Is this a marriage or a same sex fraud?

[Stephen168]

I understand it, I simply think we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about marriage according to Catholicism. I am talking about civil (legal) marriage.

Your post #88, led me to believe you did not understand it. So according to post 87 and 89, what is the difference between marriage and Catholic/Christian marriage?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your post #88, led me to believe you did not understand it. So according to post 87 and 89, what is the difference between marriage and Catholic/Christian marriage?

Taking a step back and trying to view this from what might be called the point of view of an anthropologist the term “marriage” is used to label various forms of bonding that exists within various societies. The attributes of that bonding vary from one culture to the next. Usually, but not always, the parties are human. Usually, but not always, the parties are alive at the time of the marriage. The bonding might or might not occur with the consent of those involved. There may be more than two parties involved. There is wide variance in the bonding that have been labeled as marriage.

It’s not that Christian/Catholic marriage is different from marriage. It is that it is a more specific class[ification] of the types of marriage. The additional constraints applied in the bonding of a Christian marriage include being a binary relationship and the members being of opposite sex and baptised. There may be additional constraints depending on the denomition of Christianity such as whether or not a person can marry after having been ( alidly) married to a person that is still alive. Some forms of Christianity allow it. Some see the first marriage as only terminating in death. For some the bond last beyond death.

The people in question in this thread received a civil marriage. The requirements for it are determined by the laws of these states. Many forms of Christianity would not seem them as married. Depending on what state the people are in they may or may not be viewed as married. The meet the requirements for some forms of marriage but not others.

Pardon my mistakes, sent from a mobile device in the back of a cab.

 

[Stephen168]

Taking a step back and trying to view this from what might be called the point of view of an anthropologist the term “marriage” is used to label various forms of bonding that exists within various societies. The attributes of that bonding vary from one culture to the next. Usually, but not always, the parties are human. Usually, but not always, the parties are alive at the time of the marriage. The bonding might or might not occur with the consent of those involved. There may be more than two parties involved. There is wide variance in the bonding that have been labeled as marriage.

It’s not that Christian/Catholic marriage is different from marriage. It is that it is a more specific class[ification] of the types of marriage. The additional constraints applied in the bonding of a Christian marriage include being a binary relationship and the members being of opposite sex and baptised. There may be additional constraints depending on the denomition of Christianity such as whether or not a person can marry after having been ( alidly) married to a person that is still alive. Some forms of Christianity allow it. Some see the first marriage as only terminating in death. For some the bond last beyond death.

The people in question in this thread received a civil marriage. The requirements for it are determined by the laws of these states. Many forms of Christianity would not seem them as married. Depending on what state the people are in they may or may not be viewed as married. The meet the requirements for some forms of marriage but not others.

Pardon my mistakes, sent from a mobile device in the back of a cab.

so you do not, in fact, understand posts 87 and 89.
I’m beginning to think you are unwilling to understand, not that you are unable to understand.

 

[SMGS127]

The first time the word homophobe was used, in 1969, that was the intended meaning of the author. It has never meant that since. Homophobe as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions. So it seems odd to use a pejorative to reference a position you believe in.

I am not describing my position as homophobia. The Catholic position is not homophobic. Also, homophobia is not a pejorative anymore than racism is a “pejorative.” It may describe a very immoral, negative attitude by someone, but it is still an accurate label.

So you are against giving a marriage license to same sex couple?

Honestly, I could care less. Civil marriage has a completely separate meaning than the Catholic word “marriage” (e.g. a translation from the Hebrew word found in the Dead Sea Scrolls). It doesn’t concern me if same-sex couples call themselves each other’s spouses. I am more concerned with the sexual activity that actually harms their souls, not their level of emotional commitment to one another.

 

[Stephen168]

So you are against giving a marriage license to same sex couple?

Honestly, I could care less.

Is that the Church’s position? Why or why not?

 

[Stephen168]

I am not describing my position as homophobia. The Catholic position is not homophobic. Also, homophobia is not a pejorative anymore than racism is a “pejorative.” It may describe a very immoral, negative attitude by someone, but it is still an accurate label.

Homophobe as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions.

 

[SMGS127]

Is that the Church’s position? Why or why not?

Well, the Church opposes the placement of same-sex marriage on the same level of heterosexual marriage. But She doesn’t repudiate the love and commitment found there within, just the physical acts. And as civil society defines marriage as love and commitment with no relationship whatsoever to procreation…really She bemoans the destruction of marriage to such a simple construct, something that happened decades ago.

So no, I don’t really care if a meaningless term is extended to same-sex couples. It doesn’t mean anything anymore (at least not in its civil context) for any couple, heterosexual or homosexual.

So while I would oppose any civil marriage laws in the United States whatsoever because of its completely false definition of marriage, I also don’t really care who enters into them. It doesn’t mean anything anymore. All that matters anymore is the Church ceremony.

Homophobe as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions.

Homophobia means hatred of homosexuals or hateful words or acts aimed towards homosexuals. Hatred is most certainly not an “open and debatable value position.”

 

[Stephen168]

Well, the Church opposes the placement of same-sex marriage on the same level of heterosexual marriage.

Do you have a reference from the USCCB that says the Church teaches that same-sex unions are marriage?

But She doesn’t repudiate the love and commitment found there within, just the physical acts.

And she does not repudiate the love and commitment between siblings, or parents and their children. But they don’t have to call themselves married to have love and commitment. Atleast you agree that sodomy is wrong.

And as civil society defines marriage as love and commitment with no relationship whatsoever to procreation…really She bemoans the destruction of marriage to such a simple construct, something that happened decades ago.

Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

So no, I don’t really care if a meaningless term is extended to same-sex couples.

Again, Is that the Church’s position

So while I would oppose any civil marriage laws in the United States whatsoever because of its completely false definition of marriage, I also don’t really care who enters into them.

It that a yes or a no on issuing a marriage license to same-sex couples?

Homophobia means hatred of homosexuals or hateful words or acts aimed towards homosexuals. Hatred is most certainly not an "open and debatable value position.”

When the CEO of Mozilla was called a homophobe for supporting an amendment to end same sex marriage, which you say you kinda sorta not-really maybe support. Or when a TV personality is called a homophobe for condemning sodomy, which you also condemn; it would be fair to call you a homophobe.

 

[Rau]

Homophobe as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions.

SMGS127:

Also, homophobia is not a pejorative anymore than racism is a “pejorative.”

Well are these words, “homophobic” and “racist”, pejoratives, or not? Ultimately, these words, as used, are invariably intended to be critical, often dismissive, of another person, and not merely to assign a purely objective label, so I would probably admit them as pejoratives. And, I think “hatred” is not necessarily intrinsic to homophobia. Dislike and prejudice are more typical. Hatred is a very strong term, though it probably does apply to some.

But this is not the point I think. Stephen would appear to be suggesting that what is at the heart of “homophobia” - or actions that are labelled as such - may be a genuine and justifiable basis for the dislike/prejudice they feel. There may be something in that…it may be quite understandable to dislike a person who **embraces **what we view as seriously morally disordered behaviour. We may understandably counsel our impressionable children to look to other friendships.

But there will be contexts in which such dislike should be put aside, perhaps in a workplace promotion matter. And there will be contexts in which such dislike and/or prejudice ought have no basis at all - eg. the same sex attracted person who seeks to live chastely.

 

[Stephen168]

Well are these words, “homophobic” and “racist”, pejoratives, or not? Ultimately, these words, as used, are invariably intended to be critical, often dismissive, of another person, and not merely to assign a purely objective label, so I would probably admit them as pejoratives.

I agree.

But this is not the point I think. Stephen would appear to be suggesting that what is at the heart of “homophobia” - or actions that are labelled as such - may be a genuine and justifiable basis for the dislike/prejudice they feel.

I am suggesting that what is at the heart of beliefs that are labelled as homophobia are genuine and justifiable differences of opinion; usually political in nature. As you you said it is used to be dismissive, so the person using the pejorative doesn’t have to argue their position.

 

[Thorolfr]

Fraud. This is not a real marriage. Pope Benedict was clear that a sex change operation does not change the person’s sex.

What about people who are Intersex and have had surgery. Is that allowed in the Catholic Church? According to Wikipedia:

Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female. Such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.[1][2]

Intersex infants and children, such as those with ambiguous outer genitalia, may be surgically and/or hormonally altered to fit into a perceived more socially acceptable sex category. However, this is considered controversial, with no firm evidence of good outcomes.[3]

Intersex people have all sorts of gender identities: like all individuals, some intersex individuals may be raised as a certain sex (male or female) but then identify with another gender identity later in life, while most do not; some may not identify themselves as either exclusively female or exclusively male.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

 

[PseuTonym]

Homophobe as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions.

I am thinking about the phrase “illegitimately pejorative” and trying to figure out what it might mean in general. Are you encoding your own disapproval, or is there actually some idea here?

Consider two alternative extremes: nitpicking and sloppiness. Is the word “nitpicking” illegitimately pejorative? Is the word “nitpicking” legitimately pejorative? How about the word “sloppy”?

The dictionary is unlikely to provide a checklist of criteria to apply to determine whether or not an alleged example of nitpicking is actually nitpicking. You could argue that, given any specific scenario, it is an open and debatable question whether or not the word “nitpicking” is appropriate. I get the impression from what you wrote that if something is open and debatable, then it is not legitimate to use a pejorative. So my suspicion would be that, in your opinion, the word “nitpicking” is illegitimately pejorative. On the other hand, I presume that you know it when you see it. In other words, if you consider the word “nitpicking” to be appropriate in some particular situation, then you will use it without disapproving of your own use of the word “nitpicking.”

 

[Stephen168]

I am thinking about the phrase “illegitimately pejorative” and trying to figure out what it might mean in general. Are you encoding your own disapproval, or is there actually some idea here?

Consider two alternative extremes: nitpicking and sloppiness. Is the word “nitpicking” illegitimately pejorative? Is the word “nitpicking” legitimately pejorative? How about the word “sloppy”?

The dictionary is unlikely to provide a checklist of criteria to apply to determine whether or not an alleged example of nitpicking is actually nitpicking. You could argue that, given any specific scenario, it is an open and debatable question whether or not the word “nitpicking” is appropriate. I get the impression from what you wrote that if something is open and debatable, then it is not legitimate to use a pejorative. So my suspicion would be that, in your opinion, the word “nitpicking” is illegitimately pejorative. On the other hand, I presume that you know it when you see it. In other words, if you consider the word “nitpicking” to be appropriate in some particular situation, then you will use it without disapproving of your own use of the word “nitpicking.”

When my wife calls me stubborn, I would prefer tenacious. See post #108

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Fraud. … The “husband” was born a female and his chromosomes are XX hence he is still considered a female.

What happens to people who are XXY?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What happens to people who are XXY?

If we go by the bleating of the people on the forums that XY is male and XX is male then we have either

a) XXY are free to marry either as they are neither
b) XXY can’t marry a woman because they have XX meaning a relationship with a woman is homosexual and they can’t marry a man mutatis mutandis

Both have serious issues.

 

[Rau]

I agree.

I am suggesting that what is at the heart of beliefs that are labelled as homophobia are genuine and justifiable differences of opinion; usually political in nature. As you you said it is used to be dismissive, so the person using the pejorative doesn’t have to argue their position.

Homophobia is not a belief, but an action or a reaction. It may (at least in part) stem from some beliefs about what is right, wrong (or those words I hate, “natural” and “normal”).

But it would be better if you made explicit the “differences of opinion” to which you refer, then we can express our view as to whether holding the relevant opinions (and reacting so as to expose them) constitutes homophobia (the pejorative) or a reasonable behaviour.

 

[marymary1975]

…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 dont think what you are daying is entirely right. Massachusetts considers lack of consummation as causal for nulity. New Hampshire too. In MA it is not expressly stated that consumation is required for the marriage to be valid but if lack of consummation gives the right to one spouse to get the marriage declared void then it is an implicit requirement. What happens is that it is very very rare to see something like that now a days and has ended up like dead law but it probably exists in more states than what you think.

 

[marymary1975]

What happens to people who are XXY?

You are trying to use a very rare condition as argument for a majority of people. The case mentioned here there is no Klinefelter syndrome or anything similar. This is an undoubtly XX person with undobtly female genitalia who is pretending to be a male. Do not try to seek a justification based on something that does not even play a role in here.

 

[marymary1975]

What about people who are Intersex and have had surgery. Is that allowed in the Catholic Church? According to Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Dame as I wrote above. Real intersex conditions are extremely rare. I’m fact if you read any actual biology or medicine book (not wikipedia) you will notice that actual hermaphrodites are practically non existant. Even most cases of what we call intersex are people with internal female organs that have an enlarged female organ that looks a male organ. Finding someone with both ovaries and testicles is practically impossible.

There are some people -again a minority of cases- with genetic and chromosomical disorders. XXY is Klinefelter syndrome which is rare. They are considered males with an extra X chromosome and is usually treated with testosterone. However the people in this case have nothing to do with KS as well as most of these cases. You cannot try to use a rare circumstance as rule for the majority of population.