Is this a marriage or a same sex fraud?

[ThinkingSapien]

Your almost incessant appeal to law is not only irrational but also dangerous.

Civil marriages are legal marriages and are entangled with laws and statutes. The section you quoted above identifies the states in which consummation is still considered part of the marriage. Unless you find any of the statement untrue then it is completely relevant to the message to which it was a response. If you believe the information to be faulty feel free to identify the fault.

Now had this thread specifically been on Sacramental marriage and only sacramental marriage then this information would not be relevant and I would not have shared it. But so long as civil marriage (which is legal marriage) then law is relevant.

Please pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Stephen168]

Civil marriages are legal marriages and are entangled with laws and statutes.

Laws and statutes do not makes things true or moral.Your almost incessant appeal to law is not only irrational but also dangerous.

You also like to point out that an appeal to tradition is irrational but a tradition which spans thousands of years is not likely to be dangerous and very likely to be true. I see the attempts to refute Aquinas and Aristotle as a tantrum not a rational argument.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Laws and statutes do not makes things true or moral.Your almost incessant appeal to law is not only irrational but also dangerous.

You also like to point out that an appeal to tradition is irrational but a tradition which spans thousands of years is not likely to be dangerous and very likely to be true. I see the attempts to refute Aquinas and Aristotle as a tantrum not a rational argument.

Exactly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Laws and statutes do not makes things true

Laws and statutes are some of the references against which other rights and eligibilities are evaluated. Changing a law or a statute can have impacts on the rights and prohibitions are applied to someone. Changing them can and does change whether or not it’s someone is allowed to engage in certain agreements under the law. With respect to marriage in the previous century such changes included whether or not people of certain racial combinations were allowed to marry, whether or not a couple could terminate their marriage through no-fault divorce, whether or not a woman is required to change her surname in marriage, or if she can own property and credit in her own name.

But I get the feeling that when you say “make things true” you are not referring to the rights and prohibitions that some one receives by the state but referring to something else. Perhaps you are using “true” to mean coincidence with some other moral evaluation? I asked some one earlier both in this thread how “true” and “truth” were being used. I get the feeling it is being used to mean more than “a factual statement” but this has never been clarified.

Side note, from earlier

Your almost incessant appeal to law

I think it’s worth pointing out that the original post in this thread contains the word “legal” three times.

or moral.

I’m in another thread talking about morality. Putting a link to it instead of having the same discussion in two places.

You also like to point out that an appeal to tradition is irrational

I’ve shared that I don’t feel the same way about tradition. I’ve not referred to it as illogical or unreasonablYou may believe my feelings to either be stronger or different than they actually are.

but a tradition which spans thousands of years is not likely to be dangerous and very likely to be true. I see the attempts to refute Aquinas and Aristotle as a tantrum not a rational argument.

If you’d like to have a detailed discussion on my thoughts on tradition, start a new thread. I would be more than happy to participate.

 

[Stephen168]

I get the feeling it is being used to mean more than “a factual statement” but this has never been clarified.

It is being used as a factual statement.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is being used as a factual statement.

Okay, so what is the statement that the law is trying to make “true”?

 

[epan]

“Legal” and “legitimate” do not always mean the same thing.

These situations might be legal (and yes, some certainly are), but they can never be legitimate.

When the state issues a marriage certificate and says “this is a marriage” the state is speaking an untruth.

Errr… then it would also be true that when the state laws creates other legal definitions that they are untrue if a priest disagrees with them? It turns out, that we rely on our laws to know what is legal. That is the definition of legality. So, I don’t really get your point.

A civil marriage is a legal contract, which is defined by law. No more, and no less.

The Catholic Church defines marriage somewhat differently. Mormonism has had various definitions. Differing religions have differing definitions. It would be naive to think that the Catholic definition is the only “legitimate” definition.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t have a problem with a same sex couple ‘calling’ themselves married or what they do in their bedroom as a result of it. But they don’t want to ‘call’ themselves married, they want a marriage license.

In regards to civil action, giving a marriage license to a same sex couple and calling them married is telling a lie, to receive government benefits not intended for single people; which they are.

Well the problem is, civil society has no connection whatsoever between civil marriage (an American English word meaning “commitment and caretaking responsibilities willing entered into between two partners”) and childbearing. All childcare benefits (e.g. dependent tax breaks, child support for delinquent fathers, etc.) are procured whether a marriage exists or not, and are in no way tied to the procurement of a civil marriage in society. So all a marriage license, at least in the United States, means is that two people pledge to caretake for each other, and that the society recognizes it in order to provide actuarial benefits so that there are less welfare benefits going out of the state. It is a win-win: married couples get financial benefits and the state pays less due to higher average health of married couples. Under the civil definition, there is no wonder gay marriage is being legalized left-and-right. It is blatantly unconstitutional for such a marriage law to only be limited to heterosexual couples.

If the civil marriage laws in any way resembled canon marriage laws, you might have a point. But they don’t. So civil marriage and canon marriage merely use the same word; they have nowhere near the same definition. And as “marriage” is not the word God gave us to describe the spiritual bond between man and woman meant to promote childbearing, there shouldn’t (in my opinion) be any complaint whatsoever about the usage of the word to mean something different. Again, the only thing I am concerned with are the sexual acts – the actual mortal sins that are committed. I have no concern over whether they are civilly married or caretake for each other or love each other. Conservative Catholics shouldn’t be so gay-obsessed and should focus on condemning the sexual acts while recognizing and endorsing the love found within the relationship (e.g. “accepting the homosexual orientation”), instead of playing hissy-fit-time over a mere English word.

 

[Stephen168]

Well the problem is, civil society has no connection whatsoever between civil marriage (an American English word meaning “commitment and caretaking responsibilities willing entered into between two partners”) and childbearing.

Civil means a relationship with government, and marriage is where children are created, nourished, and educated. All marriages in the United States are civil.

I’ve never understood this line of reasoning, as someone who submits to Church teaching. For example, in Japanese, the word 足　(ashi) means leg, but it also means foot. It has two completely different meanings that, in English, we would never separate. But does that mean they’re calling a foot a leg or vice versa when they use 足?
SMGS127;12473205:

All childcare benefits (e.g. dependent tax breaks, child support for delinquent fathers, etc.) are procured whether a marriage exists or not, and are in no way tied to the procurement of a civil marriage in society. So all a marriage license, at least in the United States, means is that two people pledge to caretake for each other, and that the society recognizes it in order to provide actuarial benefits so that there are less welfare benefits going out of the state.

The government treats married people and single people differently because marriage creates, nourishes, and educates children.

You seem to be changing your position from the Japanese calling a leg and foot by the same name to the Japanese don’t know the difference between a leg and a foot. In my short time in Japan, I never saw anyone with a shoe tied to their leg.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Civil means a relationship with government, and marriage is where children are created, nourished, and educated. All marriages in the United States are civil.

The government treats married people and single people differently because marriage creates, nourishes, and educates children.

You seem to be changing your position from the Japanese calling a leg and foot by the same name to the Japanese don’t know the difference between a leg and a foot. In my short time in Japan, I never saw anyone with a shoe tied to their leg.

That is no longer part of the definition of marriage as procreation has been divorced from marriage.You should blame those wretched evil heterosexuals for defiling marriage and by extension Western Civilization.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I guess it all boils down to this: There are those here that think that if it is legal it is morally right.

I obviously disagree: Just because it is legal doesn’t make it morally right.

So let’s all stop beating this poor dead horse.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I obviously disagree: Just because it is legal doesn’t make it morally right.

So let’s all stop beating this poor dead horse.

I thought the OP was asking if the marriage was fraudulent or not fraudulent, not whether it was moral or immoral.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I thought the OP was asking if the marriage was fraudulent or not fraudulent, not whether it was moral or immoral.

Same difference, just a matter of semantics. Something that is untrue is fraudulent and immoral in my opinion.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I guess it all boils down to this: There are those here that think that if it is legal it is morally right.

I obviously disagree: Just because it is legal doesn’t make it morally right.

So let’s all stop beating this poor dead horse.

Some here argue that it being lawful makes it legal other here are arguing that even though it is legal it is still illegal.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Some here argue that it being lawful makes it legal other here are arguing that even though it is legal it is still illegal.

Well, not me. Laws come and go. They are subject to the whims of public popularity in a democracy. In a dictatorship they are subject to the whims of the dictator!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Same difference, just a matter of semantics. Something that is untrue is fraudulent and immoral in my opinion.

Thanks for the point of clarification on your usage of the word “untrue.” As mentioned before I get the feeling there are often other concepts wrapped up in individuals usage of the word “true” (and the words derived from it) that go beyond just meaning “a factual statement or proposition.”

I suppose this is a point where we differ. I don’t equate “fraudulent” with “immoral.” Example: if some one from moral motivates produced fraudulent documents to help some one get out of an impressive government/environment (as has been done to help some escape from N. Korea). Just as I don’t equate illegal with immoral (a number of instances of civil disobedience/law breaking in the protest for various rights come to mind).

I value honesty, I think honesty is a good policy, but not a universally applicable one for all situations.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some here argue that it being lawful makes it legal other here are arguing that even though it is legal it is still illegal.

Guessing you mean [il]legal here in two different senses ( ? ).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thanks for the point of clarification on your usage of the word “untrue.” As mentioned before I get the feeling there are often other concepts wrapped up in individuals usage of the word “true” (and the words derived from it) that go beyond just meaning “a factual statement or proposition.”

I suppose this is a point where we differ. I don’t equate “fraudulent” with “immoral.” Example: if some one from moral motivates produced fraudulent documents to help some one get out of an impressive government/environment (as has been done to help some escape from N. Korea). Just as I don’t equate illegal with immoral (a number of instances of civil disobedience/law breaking in the protest for various rights come to mind).

I value honesty, I think honesty is a good policy, but not a universally applicable one for all situations.

You seem to be all over the place here. Very confusing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You seem to be all over the place here. Very confusing.

That’s kind of how I feel when I see the words “true” and “truth” used in these forums as it’s used for a spectrum of things sometimes conflated together.

 

[Stephen168]

That is no longer part of the definition of marriage as procreation has been divorced from marriage.You should blame those wretched evil heterosexuals for defiling marriage and by extension Western Civilization.

How something is treated doesn’t change what it is.