Again, you’re choosing relativism over truth.
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?
Nope, the differences are in semantics and conventions. This isn’t a relativistic difference.
Yes, one can use the letter sequence f-i-s-h to refer to hard mineral cluster. Would you believe that in different languages or dialects within the same language the same sequence of letters or phonems can be used to express different concepts?
It’s a matter of semantics. This “true” and “False” evaluation is non-applicable. I think you are trying to force civil marriage to have the same constraints as sacramental marriage.
Sure it can!
I’ve never understood it either. The definitions of words comes from their usages. Words have no intrinsic meanings themselves. I think its not well known that dictionaries track word usage. As usage changes dictionaries are adjusted. Even if those usages were “wrong.” Example, the word “literally” now has the additional definition of “virtually” because of how people used it.
You’re trying to prove relativism.Nope, the differences are in semantics and conventions. This isn’t a relativistic difference.
Yes, one can use the letter sequence f-i-s-h to refer to hard mineral cluster. Would you believe that in different languages or dialects within the same language the same sequence of letters or phonems can be used to express different concepts?
It’s a matter of semantics. This “true” and “False” evaluation is non-applicable. I think you are trying to force civil marriage to have the same constraints as sacramental marriage.
Sure it can!
I’ve never understood it either. The definitions of words comes from their usages. Words have no intrinsic meanings themselves. I think its not well known that dictionaries track word usage. As usage changes dictionaries are adjusted. Even if those usages were “wrong.” Example, the word “literally” now has the additional definition of “virtually” because of how people used it.
Nope, I’m describing different word usage and notation. In relativism given a single proposition for which the usage of the terms in that proposition are agreed the truth value of that proposition is dependent on other factors (ex: culture). What I am pointing out is that agreement has not been reached in how the terms within the proposition are interpreted. The same symbolic of verbal representation has been assigned to related but different concepts. When a Brit refers to a boot on a car and an American refers to a boot on a car they are not invoking the same concept despite the same symbolic and verbal representation being used. (The same could be said of inspector, geezer, football, and more words than I care to list here). Pointing this out isn’t relativism. It’s an example of different information being encoded to the same representation; the mapping between the concept and the word used to invoke it are different.
Are you suggesting that the Japanese see no difference between a foot and a leg? Is there a difference to a Japanese surgeon?
Aquinas via Aristotle held marriage to be more than a “spiritual bond between man and woman.” Marriage is where children are created, nourished, and educated. Same sex unions cannot do this by their design; they do not have a marriage.
The subject of the thread seems to be dealing with how the government treats married people compared to single people. If a society, through its government, wants to subsidize marriage (the creation, nourishment, and education of children) we have to have a word for it
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.I have no problem with two people of the same sex calling themselves married. It does not bother me that they call themselves married, vow themselves to each other, or commit to the caretaking of each other. It only bothers me that they do spiritual harm to themselves by having sex with each other. Isn’t that what we should actually be focusing on, instead of semantics over a word God didn’t use?
…in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin. The other states don’t require consummation for a marriage to be valid. As for regions outside the USA I know the UK was removing the requirement. Not sure about other countries.
I think you are confusing canon law with civil law. In most if not all US states a marriage is becomes valid when both parties have expressed their free consent to be married through the exchange of vows, even though they have not consummated their union.
I know what the law says. I’m just saying that traditionally a marriage needed to be consummated to be valid, and there’s a good reason behind that.
Yes, marriage being that place where children are created, it would seem that it would require consummation to be valid as a matter of fact.
I get the impression that you find value in it having been a tradition (?).
Yes, usually things that have stood the test of time do so for a good reason, because there is truth behind them. Believe me, this gay marriage nonsense will see its day.
Okay, I feel a bit different. Traditions in the USA haven’t always been kind to various groups of people.
Like Jim Crow laws?
Well, I wasn’t thinking of that. But that might work as an example. Though that seems to be in part a codification of some already present biases and unequal treatment.
We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Don’t get me wrong. I in no way want to see different groups of people persecuted. I just think that the gay movemnnt has taken this too far. They want to have thier cake and eat it too.
it’s not certain to me what it is that you’re trying to communicate.
Your almost incessant appeal to law is not only irrational but also dangerous.