outside I believe this looks like a very good and legitimate question.
However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it than just don’t do it” but once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
As Ender on another thread so well put it, in reply to what I said here -
Ender:
I believe Ender is absolutely correct here.
Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, but with the total rejection of any truth, how do you place any limit at all on it?
Thank you for reading
Josh
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m not sure what your argument was. Was it “…] but once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing”? I’m not quite sure I follow you. The context in which a word is used often times restricts it’s potential uses. That’s part of why I tend to use qualifiers when talking about marriage here; sacramental, civil, and others.
We’d have to first get past “obstacles” such as property not being able to engage in contracts before delving into that. But those obstacles aside, as I understand the Catholic concept of the Sacrament of Matrimony it already does not recognize all types of marriage as sacramental. So to me it seems like you are asking me if there were an additional type of marriage that the Catholic church doesn’t recognize as sacramental would this change the ones it does recognize as Sacramental. I don’t think it does.
In the context in which I hear it used in current times Marriage Equality is used to invoke the concept of pairs of individuals, regardless of their gender, to engage in the civil contract of marriage and be eligible for the obligations and rights that are associated with marriage in areas that include (but are not limited to) property ownership, health benefits, survival benefits, fifth amendment spousal rights, benefits from employers, in matters of legal custody, tax laws, and others.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you are focusing only on the Church-internal meaning of the sacrament as a purely religious ceremony, then you might be right. But the reason the Church attaches such significance to marriage is its role in the common good. If it were only about civil contracts, then people can already engage in such things. But the public recognition of same sex marriage brings with it certain obligations on the part of all members of society to play their role in that public recognition. And for real marriage, we do this gladly, recognizing the role of marriage in the common good. The obligations on society at large are things like accepting the teaching of the “normalcy” of same-sex marriage in the public schools and the protection of rights to services associated with marriage. In a sense, we are all called to “celebrate” this contract between a same-sex couple. This we find destructive to the common good.
But this definition begs the question. (And here I mean the phrase in its original sense as implying circular reasoning.) To support same sex marriage, the supporters cry “Marriage Equality”. When asked what marriage equality is, they same “Same Sex Marriage”. Redefining a word does not constitute an argument. Using the term “Marriage Equality” is just another smoke screen.
K
kanrok
Guest
Same sex marriage in Illinois would not have passed without the assistance of Catholic legislators.
Can someone please tell me how a Catholic can support such a concept?
Can someone please tell me how a Catholic can support such a concept?
E
ephesians4
Guest
Sure - it is the now fairly famous interview nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/an-interview-with-pope-francis.html?_r=0 where the point is made about focus - although I hope it is clear the rest of my post was what I take from it in my own words, and not an attempt at representing Pope Francis!
Do you have a link for this please? I would like to quote it, thank you.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Sure - it is the now fairly famous interview nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/an-interview-with-pope-francis.html?_r=0 where the point is made about focus - although I hope it is clear the rest of my post was what I take from it in my own words, and not an attempt at representing Pope Francis!
Thanks heaps ephesians4.
Thank you for reading
Josh
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
People can engage in contracts, but those contracts will not and cannot provide the same set of obligations and rights that are in our legal system only attainable through marriage (ex: Survival benefits, employee spouse health benefits, fifth amendment rights, so on). If these obligations and rights were available through some other type of contract then you would be correct.
Same sex couples exist. The children that some of those couples go to school. If that is the state of things then would not a school be making factual statements if they tell the students that such things occur?
I’ve been told it is destructive, and I’m still trying to get a better understanding for why it is considered so.
I’m not sure I follow you. I’m familiar with the fallacy of begging the question, but I wasn’t making an argument.
If that’s what you are hearing them say that’s fine. But take note that I haven’t said this.
There have been attempts to give same sex pairs some other union (usually a Civil Union) in which they can engage. It had been described as being equivalent to marriage. But it wasn’t; it didn’t have the same legal “obligations and rights that are associated with marriage in areas that include (but are not limited to) property ownership, health benefits, survival benefits, fifth amendment spousal rights, benefits from employers, in matters of legal custody, tax laws, and others.” Civil unions were considered inferior to marriages, and this “fight” is for a union that will provide the same (equal) rights, protections, and obligations.
Correct. I wasn’t making an argument. I was asked a question of how I interpret an idiom and I provided an answer.
M
marymary1975
Guest
No, the questions were so you can actually prove to me that marriage is a contract. I know the procedure very well as I am a lawyer myself so if you want to convince me as a lawyer that marriage is actually a contract you need to prove me how is it a contract. The citation you gave says nothing, as if you have yet to realize it starts with “ENGLISH COMMON LAW” The reason why your resources are saying that is because you are looking at english common law and you obviously don’t know what it is. You are making erroneus interpretations because you are interpreting based on lack of knowledge. Marriage was a contract under british common law. Today on the US in a 2013 marriage is not a contract soany of your arguments as to it are wrong.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Contracts that only involve obligations on the part of the couple involved already exist. But contracts that impose an obligation on the part of society at large (which include all the ones you listed) are the kind of contracts that are only available through marriage. This makes them qualitatively different from simple contracts, and justification for them would have to be made on the merits.
There is a difference between acknowledging that things exist and celebrating them. In the case of children that are cared for (I avoid the use of the word “of” here to emphasize the fact that these children are not really “of” the couple) by same sex couples, it is a sensitive issue for the good of the children involved. But it is an issue we have created by allowing adoption by same-sex couples. Before we can use the existence of such adoptions as justification for normalizing same-sex marriage, we must justify the adoption practice first. And that argument is just as difficult as the one in question.
It is destructive to celebrate and subsidize a behavior that most people find unnatural because such a celebration devalues the natural behavior it mimics (i.e. marriage). It is something like giving everyone in school an A+.
Well, it may not have been your argument, but it is an argument that is commonly put forth using the concept of Marriage Equality, which you referenced. Your quote was:
which was itself a continuation of a previous discussion on what the concept of “Marriage Equality” might say about the rightness or wrongness of providing for same-sex marriage. The argument is based on the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, which provides that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Supporters of same-sex marriage take this to mean that marriage should be applied equal to same-sex couples. So there seems to be some support for Marriage Equality under law. If so, then what is it that must be applied equally? If it is the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, then gays already have that right. But if it is the right to marry someone of either gender, then the equal protection clause would seem to apply. So it comes down to the definition of the right. Here is where the circular reasoning comes in. Supporters of same-sex marriage say that marriage means a pairing of any genders. Therefore the equal protection clause protects it. Therefore marriage must be for any genders. In more emotional terms, they rely on the inherent goodness that most people attach to the word “equality” and then gloss over the fuzzy definition of what it is that is required to be equal to advance their position. As a side note, consider the exact wording of the equal protection clause: “no state shall deny to any person…” The right is clearly associated with a person, not a couple. So a truer interpretation of Marriage Equality would not be cast in terms of what a couple can do. It would be cast in terms of what an individual can do. When viewed from that perspective, it is a little clearer that the person who wants to marry his gay partner is asking to do something different than marriage (as it has always been defined). So there is no reason why the equal protection clause should protect his right to something similar to (but not equal to) marriage.
I understand and agree with all of that. But it still does not answer the question of why there** should be** parity between what gays do and what normal married couples do.
Sorry. I mistakenly thought you were affirming that applicability of that idiom to the rightness of same sex marriage.
H
hadulzo
Guest
I am pretty fed up with illinois and was hoping to find a job in wichita. Apparently God did not want me to do that so I am stuck here in sodom, or is it more like ancient Rome? The new job makes it tolerable since my job is a bout 6 minutes away. Thank you for my Catholic faith God. Praying is my favorite part of the day
B
barts61
Guest
You obviously don’t know the Bible. Sodom & Gommorah had nothing to do with monogamous, consenting same sex relationships. It had everything to do with gang rape and inhospitality towards strangers and lack of care/concern for the widows and poor.
B
barts61
Guest
Wichita!? Like, Kansas?? I could have told you there we no good jobs there - I’m orginally from there - left in 1979.- Status