Rome has spoken;
no disrespect but even many Catholics won’t listen to that.
Sad but true, but then many Catholics won’t make it to heaven either.
its the Latin, it gives the phrase cachet.
yes but we need to get them to heaven and saying rome said it so its not true won’t really convert many hearts it may not convert a single heart because those who would listen to that are already on the path to holiness.
If they’re not Catholic, there is no religious basis. Only thing you can convince with is consequences (ex. no guarantee of parental support, or spousal obligation). The only reason I can gather they wouldn’t want to get married (but still have kids) is because they don’t want to commit to each other, and lack faith in each other’s love and loyalty. The want the possibility of still seeing other people. Horrendous situation for children to experience.
Well, it just so happens that today is our 31st wedding anniversary. We only had one reason to get married, and it was to make sure that we shall be allowed to emigrate to the US together. We could not have children, even if we wanted to, due to a medical condition. The paper declaring us man and wife is useful for accounting, legal and medical purposes, but otherwise it means nothing to us and it never did.
If someone’s commitment requires a piece of paper, then that “commitment” is worthless. By the way, the possibility to “see” other people is there even if they are married.
Yet you are ignoring the obvious other aspect to marriage, the unitive aspect.
And? Objective truth is not refuted by value opinions. If they call themselves Catholic, or even “Christian”, they have a moral responsibility to conform their lives to the objective truths of the Faith. And we will all be held accountable to God for how we chose to conform, or refused to conform, our lives in accord with that truth.
That “piece of paper” is the sign of witness for that commitment of unending fidelity made by calling God as witness to that union. It is proof of the spouses rights over each other. Marriage is not an exchange of goods and services, it is an exchange of persons. That “piece of paper” says from the husband to the wife and vice versa, “I am yours and you are mine.”If someone’s commitment requires a piece of paper, then that “commitment” is worthless. By the way, the possibility to “see” other people is there even if they are married.
Again, a piece of paper adds nothing to the unitive aspect of a relationship. Mutual respect, love, trust - properly expressed in actions - does.
As soon as someone will be able to prove that God exists, and his opinion about these questions is correctly reflected by the teachings of the church, then and only then can your opinion be taken seriously. (Side note: the human heart is simply an organ to pump blood, and the empty euphemism about “natural law” inscribed on it is getting very boring. Insofar I have never seen a relatively exhausting list of the paragraphs making up that “law”.)
Is God unable to see our commitment without a piece of paper?
Nope. I am still myself, and my wife still retained her own self. Neither of us “owns” the other. We are not slaveholders.
That is not my problem.
I am sure they are in your eyes.
and yet you call it an anniversary, implying it is important, like a birthday, unless you also acknowledge trivia like thirty years since breaking a shoelace. you say its not important, but you acknowledge **31 **of them. that thinking doesn’t even begin to make sense except, yeah, you need to trash traditional notions of marriage. congrats. you failed.
It is just another reason to have extra fun. Actually we shall have another wedding anniversary in two days, since we had a church wedding, too - just to please my wife’s grandmother. But generally we both like to have special days. As a matter of fact the two wedding days only play “second fiddle” to our really celebrated anniversary, which had nothing to do with “legalities” and “papers” but everything do with mutual fun.
I’ve wondered myself of what good is marriage. I don’t think you’ll be able to “prove” that to them. There are some benefits of marriage that were created through society (tax, financial, legal). If you want a list of these do a search on gay marriage; the results will likely list many of these things. But outside of these benefits that society has given with marriage there’s not anything that I’ve been able to identify that come with marriage that are not accessible outside of it.
You gave me a mental image of a man using his wife as an actual boat, crossing the Atlantic to get to the states. PADDLE HARDER
Yeah, it’s called adultery, and it ruins families. You don’t need to be a Catholic to see that, even atheists would call that scummy.If someone’s commitment requires a piece of paper, then that “commitment” is worthless. By the way, the possibility to “see” other people is there even if they are married.
I cannot take responsibility for your misguided images.
Haha! How wrong can you get? I suggest you read post #10… and parse what it says.
Sure. It is a breach of contract. However, if a couple would happen to agree on having an open marriage, then there would be no “adultery” involved.
Not in and of itself. And if you would consider how many religious marriages lack lifelong commitment, then you should get off your high horse. Marriage has nothing to do with commitment. Religion has nothing to do with commitment. How hard is that to understand?
Among other things. The personal choice of a marriage partner is a very young “invention”. Marriages used to be arranged to preserve property, to increase power, and for all sorts of other reasons. Love was not even mentioned. Many people first met their future spouse in front of the priest who performed the ceremony. The couple was not expected to stay faithful. There were morganatic marriages, (nobility to common people) where the groom extended his left hand signifying the lack mutual commitment. And these marriages were performed in catholic churches, in front of catholic clergy, with the “blessing” of the catholic church. So you’d better study history before you start to argue about the superiority of “church weddings”.
They are all assumptions, not really arguments. I’ve experienced the consequences of someone using a marriage partner as a boat.
An open marriage is like voluntary rape. It’s a muddled contradiction of terms.
High horse? ooh, somewhat got burned.
Statistics and history doesn’t undermine the concept of a loving marriage.Among other things. The personal choice of a marriage partner is a very young “invention”. Marriages used to be arranged to preserve property, to increase power, and for all sorts of other reasons. Love was not even mentioned. Many people first met their future spouse in front of the priest who performed the ceremony. The couple was not expected to stay faithful. There were morganatic marriages, (nobility to common people) where the groom extended his left hand signifying the lack mutual commitment. And these marriages were performed in catholic churches, in front of catholic clergy, with the “blessing” of the catholic church. So you’d better study history before you start to argue about the superiority of “church weddings”.
In a secular marriage, absolutely nothing, including any logical sense of moral fiber and fidelity as soon as the situation becomes inconvenient for either of them.
no, you pwned yourself. if it weren’t important you wouldn’t be keeping careful count. my guess is that you churn out the anniversary gifts like clockwork.It is just another reason to have extra fun. Actually we shall have another wedding anniversary in two days, since we had a church wedding, too - just to please my wife’s grandmother. But generally we both like to have special days. As a matter of fact the two wedding days only play “second fiddle” to our really celebrated anniversary, which had nothing to do with “legalities” and “papers” but everything do with mutual fun.
We had tremendous fun designing our invitation card. It ran approximately thus:
and announce with broken heart that they will say final good-bye to their cherished and well-beloved independence. The memorial service will be held on at . Please refrain from expressing your condolences.
Nor does it take it away. The objection isn’t an objection at all.
Wrong. Your charge that the burden of proof is on the theist is bogus. IOW, your principle should apply to any idea, including your own idea about God. Secondly, the burden of proof is on the one who says that the burden of proof is always on the believer. Common sense says that the burden of proof is sometimes on the believer and sometimes on the skeptic; that sometimes methodic faith is more reasonable than ideological doubt; and that the burden of proof is then on the innovator and on the minority.
This is a materialistic definition. You have not proven that materialism is true. So really it’s just circular reasoning.
It’s not for God.
Then you obviously misunderstood the terms. It would be better to set this aside for later.
That doesn’t sound like the sort of retort the Tyrion I know would use.
Truth is not subjective. So how something appears in “my eyes” is irrelevant. They are objective facts; solid conclusions based on valid reasons and clear definitions.